The first 90 days of President Trump’s second term were marked by a series of aggressive legal maneuvers. Among them: shaking law firms, the president considers “anti-Trump”; threaten to revoke the exempt status of Harvard tax; The deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Salvador and holders of green cards on the campus; And more.
Regarding the expulsion of alleged members of Venezuelan gangs, the Supreme Court on Saturday ordered a catch On the administration’s plans, writing: “The government is responsible for not withdrawing any member of the putative class of the United States inmates until the new ordinance of this Court.”
Many criticisms argue that the actions of the administration extend the limits of the executive power. Others argue that they are downright unconstitutional.
Trump’s White House and its defenders say that it is hysterical – and that the president only uses the powers of the presidency taken from the Obama administration. In the case of the expulsion of illegal immigrants, to choose an example, they say that it does nothing less than to restore the rule of law that the Biden administration has flouted.
We decided to ask seven of the strongest legal minds in the country of the whole political spectrum, including a lawyer from the Busée Bush house, a progressive constitutional academic and a former federal judge – a simple question: does the Trump administration act without right?
What should we do with Trump’s legal strategy – if there is indeed a clear strategy? What stands out for this moment? Is it the usual shock between the courts and the executive power? Or are we heading in unexplored waters?
The consensus is striking – and perhaps surprising, given the ideological diversity of these contributors. All have agreed that the president’s legal tactics reflect a dangerous desire to ignore the statutory and constitutional constraints – and that it must be reinforced quickly.
Here is what they said:
It is not too late for this administration to have a catch
By Michael W. McConnell
Trump’s White House sabotages with its frantic hostility towards the courts. The Supreme Court has done its best to defuse the imminent confrontation with the administration – a confrontation which would cause certain damage to the presidency and to the courts, and therefore to our constitutional republic. The court has reduced some of the most questionable interventions of the district court against the administration, insisting (as it should be) on compliance with the rules of competence, status and restorative authority, while respecting the fundamental principles of the regular procedure.
