Trump’s Defiance of Court Orders: A Serious Constitutional Crisis

Trump deports immigrants — *The Trump administration has deported over 200 Venezuelans despite court order.*

Trump’s Defiance of Court Orders: A Serious Constitutional Crisis

by Mark M. Bello

Less than two months into his term in office, Donald Trump has taken our country and its judicial system into constitutional crisis.

Last Friday, Trump quietly signed one of his many executive orders—this one invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This is the law that was shamefully used by the government to inter Japanese American citizens in detention camps during World War II. The Act permits the detention and expulsion of citizens from nations or countries at war with the United States. It has only been used during wars and only three times in American history, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

Here’s the problem

Trump’s executive order does not apply to citizens of a country waging war against the United States. Trump invoked the law to deport gang members to El Salvador and Venezuela. When I last checked, America was not at war with these countries.

Trump tries to argue that the U.S. does face a “war” of sorts, an “invasion” from gangs from the two countries mentioned earlier. Despite two court orders barring him from deporting people without due process, Trump expelled 261 immigrants over the weekend, applying the Act to 137 of those.

Why the constitutional crisis?

On Saturday evening, before any of the immigrants landed in their native countries, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the use of the over 200-year-old Alien Enemies Act to deport people without a hearing. He further ordered that any aircraft carrying these immigrants was to be turned around and returned to the United States. At the time the judge made the order., none of the planes carrying the immigrants in question had landed. One had not yet taken off. But Donald Trump didn’t care. He ordered that all planes continue to their destinations under an agreement he made with the Salvadoran President.

Trump’s defiance of Judge Boasberg’s order thrusts our government into a constitutional crisis. To make matters worse, an emboldened Trump and his merry men were not content with merely defying the order. Several members of the administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, mocked the judge on social media. And because of last year’s ruling on immunity, the new president is probably immune from prosecution or legal consequence for his actions.

The only viable solution? Impeachment. Will Trump’s fellow Republicans grow a set and decide that their loyalties and oaths are to the Constitution? Or will they bend the knee to Mr. Dictator on Day One, the man who consistently violates his own oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? I am not optimistic.

America was founded with three distinct branches of government, a system of checks and balances that has served our nation and its citizens for almost 250 years. That is, until our current president decided (along with his hand-picked Supreme Court majority) that he was above the law. A president, like any other citizen, is required to obey the law. Trump’s defiance of court orders is serious anti-constitutional stuff, perhaps unprecedented in American history. Even former Crook-in-Chief Nixon obeyed the orders of the court. He fought, within the law, to retain the oval office recordings, and turned them over when he lost in court.

Constitutional questions or interpretations are the function of the judiciary branch, not the executive. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship or monarchy. The president does not get to decide the legality of his own actions unless his name is Putin. If Trump believes he is properly invoking a centuries old wartime law, he has an obligation to prove it in court.

This is Serious

Or does he? Ladies and gentlemen, this is serious stuff.

Trumpism and the three branches of government will be carefully studied by future generations of school children. Trump lies, cheats, steals, and is found guilty of felonies only to avoid consequence. The result of multiple attempts to hold him accountable results in a Supreme Court decision that grants him almost total immunity for actions taken while in office. Today, he abuses immigrants and federal employees. Tomorrow, will he trample on your precious rights?

So far, the majority Republican Congress seems willing to step aside and allow Trump to defy the Constitution. If there is no effective judicial branch check and no practical legislative branch check, Trump has the power he has always craved, that of a dictator or monarch. As I stated in my previous post, America is in deep trouble.

Is there any hope?

Well . . . maybe. In America, court orders must be obeyed, even by a rogue POTUS. U.S. Disobedience to such orders may lead to contempt of court charges. Under 18 U.S.C. § 401, federal courts have the authority to punish acts of disobedience or resistance to their lawful writs, orders, or commands. Punishment could include fines or imprisonment.

Contempt of court is categorized into civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt aims to compel compliance with court orders, often through fines or imprisonment until the party complies. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, seeks to punish the disobedience, serving as a deterrent against future violations. In both scenarios, the integrity and authority of the judiciary are upheld by ensuring that its orders are respected and followed.

The administration’s decision to proceed with deportations despite a clear judicial mandate to halt them constitutes a blatant act of defiance. Such actions erode the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. Historically, even during contentious periods, presidents have adhered to court orders, recognizing the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law. The deliberate choice to ignore such orders sets a dangerous precedent and suggests that the executive branch is above the law.

The problem isn’t the authority of the judge; it is that enforcement relies on executive agencies like the U.S. Marshall’s office, part of Pam Bondi’s Justice Department, to enforce the order. If the administration chooses to disregard both the court’s order and any subsequent contempt citation, the judiciary’s ability to enforce its decisions is severely hampered. This scenario underscores the importance of mutual respect among government branches and adherence to established legal processes.

The Trump administration’s defiance of court orders halting mass deportations is a clear violation of the law and constitutes contempt of court. This behavior undermines the judiciary’s authority, disrupts the balance of power among government branches, and sets a perilous precedent for future administrations. Upholding the rule of law necessitates that all branches of government respect and adhere to judicial decisions, ensuring that no entity operates above the law. Failure to do so not only erodes public trust but also threatens the very foundations of American democracy.

The administration’s actions constitute a clear violation of the law and contempt of court for several reasons:

Disobedience to Judicial Orders: Ignoring a court’s directive undermines the judiciary’s role in interpreting and enforcing the law. Such defiance disrupts the balance of power among the branches of government and challenges the foundational principle of checks and balances.
Denial of Due Process: The deported individuals were reportedly denied due process, including the opportunity to challenge their deportations in court. This contravenes constitutional protections and established legal procedures designed to ensure fairness and justice. The Guardian
Erosion of Judicial Authority: The administration’s actions set a concerning precedent where executive decisions override judicial authority, potentially leading to unchecked governmental power and the erosion of individual rights.

The administration’s defiance has profound implications:

Constitutional Crisis: Persistent non-compliance with court orders by the executive branch can precipitate a constitutional crisis, challenging the effectiveness of legal checks on executive power.
Undermining Judicial Independence: Such actions threaten the independence of the judiciary, a cornerstone of democratic governance, by signaling that court decisions can be disregarded without consequence.
Weakening Public Trust: Public confidence in the legal system may erode if governmental authorities are perceived as above the law, leading to diminished respect for legal institutions and processes.

Potential Legal Consequences

While holding a president in contempt presents challenges due to executive immunity and the separation of powers, other officials involved in executing these deportations could face legal repercussions, including fines or imprisonment. Courts may also employ mechanisms such as injunctions or declaratory judgments to assert their authority and compel compliance.

The Trump administration’s defiance of court orders halting mass deportations not only violates specific legal mandates but also poses a significant threat to the foundational principles of the U.S. legal system. Upholding the rule of law requires adherence to judicial decisions, respect for due process, and a commitment to the constitutional balance of powers. Failure to enforce these principles risks undermining democratic governance and the protections it affords to all individuals.

About Mark M. Bello

Mark M. Bello

Mark M. Bello is an attorney and author of the Zachary Blake Legal Thriller Series and children’s social justice/safety picture books. He also hosts the popular bi-weekly podcast, Justice Counts (https://www.spreaker.com/show/justice-counts_1). Mark’s books may be found at all online booksellers and on his website, at https://www.markmbello.com.