ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
President Trump's blizzard of executive orders has run into a snowplow of legal challenges. There are dozens of cases challenging the White House's actions, and judges all over the country have found that the White House acted illegally. Here's just a few examples.
On immigration, several judges have blocked Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. On the federal workforce, a judge blocked the offer encouraging government employees to resign. On transgender rights, a judge blocked the Trump administration from moving trans women to federal prisons for men. There are also rulings that block the dismantling of USAID, the administration's freeze on federal grants and more. The challenges and the rulings continue to pour in.
And Trump's team is punching back. After a judge blocked Elon Musk's DOGE team from accessing personal data and other Treasury Department systems, Musk referred to the judge as, quote, "a corrupt judge protecting corruption" and called for his impeachment. And Vice President JD Vance made the controversial claim on Sunday that, quote, "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." That echoes something he said in 2021 on the podcast "Jack Murphy Live."
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: I think that what Trump should do - like, if I was giving him one piece of advice - fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts - 'cause you will get taken to court - and then when the courts stop you, stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say, the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.
SHAPIRO: On Monday, in an interview with radio host Mark Levin, President Trump criticized judges for wanting to, quote, "tell everybody how to run the country."
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Judges should be ruling. They shouldn't be dictating what you're supposed to be doing. And why is somebody saying that you're not allowed to?
SHAPIRO: These comments suggest the Trump circle may be willing to ignore court orders and defy judicial authority. That authority is enshrined in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution - quote, "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution."
A Rhode Island federal judge believes the Trump administration may already be ignoring the court. On Monday, Judge John McConnell Jr. wrote that the administration defied a temporary restraining order by continuing to improperly freeze federal funds. The Trump administration argues that it acted in good faith to interpret the scope of the restraining order, and it has appealed the ruling.
So what happens if the executive branch ignores the judicial branch? Is that a constitutional crisis? Many legal experts have been looking at this question, including University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost. Good to have you here.
AMANDA FROST: Thank you for having me.
SHAPIRO: I know that law professors have debated for many years what a constitutional crisis actually, technically is. How do you define it?
FROST: Yes, I think a constitutional crisis occurs when one branch of government, usually the executive, blatantly, flagrantly and regularly exceeds its constitutional authority and the other branches are either unable or unwilling to stop it.
SHAPIRO: Blatantly, flagrantly and regularly - so you can maybe dabble in a little judicial defiance, and it's not quite a crisis in your view?
FROST: Yes. I mean, I think the way our system works, and frankly it's intended to work, is that each of the three branches maybe pushes at the edges of its powers. They're all interpreting laws and applying laws. And then the question is, well, we have checks and balances. And so, at that point, the other branches should step in and push back.
SHAPIRO: So let's talk about those checks and balances. Congress' role is to enact laws. The executive branch carries out the laws. Technically speaking, what is the role of the judicial branch here?
FROST: Yeah, so the judicial branch resolve disputes when the executive seeks to implement a law and there's a claim that it violates either another federal statute or the U.S. Constitution or the executive has just gone far beyond its authority, such as taking over the power of the purse, which belongs to Congress.
SHAPIRO: Which some argued President Trump has done in the last few weeks.
FROST: Yes, I think it's clear that the president has gone beyond the powers of the executive branch by taking over the power of the purse, or attempting to, by attempting to redefine, through executive order, constitutional clauses, such as the citizenship clause granting birthright citizenship, and taking other action which violate lots of different federal laws. So I guess the first half of my definition of constitutional crisis has occurred, but the second half, we have yet to see what will happen, which is, will the other two branches, and particularly the courts, restrain or push back the executive? And we're beginning to see that happen.
SHAPIRO: We are beginning to see the courts try to restrain the executive, but we're also seeing the executive kind of flip the bird to the courts in some respect. Does that give you cause for concern?
FROST: So I am deeply concerned, as I think every American should be, about the way in which executive power is being abused, misused and overstepping the bounds of the authority. But I will say that as of today, at this moment, the executive branch has not taken the position that it can violate court orders or that it does not need to comply with court orders. So as long as we remain in a system in which the executive follows, or at least states that it has to follow what a court says, I have hope that the system will hold.
SHAPIRO: Let's talk about what happens if the executive does turn its back on a legitimate court order. Civilians defy judicial orders all the time, and they get punished for it with fines or with jail time. Have we ever seen a president defy a judicial order?
FROST: Yes, so we go back - way back into our country's history, when the Supreme Court was very weak and a new institution at the start of our nation. We had Marbury v. Madison, where the Jefferson administration didn't even bother to show up in the Supreme Court to defend its position. And so that was a moment where we could have called that a constitutional crisis. The court was savvy. It issued a decision that both declared its own power to stay what the law is, and at the same time, didn't require the executive do anything to comply, which of course, avoided the kind of crisis that would occur if the executive simply ignored the court.
SHAPIRO: We heard that quote from JD Vance in 2021, before he was in the government, where he referenced Andrew Jackson, who, as president, said, the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. Do courts have an enforcement mechanism?
FROST: First, I'll say, it's shocking to hear JD Vance state that as if it's a positive thing. That is not a moment to have been celebrated - the fact that the president may have said, and the statement may have been apocryphal, but the president may have said that he would simply ignore a Supreme Court order. That is not a moment to be celebrated in our nation's constitutional history.
As for today, there's a number of mechanisms or tools courts have to enforce their orders. Things like subpoenaing government officials to come and explain themselves if they're not following orders, holding government officials in contempt or fining individuals. All that said, if at the end of the day, neither political branch nor the people want to see the law enforced, eventually, the courts will fail in their efforts to do so. Our system, at the end of the day, relies on the people and elections and the political branches of government to ensure that we remain a nation governed by law.
SHAPIRO: Well, how significant do you think it is that a judge in Rhode Island has now said the Trump administration defied a court order and continued to freeze some federal funds that it was ordered to release?
FROST: I don't find that to be a moment, yet, of crisis because the system is working, where the response by the Trump administration was, we interpret the scope of the order differently. We are appealing. Not we are going to refuse to follow any order you issue from here on in. We're ignoring you. The response that the Trump administration has given is within the system as we know it. If they begin blatantly violating court orders and saying they don't have to follow them, then we're in new territory.
SHAPIRO: It seems a safe prediction that these debates will ultimately reach the Supreme Court in one form or another. There is a conservative supermajority right now, and the court has taken an expansive view of presidential power. Do you have a sense of how they might resolve this?
FROST: It depends on what the this is. So there's a number of different, of course, legal challenges based on violations of statute, based on violations of the Constitution. So depending on the case, the Supreme Court, you know, may uphold what the Trump administration has done or may strike it down. So one example is the executive order attempting to redefine birthright citizenship and exclude many people who are currently Americans from citizenship or people that we've always thought would be Americans from future citizenship. I expect and hope that if the Supreme Court got that case on appeal, that it would declare the executive order to be unconstitutional. Other cases may come closer to the line for the court, and the court will move cautiously, I would think, in this new environment.
SHAPIRO: What about the overarching question that Elon Musk and JD Vance and Donald Trump have all spoken to, that courts just can't check the president, that, as Richard Nixon famously put it - and I'm paraphrasing - if the president does it, it's legal.
FROST: Yeah. So of course, no one agreed with Nixon or, at least, Nixon, at the end of the day, left office based on the fact that that view was not accepted by the courts or the people. I would say today, we are at an extraordinary moment where the Trump administration is attempting to expand executive power - which, by the way, has been expanding under previous administrations as well - but is attempting to expand executive power into new and unchartered territories. I think the courts can slow that expanse beyond the constitutional limits, but it cannot stop it if the political branches, such as Congress, or the people - who, of course, will go and elect, again, new members of Congress and a new president in four years - if the people don't accept it, then I think that is the last check on executive power, and the courts can only hold the line for so long.
SHAPIRO: So to end where we started, with the question of whether the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis, I've seen a variety of law professors argue that, yes, the country is in one right now. What do you think?
FROST: I would say that, no, we are not yet in a constitutional crisis, but we are undergoing a constitutional stress test. And we have an executive that has usurped the power of Congress and overstepped the boundaries of the office. And the question is, will the court step up to play their constitutional role in stopping it? And following from that, will the executive comply with court orders requiring them to stop taking action?
SHAPIRO: That is University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost. Thank you so much.
FROST: You're welcome.
(SOUNDBITE OF NITSUA'S "PIANOVERSE") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
