All six of the Republican Justice in the Supreme Court will wake up tomorrow and decide that many of their previous decisions to make Trump possible are wrong, each one making a seemingly out-of-control executive as they helped Create a pledge to do everything in their power to restrain them.
Even in a world where federal courts can expect to actively enforce laws aimed at restricting the Constitution and Trump, the United States will still face a constitutional crisis.
The reason is a pretty basic reason. The courts are essentially reactive institutions. They do not preemptively tell the government how to run, nor are they even allowed to advise the government on whether planned actions are legal. Rather, before the federal court can do anything, they must wait for the government to do something illegal, and the plaintiff who has been injured in any way by that illegal act must arrive. The court can intervene.
By the time it happens, permanent damage can already be done. Consider this example to understand why.
The Trump administration is planning to essentially shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Closing USAID is almost certainly illegal. The agency is funded by Congress and the President cannot legally block Congressional budgets (save it to run USAID) without legislative approval. There are also lawsuits known as these facts American Foreign Affairs Association vs Trumpand is trying to block these efforts to close USAID. And the lawsuit could ultimately be successful. The latest development in that lawsuit is a temporary court order blocking the Trump administration's attempt to leave USAID employees.
But by the time the lawsuit unfolds, it is likely that many USAID employees have already found new jobs. If the Supreme Court ultimately determines that the institution must continue to function, the decision could take months or years. And by that point, the institution may have experienced a severe brain drainage that would have become so severe that it would be a shadow of its former self. (And it all assumes that Trump even complies with a court order to reopen the agency.)
In other words, the Trump administration will always be the first initiator of a conflict between it and the courts. Federal judiciary can stop anyone who has already violated the law from continuing their actions, but it cannot prevent a violation from occurring in the first place.
Therefore, even if we could trust these courts to apply the law fairly and impartially to the Republican administration, and in the world Trump vs. United States, We simply can't make a decision that the president says it's okay to commit a crime. Trump and his people can do extraordinary damage before the judge even has the opportunity to see what they did.
Federal judiciary reactivity is not an accident, but an integral part of its design. Under Article 3 of the Constitution, a federal court may only hear disputes that include “cidents” or “disputes” between the defendant and the plaintiff who claims to have been injured in any way by the defendant. This requirement is known as “standing.”
Just as the Supreme Court was held Lujanv. Defendersof Wildlife (1992) cannot file a federal lawsuit challenging government actions. Unless they suffer “actually injured” in the actions they are challenging.
This means the Trump administration will act first before anyone can even file a lawsuit to stop them. Elon Musk and his fellow government efficiency (DOGE) could crash the entire computer system used by US air traffic controllers, and people whose flights are grounded, or even worse The court can't do anything. A person whose loved one was killed in a plane crash filed a lawsuit alleging that Musk was hurt because of his actions.
Even after someone has a position to file a lawsuit underneath LujeanFurthermore, there is no guarantee that this individual will obtain a court order that will mean restrict the administration. That's because the Supreme Court has put even more stringent restrictions on who is permitted to seek an injunction. It is a court order that requires the government to take certain measures or suspend cases already engaged.
The original case is Los Angeles City vs. Lions (1983). In that case, a Los Angeles police officer pulled Adolf Lions for a broken taillight and eventually put him in a chokehold. The Lions sued for an injunction prohibiting LAPD from using such chokeholds again.
However, the majority of the courts concluded that Lyon could not seek an injunction at all. “Previous exposure to illegal activities,” Judge Byron White wrote in court, but he did not allow anyone to seek an injunction. Rather, the Lions seeking the requested injunction were dependent on whether they were likely to suffer future injuries from the use of chokeholds by police officers. ”
In other words, it was not enough for Lyon to show that he was a past victim of illegal chokeholds. He had to show that LAPD would likely put him in another chokehold at some point in the future.
Meaning of Lyon Many of the Trump administration's shenanigan decisions are very clear.
For example, let's say masks have introduced some glitches into the Treasury payment system that causes them to fail to randomly make payments to 1% of all Social Security beneficiaries each year. One of these beneficiaries should be able to get a court order requiring the government to pay what owes them, but they can get an injunction attempting to revoke Musk's actions. Do you have it? Probably not. Because no one whose payments are cut off can show that they are likely to cut off their payments again the second time.
The court may soon be even weaker than they already have
There is ongoing debate with the courts about how extensive the injunction can be cleaned. One uncertain question is whether the Supreme Court will continue to allow lower court judges to issue “national injunctions” that sought to shut down illegal federal policies entirely.
In recent years, some lower court judges have insisted the power to order the entire federal government and set new policies across the country when they believe it is acting illegally. For example, such injunctions are specific thorns on the part of former President Joe Biden, as right-wing judges often use them to block his immigration and other policies.
The advantage of allowing a single judge to issue such an order is that if government actions are in fact illegal, they will be shut down immediately. The downside is that these nationwide injunctions are often issued by judges in singular or highly partisan views and could potentially obstruct governments that have not actually broken the law. .
Some members of the Supreme Court, particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch, opposed these nationwide injunctions. It argues that a single outlier judge should not have this kind of power. According to Gorsuch, the injunction is “intended to correct injuries that cause certain plaintiffs to be injured in certain lawsuits,” and not allow one low-ranking judge to set national policies. I'm doing it.
There is a strong argument in favor of Gorsuch's position, but if Gorsuch ultimately wins this fight, it means that lower court judges will become even more powerless against the Trump administration. They could issue narrower orders that prohibit the government from taking certain measures against certain plaintiffs. But they will no longer be able to order the entire Trump administration to abandon illegal policies altogether.
Courts usually rely on voluntary compliance
Unlike lower courts, the Supreme Court clearly has the power to declare how the law should be applied to the entire federal government. However, there are also limitations on the Supreme Court's ability to enforce decisions against non-parties to certain cases.
If the Supreme Court declares a particular case illegal, the government will usually stop engaging in similar measures as it knows that now the judiciary has spoken, it will lose the case that challenges these actions. But what happens if the government decides to narrowly comply with the court's decision?
Think of it like this. Suppose John is a social security beneficiary that is illegally reduced by Doge. Suppose John filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court and decided that Doge's actions were illegal. Normally, the government will also begin paying John the benefits to similar people, rather than each individual bringing their own lawsuits.
But what if the government complies with the Supreme Court orders slightly and pays only John and John? Perhaps some of the others whose Social Security benefits have been blocked can be combined into a class action lawsuit that allows them to present all their cases to court at once. However, that class action lawsuit may only apply to people who have lost Social Security benefits, not to other individuals and businesses whose other payments have been blocked by Doge.
In other words, the Trump administration was able to try and crush those who were hurt by the decision by forcing each to file their own lawsuit.
There is a very well-known precedent for this kind of massive resistance to the Supreme Court decision. After 10 years Brown v. Education Committee (1954), public school racism stalled almost completely in the country. By 1964, one in 85 black students in the South attended integrated schools.
One of the biggest reasons is that southern school districts voluntarily refused to follow brown. Instead, they argued that black students attending integrated schools would need to file a new lawsuit and obtain court orders. Terrorist groups like KuKluxKlan are also helping to ensure that a small number of black families are not willing to become plaintiffs. Such a lawsuit.
To be fair, Doge will likely send a hooded terrorist roving band to attack anyone trying to sue them. However, the fact remains that the Supreme Court cannot apply the order to previous parties, at least until someone files a new case.
“The Most Dangerous” Brunch
Finally, there is a question that delves into everything Trump does. What if he simply refuses to follow the court order?
As Alexander Hamityon famously wrote in his Federalist paper, there is no internal mechanism in the courts to implement their decisions. They say, “You may say they have no power or will, but you simply make a judgment, and ultimately, they must also rely on the help of the executive arm for the validity of that judgment. ”
If a loser refuses to comply with a federal court order, the order will be enforced by the former US S-Service, a law enforcement agency housed in the U.S. Department of Justice. In other words, Marshall is an executive officer who is subordinate to the president. So, Trump could theoretically order not to force a court decision against him.
If that happens, the United States is truly in an unknown ocean. Congress could potentially fire each Trump for refusing to comply with court orders, but given the Republican rule of both Houses of Congress, it is unlikely that each will succeed. Heck, the bluff each failed, even after Trump attacked the Capitol and incited the mob to threaten the lives of members of Congress themselves. So it's hard to imagine Republican Congress standing on Trump's path over something that refuses to follow court orders.
Even if there was no showdown over whether Trump would follow the court's decision, the judiciary would only limit power. The court can block many of Trump's illegal activities, but only after he and his men have done considerable harm.
