The efforts to transform federal spending by Donald Trump and Elon Musk and the federal workforce have clashed with judges who temporarily blocked some of their policies.
The judges freeze Trump's “freeze” orders, and the efforts of the mask team to access the government's payment system, the offer to “fork on the road” of masks resign, and most staff at USAID I am trying to take my administrative leave.
This raised the question: Will the administration comply with the orders of these judges or will it try to ignore them?
Vice President JD Vance appears to have hinted at the X-Post Sunday for possible open rebellion.
“If a judge attempts to tell the general how to carry out a military operation, it would be illegal,” Vance wrote. “If a judge attempts to order the Attorney General about how he uses his discretion as a prosecutor, that is also illegal. A judge is not permitted to control the legitimate power of a senior officer. .”
But traditionally, in the American system, what counts as “the legitimate power of executives” has been determined by the judiciary. To blatantly deny a court order is a monumental step and even many conservatives would find it surprising.
However, there are elements in the right-wing circles (including Vance) that previously advocated for doing so. And if they win, we will be caught up in a very serious constitutional crisis.
Despite Vance's rhetoric, the Trump administration has not publicly rejected judicial orders so far. The court application claims they adhere to all of them.
But I have a question as to whether they actually exist. One judge ruled Monday that the administration failed to comply with an order that freed the spending freeze. And USAID employees have argued in court filings that they have not resurrected at work.
In the short term, this slipperiness may be a way to avoid court orders that the Trump administration dislikes, rather than explicit, clear, and clear rebellion of court powers. In that case they can argue that they are observing the letter of the award, but they are not following the spirit exactly.
Then, when the judge complains, they can try something similar again – or go above the judge's head on the appeal to the Supreme Court, which may ultimately be friendly You can try.
The court is the most important remaining guardrail against untrained presidential power
Yuval Levin from the American Enterprise Institute is the epitome of a reasonable and thoughtful conservative. He is a repeat guest Ezra Kleinshawand when he appeared last week, he had previously taken over the Trump administration was characteristically gentle and measured, and he saw it primarily as politics, rather than panicking it.
So Klein asked Levin: What must happen to make him worried that Trump is really heading in a dangerous and unprecedented direction? “What really scares you?”
“My biggest fear is that the administration decides not to comply with court orders,” Levin said. “If the administration openly rejects a court order, I think we're in a different situation.”
Willingly voluntary respect for the rule of law holds the constitutional system together.
In fact, courts could be the most important check of presidential forces, as Congressional Republicans became unclear to criticize or refute Trump. As long as the courts govern whether the Trump administration's policies are illegal, and as long as the administration respects their rulings, and even the negatives, the rule of law still exists. .
So, if you don't like the judge's decision, all you need to do is appeal. And if you appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and you don't like their ruling either, you have to accept it anyway.
Many traditional conservatives share this perspective. Especially since the current Supreme Court majority is extremely conservative and likely to be able to restrain the Democratic president for years to come.
However, some thinkers about what is known as new rights have argued in recent years that a major change into the US government system is needed.
The US vice president had previously expressed such views and agreements. In 2021, then-US Senate candidate Vance said if Trump takes office he should fire “all mid-level bureaucrats” and “civil servants.” 'The Supreme Court justice has given him his ruling. Now, let him force it. ”
“We're in the late Republican period,” Vance elaborated (see the Roman Republic). “We need to be pretty wild and be pretty far away.
Ultimately, this corresponds to the belief that the President should seize more power and ignore legal and procedural obstacles in his way, including judicial rulings. As Vance's apocryphal Jackson quote shows, it's a dangerous path to go down, as judges don't actually have the power to enforce the administration on compliance. Willingly voluntary respect for the rule of law holds the constitutional system together.
So is the Trump administration actually going to do good things to Vance's red-faced fantasies?
The latest judicial ruling against the Trump administration – and how they responded
In the first three weeks of the second Trump administration, authorities accepted several unfavourable court rulings in the usual way, including blocking Trump's attempts to rewind his birthright citizenship. That is, they said they agreed to it, but despite their commitment to appeal, they were angry at the ruling.
However, certain judicial orders angered them. This was a Saturday morning decision by New York District Judge Paul Engelmeyer, addressing new management of the Treasury system, which diversifies government pay, payments and grants.
In accordance with Engelmayer's orders, only properly cleared civil servants were permitted to access these payment systems. The Musk's Doge team had to go out.
This order was currently set to be valid for a few days only. The case had been handed over to another judge who will hold a hearing on Friday. The hold was a temporary measure to get this next judge to hear about the case and decide what to do in the future.
However, many on the right responded to it with anger, calling it an overlord. Musk corrupted the judge and demanded a blast each. And on Sunday, Vance posted the allegation that “judices are not permitted to control the legitimate power of executives.”
Given Vance's past comments that Trump should ignore judicial orders, many interpreted this as a signal that a constitutional crisis has arrived.
But later that night, the administration's lawyers sounded more measured tone in court filings. They criticized Engelmeyer's ruling and stressed that they were “abiding it.”
But in these cases, questions arise about how compliant the Trump team was.
Rhode Island's U.S. District Court Justice John McConnell has evaluated Trump's challenges for “expenditure freeze” and temporarily suspended the policy. However, in ruling Monday, McConnell wrote that the administration “continued to inappropriately freeze federal funds and refused to resume payments of allotted funds.” He orders them to “restor the frozen funds immediately” and “end the suspension of federal funds.”
Soon we will see how the Trump administration will respond to that order.
But so far, the administration has not made it as long as it blatantly and explicitly denied the court's order. They have not told the judge: “We simply refuse to do what you say.” They are still at least acting as they play in court rules.
We'll see how long it lasts.
