Will Courts be a Check and Balance on Donald Trump?
Feb 10, 2025
auto_awesome
Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor at Slate and host of Amicus, is joined by Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia University and former deputy attorney general. They delve into how courts may challenge Trump’s executive orders, particularly on immigration and agency restructuring. Topics include the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law, the impact of nationwide injunctions on executive power, and concerns about political influence within the Department of Justice. Their discussion raises vital questions about the limits of judicial authority and civil society's crucial role.
The avalanche of lawsuits against Trump's executive orders demonstrates a crucial effort by legal experts to uphold democratic norms threatened by presidential overreach.
The ongoing tension between the executive and judicial branches raises significant concerns about compliance with court rulings and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
Deep dives
Trump's Executive Orders and Legal Challenges
Donald Trump's administration has issued numerous executive orders aimed at reshaping governmental policies, particularly concerning immigration and federal agency operations. Legal experts categorize these executive actions into various groups, with significant emphasis on issues such as birthright citizenship, border authority, and operational shifts within agencies like USAID. Countless lawsuits have emerged in response, as attorneys, including state attorneys general and nonprofit counsel, attempt to counteract these executive measures in court. The frequency and diversity of these lawsuits signal ongoing efforts to protect democratic norms against perceived overreach by the executive branch.
Nature and Validity of Executive Orders
Executive orders represent directives issued by the president that execute statutory or constitutional authority, effectively serving as law for those impacted by them. These orders, however, can bypass the legislative process and may lack the rigorous legal scrutiny traditionally applied prior to their issuance. Experts express concern that many of Trump's orders appear to have circumvented established legal protocols, which could render them potentially unlawful. This hazardous approach raises questions about the internal checks within the executive branch, suggesting a significant deviation from expected governance practices.
Court Responses and the Future of Compliance
Judicial responses to Trump's executive actions highlight the tension between the executive and judicial branches, particularly regarding compliance with court orders. While courts have issued injunctions to halt certain executive actions, the real challenge lies in ensuring that the executive branch abides by these rulings. The potential for noncompliance raises constitutional questions about the broader implications of an executive that chooses to ignore judicial directives. Observers note that any overt disregard for court orders could escalate into a significant constitutional crisis, prompting further discourse about the integrity of the rule of law.
The Role of Congress and Party Dynamics
The effectiveness of Congress in maintaining a system of checks and balances is increasingly strained, particularly as many legislators align firmly with the executive. Observers highlight a lack of assertive action from Congress to challenge Trump's expansive executive measures, amplifying concerns about accountability. This dynamic has created an environment where the responsibility for upholding democratic principles seems to rest disproportionately on the judiciary. Analysts suggest that the current political environment is characterized by partisan loyalty, which undermines the intended safeguarding function of Congress amidst powerful executive actions.
President Trump’s executive orders are testing the limits of presidential power, but they are not going unchallenged. An avalanche of litigation has been filed opposing efforts to end birthright citizenship, stop federal funding, and dismantle critical government agencies. Will the courts be able to meet this moment? We’ll hear from legal experts about how a judicial system and Supreme Court shaped by Trump may – or may not — act as a check and balance on the president.
Guests:
Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent, Slate; host, Amicus podcast; author, "Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America"
Jamal Greene, professor of law, Columbia University Law School