Rebellion and threat in deportation cases Renew the fear of constitutional crisis

Over the weekend, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, violating clearer or even more direct instructions.

Justice Department lawyers justified the administration’s actions with claims that many legal experts later said were flirty and adjacent.

They raised the question of whether the latest clash between President Trump and the judiciary is rich in constitutional crisis, and once again whether it is falling into a constitutional crisis, they said the line between rights that go against court orders and arguments in favor of total rebellion has faded.

Law scholars say it is no longer a correct investigation. They say Trump is already lowering the separation of power at the heart of the constitutional system, and the right question now is how it will change the country.

“If someone has been detained or removed based on the administration’s claim that it can be done without judicial review or justified procedures.” Jamal GreenColombian law professor, “The president has argued for dictatorial power, and the “constitutional crisis” does not capture the seriousness of the situation.”

Trump raised his interest on Tuesday in search of a bullet each of the judges who issued the order. On social media As a “radical left-madman.”

The president did so as a matter of his hand. It’s only just beginning to be tested in cases that appear to be heading to the Supreme Court.

Hours later, Secretary John G. Roberts Jr. issued an unusual statement that appears to have been spurred by such an exhortation and possibly by the House of Representatives’ submission of an article on Merge Each against Judge Boasberg.

“For over two centuries, it has been established that each is not an appropriate response to differences in opinion over judicial decisions,” the Supreme Court judge said. “There is a normal appeal review process for that purpose.”

Appearing on Fox News, Trump noted that the Supreme Court judge had not mentioned him by name. Still, the duel statements above the lower court showdown over the dismissal promoted a sense that a long-anticipated conflict between Trump and federal judiciary was fully engaged.

Aziz Huqa law professor at the University of Chicago, said it was “generally useless” to assess whether a particular development is a constitutional crisis.

“I think it would be more convenient to say that this is moving us into a completely different kind of constitutional order. This is no longer characterized by laws binding officials and by laws that can be enforced,” Professor Huq said. “In other words, laws become tools that harm the enemy, but not tying those who govern the enemy. It’s a completely different constitutional order from what we’ve had for so long.”

The contested order was issued at a hearing on Saturday. judge Boasburg. After Trump ordered them to deport wartime authorities of the 1798 alien enemy law, he attempted to suspend the removal of more than 200 migrants who are said to be members of Venezuelan gangs. The Trump administration ignored orders issued by the bench and made the planes in the air return to the US.

“But I’m leaving to you whether you’re looking back at the plane or not, whether you’re on the plane or not, or not, you can take people on the plane or those covered by the plane,” Judge Boasberg told a government lawyer. “But this is what you need to ensure you adhere to immediately.”

The plane continued to fly.

At hearing Monday, another government lawyer said the administration was not bound by oral order, not specific, without referring to the plane, and was only bound by a docket entry that began with the phrase “as discussed at today’s hearing.”

The administration may win before justice on the fundamental issues of the incident. However, these issues are different from the current ones.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration’s actions On social media.

“The administration “did not refuse to comply with the court’s order,” she wrote, adding that “the written order and the administration’s actions are not inconsistent.” She did not address whether the administration complied with the judge’s oral orders.

Mr Levitt added that Judge Boasberg has stepped over his authority. “A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movement of an aircraft carrying foreign terrorists physically expelled from US soil,” she said.

That may all be true, but Judge Boasberg’s oral order was not difficult to understand.

If there was genuine suspicion of what Judge Boasberg meant, legal experts said that better practice would have been to seek clarification or appeal.

“In the Department of Justice, the road rules are that, in the absence of a true emergency, the government is to comply with a judicial order, either by the issuing judge or by the High Court, even if the order is patently lawless,” wrote Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, who was treated correctly. National Review. “It’s okay to complain vigorously about court orders, but they shouldn’t be ignored and they don’t knowingly do that much fl.”

The administration chose a different path, McCarthy argued. “It appears the government is intentionally inciting fireworks,” he wrote. “It seems like a terrible legal strategy, but it may have been gaining politics for at least a while,” he added.

In 1967, the incident involving the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Supreme Court ruled He and several colleagues had no right to test the constitutionality of a legally questionable court order that barred them from demonstrating them by marching in Birmingham, Alabama.

The correct approach was to ask the court to clarify, amend or disband the injunction, written by Judge Potter Stewart for the majority. “In a justice and fair administration, he praised his station, although he cannot judge in his case, but he praised his motives correctly.”

The lawyer representing the government at Monday’s hearing had another argument. Judge Boasberg was unable to order the plane to turn when he left the US airspace. The claim was labelled by many legal experts as unconvinced.

“The administration is completely wrong.” Hannah L. BucksbaumWritten by a law professor at Indiana University. Blog post. “The judge orders the administration to take action within the US, meaning that it tells the plane to turn around. That direction means something happens elsewhere (the pilot changes course), but it doesn’t make the order territorial enough to be unacceptable.”

She added that it is routine for judges to order Americans to make things happen overseas, such as by taking over evidence and assets.

Professor Huq admitted that “often there is uncertainty about the necessity of compliance with court orders against institutions.”

However, he added that there are restrictions. “The Trump administration is pushing that uncertainty to its breaking point,” he said.

Pamela S. Carlan, a law professor at Stanford University, said the development represents how the Trump administration acted in its first few months.

“The issue of this administration is not just an acute episode, like what’s happening with Justice Boasberg and Venezuela’s deportation,” Professor Karlan said. “It’s chronic disrespectful to constitutional norms and other sectors of government.”

When asked whether the state has reached a turning point in a constitutional crisis, Professor Karlan questioned the premise. “The “twilight” suggests a world where things go well until they’re not all of a sudden,” she said. “But we’ve already passed the first point.”

Professor Green said that as Trump acts without restraint, the biggest view of the presidential forces, amplified by lawyers, could be swirling.

“It operates without internal legal constraints, but is itself sufficient administrative department to create a constitutional crisis based on its ability to escape things, whether political or legal,” he said. “A president who does whatever he wants until someone stops him is a constitutional crisis, whether he sometimes stops or not.”

Trump was not embarrassed to assert power. “Those who save their country do not violate the law,” he said. I wrote it on social media last month.

The administration can sometimes seem to be talking to two audiences at once. The court states that it complies with letters, if not in the spirit of a judicial order. In public communication, the regime and its allies adopt a language of rebellion, particularly by attacking judges.

But in other settings, Trump has defended judges from what he called illegal criticism. last week, Speaking at the Department of Justicehe said, “It’s illegal and it has to affect the judge.”

He was primarily defending Judge Irene M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida. He dismissed one of the criminal cases against him. However, he escaped the Supreme Court’s idea.

“They don’t want bad publicity and that’s really interfering in my opinion,” he said of criticism of the court. “And that should be illegal, and perhaps in some way it’s illegal. It’s no different to talking to a judge, shouting at a judge, doing what you have to do in court.”