Is Donald Trump Above the Law?

Critics of Donald Trump argue that his attacks on American judges, along with his apparent willingness to disregard judicial orders, are heightening concerns about a potential constitutional crisis in the United States, a country that is traditionally viewed as a stronghold of democracy.

On Tuesday, the highest-ranking judge in America spoke out, as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts admonished the president for suggesting that a judge he disagrees with should be impeached.

Although he did not explicitly name Trump, Roberts indicated that the president’s comments were “not an appropriate response” to his grievances with various rulings, which serves as a significant rebuke to a US leader who has faced a controversial legal history.

Roberts’ remarks illustrated a remarkable rift between the judiciary and the executive branches of the US government, alongside Congress, which is one of the three branches.

This intervention from Chief Justice Roberts comes at a critical juncture for the American judicial system, according to legal analysts, following a series of attacks on judges by Trump and his supporters.

“The rule of law in our country is teetering on the edge of a cliff, which overlooks a void of lawlessness and disarray,” stated William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School. “Whether we plunge into the chasm depends on whether the current administration blatantly defies or subtly circumvents” established legal precedents, he elaborated.

Currently, Trump appears inclined to push the boundaries of his authority in relation to the judiciary.

In the wake of Roberts’ statement on Tuesday, a federal judge in Maryland determined that billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency likely violated the United States Constitution by shutting down the US Agency for International Development.

This ruling followed an incident where US immigration officials allegedly disregarded a Massachusetts judge’s order and deported Lebanese doctor Rasha Alawieh after detaining her for 36 hours at a Boston airport. The government claimed immigration officials only became aware of the order after Alawieh’s flight had already departed.

Additionally, the US deported over 250 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador last week, despite a federal judge’s order to halt the process due to questions over its legality. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted that the administration “acted within the confines of the law.”

Immigration tensions have become a frequent battleground. Comments from Trump that led to Roberts’ intervention included his fiery denunciation of “many of the crooked judges” he claimed should face impeachment for obstructing his efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

In a previous case last month, a judge from Rhode Island also noted that the government was withholding certain federal funds in violation of an earlier judicial order, with the administration blaming cumbersome payment systems.

In all these incidents, the government has attributed its actions to circumstances, such as the misalignment of the orders, while maintaining that it has attempted to comply with judicial mandates.

However, Trump’s remarks, alongside those from his allies, have clearly indicated their negative stance towards the judges who challenge them.

Stephen Miller, who served as Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, expressed his disdain for “radical rogue judges” recently, asserting they “have no authority over the executive branch’s actions.”

Vice President JD Vance also weighed in last month, stating, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” in a post on X.

This defiance by the executive branch regarding the judicial interventions raises significant questions about the measures that can be applied to ensure compliance with the law when a sitting president chooses to flout it.

Typically, courts actively employ tools such as fines, arrests, or asset freezes to address noncompliance with legal decisions.

Yet, when considering actions against the government — particularly under Trump — the situation complicates significantly.

“Courts might be hesitant to engage in a direct confrontation with the executive branch, for instance, by issuing contempt orders,” remarked Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center’s judiciary program.

Courts rely on the US Marshals Service, the enforcement branch of the federal judiciary, to ensure compliance with their directives. However, this service falls under the justice department, reporting to the US attorney-general, a role filled by the president’s appointee—currently Pam Bondi, a loyalist to Trump.

While holding government officials in contempt is rare, it is not without precedent. A federal judge previously held then-education secretary Betsy DeVos in contempt in 2019 for failing to stop student loan collections from borrowers.

That said, Trump’s role as president generally shields him from legal challenges, as the Supreme Court granted him extensive immunity from criminal prosecution for actions conducted while in office last year.

Legal experts cannot recall any instances of a contempt order being issued against a sitting president, stemming from a prevalent understanding that presidents adhere to court rulings, even those with which they disagree, as noted by Keith.

In the end, cases that significantly affect Trump could potentially ascend to the Supreme Court, which comprises a 6-3 balance of conservative to liberal justices—three of whom were appointed by him during his initial term.

However, inquiries into compliance with the rule of law do not strictly align with political affiliations. Roberts, who issued the recent statement, is generally viewed as a moderate conservative.

Legal specialists caution that blatant defiance of court decisions by Trump could threaten the very foundation of America’s governmental framework.

When the executive branch consistently overlooks judicial rulings, “the public’s, and even the judiciary’s, expectation that officials adhere to the law will gradually diminish,” warned Yale’s Eskridge. “At some juncture, expectations could sink so low that a president might feel emboldened to completely disregard judicial orders.”

Additional reporting by Steff Chávez in Washington