Trump defying a court order would trigger a constitutional crisis

As federal courts continue to issue injunctions blocking President Trump’s efforts to seize new extra-constitutional powers, the Trump administration seems on the verge of a making the radical claim that it may disregard court orders.

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vice President JD Vance posted on social media on Feb. 9. Trump called a recent ruling blocking Elon Musk — an unelected, unaccountable billionaire on a mission to hollow out the federal government — from accessing the Treasury’s payment systems a “crazy” ruling. “No judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision, it’s a disgrace,” he said.

This might be mere showboating, but we should remain vigilant. A federal judge recently held that the administration had failed to fully comply with its order enjoining Trump’s funding freeze.

The administration can disagree with judicial rulings all it wants, but one thing is clear: It cannot disobey them. If Trump were to disobey a court order or permit his subordinates to do so, he would be at war with the Constitution’s text, history and most basic values.

Our nation revolted in opposition to the tyrannical rule of a king, and our nation’s charter creates an accountable president to execute the law, not a king with unchecked power. The framers of the Constitution created an independent judiciary as a coequal branch of government, recognizing that the courts had to check abuse of power by the executive and legislative branches. As James Madison urged, “independent tribunals of justice” would serve as an “impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”

The result is that in our system of government, no officer — not even the president — is above the law. Courts have the authority to issue judgments that bind the president. Indeed, the framers rejected the notion that court judgments could be set aside by the executive. That would be fundamentally inconsistent with the independent judiciary’s role in enforcing the Constitution and preventing abuse of power.

The suggestion by Trump and Vance that courts cannot tell the new administration what to do is not only a betrayal one of our nation’s most fundamental principles, but also is a radical outlier. The view that presidents must comply with court orders is widely shared today by virtually everyone — left, right and center — including prominent conservatives who are some of the strongest advocates of presidential authority.

Law professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo (the latter is famous for his role in authoring the torture memos during his tenure in the Bush administration) have recognized that presidents must enforce and be subject to court orders whether or not they agree with them. “Because the courts have the judicial power and jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, when they issue final judgments in cases that involve constitutional interpretation, other branches must obey and enforce such judgments,” they wrote.

Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, has written that a system in which the president held an effective veto over court judgments “would be not so much a system of constitutional government as it would be a system of rule by an elected Napoleonic strongman.”

Past presidents have understood this as well. The Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln administrations all agreed that court judgments were binding on the White House. President Lincoln despised the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford — now widely seen as one of the most terrible court opinions in history — but he recognized that the president cannot simply flout a court order. Doing so, Lincoln recognized, would invest the president with tyrannical powers.

In the modern era, every major clash between the president and the courts ended with a resounding affirmation of the rule of law. Even President Richard Nixon surrendered the Watergate tapes, which effectively ended his presidency.

Trump and his lawyers are fond of invoking Article II’s broad grant of executive power to the president, but the powers that the framers gave to ensure energetic enforcement of the law do not exist in a vacuum. The framers, who detested the unchecked power the king had exercised, made sure to create an independent judiciary to prevent abuse of power whenever it occurred, including at the hands of the president.

The president must obey court orders. Anything else would be a constitutional affront and deeply dangerous to our nation.

David H. Gans is the director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center.

Topics

Is the U.S. facing a constitutional crisis?

Some Democrats are concerned over President Trump's use of executive power and are warning of a "constitutional crisis." The Trump administration rejects these claims, saying the president follows ...
CBS News - 22h
Are we heading toward a constitutional crisis?

President Trump, who tried to overturn the 2020 election result, has been shattering norms upon returning to the Oval Office. Since the nation's founding, the guardrails that have kept presidents ...
CBS News - 2d
USAID aid freeze triggers health care crisis in Africa

USAID's 90-day freeze on all services has resulted in a significant loss of trust, critical health care, food aid, and medical supplies, causing life-threatening consequences for Malawian patients, ...
The Hill - 4d
Nixon didn’t break the Constitution. Will Trump?

2025 obviously is different from 1973.
The Hill - 4d
'See you in court': Trump and Maine governor clash over trans athlete order

President Trump called out Maine Gov. Janet Mills at a meeting of governors at the White House over her state not complying with his executive order to ban transgender athletes from women's sports.
NBC News - 4d
Supreme Court orders new trial for Richard Glossip

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of Oklahoma's Richard Glossip getting a new trial. The court ruled that Glossip, who has been on death row, may not have gotten his right to due process. CBS ...
CBS News - 3h
Developing world urges rich nations to defy Trump’s ‘climate nihilism’

Poorer countries want rapid emission cuts and more financial help in face of US leader’s stance on global heating. Developing countries are calling on the rich world to defy the US president, ...
The Guardian - 6d
The Papers: 'PM to defy Trump' and 'Apple in UK privacy row'

Sir Keir Starmer's next move before meeting Donald Trump and a data security dispute make Saturday's front pages.
BBC News - 3d
Supreme Court orders new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with an Oklahoma death row inmate who claimed alongside the state itself that his trial was unfair, ordering a new trial and staving off his execution. Convicted ...
The Hill - 7h