Can Trump Do Anything About the Judges Sabotaging His Agenda? President Donald Trump’s second term has so far reflected a sense of urgency to push through an agenda that might, under normal circumstances, take two terms and the support of a future Republican president to be fully enshrined into law and brought into effect.
But as quick as Trump has moved on everything from immigration to defunding universities complicit in anti-Semitic hate crimes, his administration has faced judicial challenges that could drag on for the rest of his final four years in the White House.
Trump Stuck in the Courts
Trump’s most aggressive executive actions, particularly those focused on immigration, have been repeatedly blocked by federal judges, often with nationwide effect.
But as resistance builds, Trump and his allies are pushing back harder.
The question now is whether or not the president has the constitutional tools he needs to fight back and implement the agenda he promised his voters he could push through in record time.
Defeat After Defeat: Trump’s Biggest Legal Challenges To Date
Perhaps the most famous of Trump’s judicial fights so far is his conflict with Judge James Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who ordered a temporary halt to one of the president’s deportation initiatives early in his second term. The ruling blocked the administration from fast-tracking deportations for certain illegal aliens.
Trump’s allies responded with fury, with the Article III Project, a Trump-aligned legal advocacy group, calling for Boasberg’s impeachment.
Boasberg was slammed for overstepping his authority by using the courts to obstruct lawful executive immigration enforcement.
Judge Amir Ali’s ruling that the Trump administration must release $2 billion in frozen foreign aid also caused uproar among Trump World. The ruling claimed that the Trump administration had violated federal funding statutes, while the administration argued that it was another example of judicial interference in foreign policy, which is traditionally an executive function.
Recently, Trump faced some difficulties as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. After invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of illegal aliens, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the effort and returned the case to a lower court where “due process” concerns would be fully analyzed.
The chaos caused by the repeated judicial interference with the process of deporting people illegally present in the United States, including dangerous criminals, was slammed by Trump allies. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, has repeatedly argued that in each of these cases, the executive authority of the president was being undermined by activist judges.
Is There Anything He Can Do?
While the president’s team continues to defend the legality of their measures both in the actual courts as well as the court of public opinion, the ongoing delays caused to major new initiatives have likely prompted White House officials to consider new actions that either prevent additional interference or help them win the cases.
Last month, Miller announced that the Trump administration was “looking at” the suspension of habeas corpus, a legal procedure that allows people to challenge their detention in court. The comments prompted widespread condemnation by news outlets like CNN and Democrat opponents, but those who criticized the idea overwhelmingly ignored the fact that the Trump administration, while potentially setting dangerous precedents, was simply looking for a way to enforce the law and deport foreign criminals without activist judges making it impossible for them to do so.
This is a particularly important point given that while judges are expected to ensure Americans uphold the law and are held accountable when they do not, the president of the United States is tasked with using his authority to protect the United States.
Miller argues that the White House may suspend habeas corpus by citing a provision within the United States Constitution that allows for the legal principle to be suspended in the event of a rebellion or invasion.
Beyond this radical measure, however, the president’s only real choice is to fight the court battles that come while working with Republican legislators to pass new laws limiting federal judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. How long that might take is anyone’s guess.
About the Author:
Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society. His latest book is The Truth Teller: RFK Jr. and the Case for a Post-Partisan Presidency.
What Are Europe’s Best Weapons of War?
