Anthony Romero, the Executive Director of the ACLU since 2001, discusses the organization's relentless legal battles against the Trump administration. He highlights the staggering 434 lawsuits filed during Trump's first term, addressing critical issues like birthright citizenship and gender-affirming healthcare. Romero warns of a potential constitutional crisis if the administration defies judicial orders, emphasizing the importance of civil liberties and activism. His insights shed light on the historical struggle over executive power and the ongoing fight to uphold the rule of law.
The ACLU has filed numerous lawsuits against the Trump administration, emphasizing its pivotal role in defending civil liberties against executive overreach.
Anthony Romero warned that a potential defiance of judicial orders by the administration could lead to a constitutional crisis, undermining the judiciary's authority.
Deep dives
The ACLU's Role and Legal Battles
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has actively challenged the Trump administration through numerous lawsuits, filing 434 cases during his first term. These lawsuits targeted various policies, such as the Muslim ban and family separations at the border, emphasizing the ACLU's commitment to civil liberties. Executive Director Anthony Romero noted significant issues looming in a potential second term, including executive orders that could challenge core constitutional principles. He underscored that the ACLU's legal actions will likely focus on birthright citizenship and federal funding appropriations, areas where executive power may conflict with established law.
Potential Constitutional Crisis
The discussion highlighted the possibility of a constitutional crisis arising from potential defiance of judicial orders by the Trump administration. Romero explained that the 'Rubicon' would be crossed if the administration openly disregards court rulings, signaling a severe threat to the judiciary's authority. Specific concerns were raised regarding executive orders that might undermine the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship for those born in the U.S. This crisis could escalate if the administration continues to challenge the courts, risking a breakdown of the rule of law.
The Consequences of Dismantling Birthright Citizenship
Romero articulated the serious repercussions of any attempt to repeal birthright citizenship, established under the 14th Amendment. If successful, children born in the U.S. to lawful residents could be denied citizenship, leading to widespread family separations and generations of discrimination. He pointed out that many lawsuits are already in progress to challenge potential violations of this constitutional guarantee. The stakes are particularly high for those expecting children after a looming executive order could jeopardize their citizenship status.
Judiciary as the Last Line of Defense
The judiciary is positioned as a critical barrier against potential abuses of power by the executive branch, with judges serving as the frontline guardians of constitutional rights. Romero indicated that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court could be in jeopardy if it fails to uphold its role against government overreach. As the political landscape shifts and tensions rise, the need for judges to assert their authority in the face of executive defiance becomes increasingly urgent. He expressed confidence in the judicial system's ability to navigate these challenges, along with a call for public awareness and action to support the rule of law.
In Donald Trump’s first term in office, the American Civil Liberties Union filed four hundred and thirty-four lawsuits against the Administration. Since Trump’s second Inauguration, the A.C.L.U. has filed cases to block executive orders ending birthright citizenship, defunding gender-affirming health care, and more. If the Administration defies a judge’s order to fully reinstate government funds frozen by executive order, Anthony Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, says, we will have arrived at a constitutional crisis. “We’re at the Rubicon,” Romero says. “Whether we’ve crossed it remains to be seen.” Romero has held the job since 2001—he started just days before September 11, 2001—and has done the job under four Presidents. He tells David Remnick that it’s nothing new for Presidents to chafe at judicial obstacles to implement their agendas; Romero mentions Bill Clinton’s attempts to strip courts of certain powers as notably aggressive. But, “if Trump decides to flagrantly defy a judicial order, then I think . . . we’ve got to take to the streets in a different way. We’ve got to shut down this country.”
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode