President Trump has wasted no time since starting his second term, waging a fierce battle against the nation’s federal judiciary, the legal profession, and the rule of law itself. This bold attack on the third branch of government has sparked a constitutional crisis, challenging the foundation of American justice that has been in place since the Revolutionary War against British rule, 250 years ago.
From his first term, Trump seemed eager to challenge the federal judiciary and the principles of the rule of law. He vowed revenge against what he perceived as the federal government’s partisan bias against him.
It’s common knowledge that Trump holds a particular grudge against the justice system, as it once pursued legitimate charges against him. These charges included efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and the mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. His victory in securing a second term effectively halted these prosecutions.
However, if Trump doesn’t change course swiftly, he risks deepening the constitutional crisis—a move he seems ready to make. This could severely undermine his position even before his short-lived political grace period ends.
The list of complaints against Trump is lengthy and ominous. For years, he has subjected judges to harsh criticism and threats. He recently called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled unfavorably against his administration. Additionally, he issued unconstitutional directives against legal firms and attorneys representing opponents and vowed to weaponize the Department of Justice against his adversaries. He has also disregarded judicial orders that he is constitutionally obliged to uphold.
In recent weeks, the talk of a constitutional crisis has intensified. By defying the federal judiciary, Trump appears to be consolidating his power, with congressional Republicans showing loyalty to him. Only the country’s independent judiciary stands to counteract his impulses—an institution essential for constitutional governance, as per Alexander Hamilton. A nation without such independence in its judiciary would not be desirable, except perhaps for Trump while he resides in the White House.
Trump has thrown more fuel on the fire he’s been building against the rule of law. For instance, he sought the impeachment of Judge James E. Boasberg after the judge paused the deportation of over 200 Venezuelan migrants identified as gang members. Trump’s comments about Judge Boasberg, labeling him as a “Radical Left Lunatic,” stemmed from the judge’s attempt to ensure due process—a constitutional right ensuring individuals aren’t deprived of life, liberty, or property without lawful procedures.
Soon after, the constitutional equilibrium seemed to shift when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. reprimanded Trump, clarifying that impeachment is not a suitable reaction to judicial disagreements.
Unfazed, Trump continued criticizing Judge Boasberg, claiming that the country’s failure is imminent if a president can’t act decisively due to what he portrays as judicial overreach. However, nobody desires that criminals roam freely; the president must first adhere to constitutional rules. Judge Boasberg, in contrast, is simply upholding legal integrity.
In a hearing, Judge Boasberg expressed doubts about utilizing wartime statutes for deportations without hearings—questioning the implications of such a policy. He also committed to investigating any violations of his temporary deportation halt order.
Trump seems confident, albeit delusionally, that he can overcome the judiciary, much like his misplaced assurance in contesting American democracy post-2020 election.
Imagine the frustration Trump faces in deferring to his longstanding adversary, the federal judiciary, especially after his bold claim of lawfulness in saving the country. Yet, the judiciary will staunchly protect its constitutional role, determining the law’s interpretation, as penned by Chief Justice John Marshall centuries ago in Marbury v. Madison.
If Trump continues to challenge the courts’ authority, it might provoke a broader response from the Supreme Court, Congress, and the American people, effectively saying, “Enough.” As echoed in the Declaration of Independence regarding despotic rulers, a leader acting tyrannically lacks the suitability to govern a free populace.
Trump seems to have overlooked that Americans shed blood to rid themselves of monarchic dominance, forging a government of laws and principles. As Thomas Paine famously wrote, in America, the law is the sovereign authority—a government where laws, not individuals, reign supreme.
Should the president exceed his bounds in conflict with Judge Boasberg, the Supreme Court stands ready to exert its constitutional mandate to interpret the law, potentially dealing a significant blow to Trump’s presidency and tarnishing his historical legacy.
In this legal struggle, Chief Justice Marshall’s enduring view on judicial responsibility promises the final say.
