Q&A – What Would Happen if President Trump Ignored Federal Court Orders? - Driven By Braman Motorcars
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Today’s entry was submitted via talkback asking why President Trump isn’t ignoring federal court rulings by low level federal judges that likely lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
Bottom Line: It’s tempting right? When there’s what appears to be clear judicial overreach, it’s tempting to want your preferred politician to follow through with their agenda despite what the courts might say. The term “constitutional crisis” is overused and abused these days, however what is risked by this train of thinking is what a real constitutional crisis would look like. There’s a better-than-not chance you’re fully aware of the different branches of government and what each of their functions is as outlined under the constitution...however it’s a good exercise to hit the reset button to illustrate the view of the possible if the executive branch did seek to ignore the judicial branch. So, let’s review this...
- Legislative Branch (Congress): Makes laws. It writes, debates, and passes legislation, controls the budget, and has powers like declaring war or impeaching officials.
- Executive Branch (President): Enforces laws. It implements legislation, manages foreign policy, commands the military, and can veto laws or issue executive orders.
- Judicial Branch (Supreme Court): Interprets laws. It reviews laws and actions for constitutionality, resolves disputes, and ensures laws align with the Constitution.
Each branch has checks and balances to limit the others. For example:
- The President can veto laws, but Congress can override with a two-thirds vote.
- The Supreme Court can strike down laws, but Congress can amend the Constitution.
- Congress approves budgets, but the President executes spending.
So that takes us to what would happen if President Trump ignored court orders. Doing so would trigger an actual constitutional crisis, as the executive branch defying the judiciary undermines the separation of powers. In response, the judiciary would likely issue contempt rulings. If that were to happen, law enforcement, under the Department of Justice, would be tasked with enforcement, but would they if President Trump were to pressure the DOJ? Congress might respond with impeachment proceedings, as ignoring court orders could be deemed a "high crime or misdemeanor," but would they? The bottom line is that it’s not an outcome we should hope to see or root for regardless of one’s political preferences.
There is one example in U.S. history that most closely tested the balance of powers. It coincides with one of the lowest points in American history.
In the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which declared that Georgia’s laws over Cherokee lands were unconstitutional and that only the federal government had authority over Native American tribes. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign entity, and Georgia’s attempts to seize their land and enforce state laws violated federal treaties.
Jackson, who supported Indian removal, is alleged to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson’s administration took no action to enforce the ruling. Instead, he continued to push for the removal of the Cherokee and other tribes, culminating in the Indian Removal Act and the forced relocation known as the Trail of Tears.
A constitutional crisis was avoided in that instance because the result of the defiance was inaction (choosing not to enforce the law, a la the Biden administration not enforcing immigration laws for example) as opposed to action. There are no historical examples of federal court rulings that have been ignored by continued action in defiance of the judicial branch. It would be best that it remains that way.
The answer to judicial activism is what’s happening right now – which includes the Supreme Court taking up the Trump administration's challenge to lower federal court authority is the right answer. That and winning elections and appointing constitutionalists as opposed to activists to the bench.