Is the Trump administration conflict with the judges a constitutional crisis? What to know

As the legal warfare of the Trump administration increases with the judges of the Nation on their controversial policies and actions, experts in constitutional law are playing the alarm that the country could be closer to a constitutional crisis.

What would a constitutional crisis imply, and when and how would it be activated?

During the weekend, the administration challenged the directive of a federal judge issued from the bank to change around two flights that transport alleged members of Venezuelan gangs to El Salvador, after which the president and his senior officials said they would advance with deportations despite what the court said, while they also sought an appeal.

Administration lawyers took a similar position when the judges ordered USAID fund cuts and other restored agencies or so that expenses are not not frozen, according to judicial documents.

‘Dangerously close’

Richard Pildes, professor of constitutional law of the Sudler family at the Nyu Law Faculty, which has been involved in many cases of the Federal Court, told ABC News that such challenge of the courts undermines the judicial branch and could have serious consequences.

“I would say that we are dangerously close to a constitutional crisis. We may be dancing on the verge of a constitutional crisis,” he told ABC News.

James Sample, an expert in constitutional law of the University of Hofstra, who has been involved in federal cases, agreed that the country is in the “precipice” of such crisis, noting that the courts are limited to being able to enforce their failures.

However, he said, the courts are designed to be deliberative with cases.

“The courts essentially say we must reduce speed,” Sample told ABC News. “The Executive [branch] Finally get what you want. … But if the Executive gets what he wants without a process, not only people lose, but we all lose justice. “

What constitutes a constitutional crisis?

Sample said that constitutional academics have deferred in what exactly defines a constitutional crisis.

“The only thing we can say with certainty is that it is not an ignition switch,” said the sample about the constitutional crisis. “It’s not binary. It is a spectrum position.”

The retired judge from the Supreme Court, Stephen Breyer, echoed that feeling in an interview with CNN this week.

“No one really knows. People have different points of view about that,” he said.

Sample said the Trump administration’s actions are sliding closer to the worrying part of the spectrum: a development, he said, that the founders of the nation could never have planned.

“What we are experiencing is not a blitzkrieg against [political] Adversaries, but rather a blitzkrieg by the Executive against the rule of law itself. That is a defining characteristic of a crisis for the rule of law, “said Sample.

Past crises were isolated

In addition to the succession of the Confederate states that lead to the Civil War, experts ABC News spoke that they said the previous examples of constitutional crises ended up exploiting, such as when President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to advance with a military court against a Nazi Nazi sympathizer of Long Island during World War II.

The United States Supreme Court finally gave the President the power to advance, according to Pilnes.

In some cases, the Executive Branch has intervened to enforce judicial orders, such as when the then President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the National Guard to make sure the states followed the historical decision of the Education Board of the US Supreme Court. UU.

“All those [past examples] They are a kind of individual, discreet issue, not a kind of more widespread or systemic contempt of the courts and the decisions of the law by the executive branch, “said Pildes.

The actions of the Trump administration put the courts in unknown waters

The actions of the Trump Administration, in contrast, experts said, do not have precedents due to the speed to which the administration is promulgating Trump’s policies and opponents are challenging the administration’s movements in the Court.

“The Executive has some capacity to change the facts on the land before the courts can act and it can be difficult to undo some of those actions, even if the courts end up concluding that they were illegal,” said Pildes.

Hofstra’s sample compared it to a computer that is so overloaded that it cannot process the information.

“The volume of what is happening, and the speed at which it is being carried out, is blocking the constitutional hard drive,” he said.

The situation has been developed in the last two weeks, since Trump has affirmed that he would comply with judicial orders that issued temporary restriction orders on their policies, such as deportations, massive fuels of federal workers and discharges of members of the transgender service; However, judicial documents have indicated that these orders were not followed in many cases.

Trump and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, also left after Judge James Boasberg on social networks after issuing from the bank a temporary restriction order against the administration in a case that challenges the president’s executive orders to deport Venezuelan migrants.

“Historically we have not seen the idea of ​​attacking the judges [or] attacking the courts for decisions with which we do not agree and attack the system itself, “the sample said.” That is a problem. “

Tools that the courts can use to delay

Despite the unprecedented rejection in court, experts said the Judiciary has tools to prevent a crisis.

Pillas said that, although the courts face a challenge when it comes to enforcing their failures against the executive branch directly, some measures can still take for an administration to fulfill.

The judges have threatened to use findings and fines of contempt, and Pildes said that these warnings can be serious.

“If there are lawyers involved in advising to challenge a court order, or participate in the challenge of a court order, there may be penalties against those lawyers. His lawyer licenses could be at stake,” he said.

“Then, if there are misrepresentations that lawyers do in court, which can also be sanctioned against lawyers,” Pillas added. “Sometimes that same sanction is sufficient for them to comply. But if not, the courts can begin to impose fines.”

“As the executive challenge progresses, more and more officials would have to be involved in following this path with the executive not to comply,” he said.

The sample, however, said that if a court chose contempt, it could further prove the Constitution because the US Sheriff Service, which is under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, would be involved with the application of an order.

“It is not unreasonable to believe that the Trump administration, in front of a contempt order, would simply say to the service of American sheriffs who do not impose it,” he said. “This dates back to that same principle as the glue that keeps the constitutional structure together is not only the law, they are the norms.”

There has already been a setback from the upper level of the Judiciary to Trump’s rhetoric.

The president of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, rebuked the calls to dismiss the judges with a rare statement this week.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that the political trial is not an appropriate response to the disagreement of a judicial decision. The normal appeal review process exists for that purpose,” he said.

Trump dismissed Roberts’s statement in an interview with Fox News, claiming that Roberts did not mention it directly by his name. Trump and his allies have continued to verbally attack federal judges who have issued temporary restriction orders and judicial order in the implementation of their executive policies and orders.

The role of the public is crucial in the avoidance of crises

Sample and Piltes said that given their actions so far during the last two weeks, it is unlikely that the Congress controlled by the Republicans will try to stop Trump’s rhetoric and action and force him to comply with the courts … However, public opinion will play an important role in preventing the country from entering a crisis, they argued.

“The tool, the arrow in the laughter of the courts, is the legitimacy and faith of the public in the legitimacy of the process that seizes those decisions. One of the things that is a distinctive seal of a civilized society is that if citizens believe that a process was fair,” the sample said.

Pillas said that as the Watergate scandal was developed and then President Richard Nixon was forced by the United States Supreme Court to release audio tapes that implied him in accusable crimes, public opinion had already changed to him and his allies in Congress to the point that he resigned.

Pildes added that public opinion can be expressed through the economy, which federal leaders observe carefully. Business and values ​​markets are generally weakened if governments and the rule of law are interrupted and that could force the Executive to rethink their resistance to the courts, he said.

“If we arrive at [a constitutional crisis]You can easily imagine a lot of agitation that would actually appear in the market appear in the economy. People will stop wanting to invest here, “he said.

Sample said the country’s current polarization will make it more difficult for a public consensus, but he believed that in general, Americans would be talking against anything that leads to a crisis.

“Even if you are Hardcore Maga, and you think Donald Trump is a benevolent authoritarian, a time can come when the next leader, with authoritarian inclinations, from your perspective, is not so benevolent,” he said. “So, if Americans want to go back against authoritarianism, they must stand up and be willing to say that I oppose authoritarianism, even if I could be producing the short -term results I wish.”