President Donald Trump’s choice to ignore judicial orders that temporarily block his policies has legal and political experts wondering if the United States is on the precipice of a constitutional crisis.
“This notion that … the president should act without any guardrails or restrictions, that’s simply equivalent to taking the U.S. Constitution and burning it up and throwing it out because that was not what was contemplated by our founders,” Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, a Democrat, said.
“The judges, the courts, have a role to play in our system of government.”
At a White House press briefing Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described talk of a constitutional crisis as “an extremely dishonest narrative” and accused members of the press of “fearmongering.”
“In fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump’s basic executive authority,” Leavitt said of judicial blocks on Trump’s sweeping and varied executive orders.
“This is part of a larger concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump.”
The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government — executive, judicial, and legislative — to provide checks and balances so that no one sect has too much power.
The Constitution’s first article establishes Congress and its powers, such as making laws and raising revenue. The second article establishes the presidency, and the third establishes the federal court system — including the Supreme Court.
As president, Trump’s role is to execute the laws that Congress passes. That includes making sure the funding allocated by the U.S. House and Senate for programming, services, and agencies — even those he is trying to shut down via executive order — is adequately appropriated.
“I would certainly say that the president does not value — does not honor — the system of government established and followed for centuries in this country,” Brown said, calling Trump’s decision to flout his obligation to fund things under that mandate “lawless behavior.”
Upon being sworn in, Trump immediately took broad action through a slew of executive orders implementing massive staff cuts among federal workers, shuttering agencies he deems unnecessary or wasteful, pausing federal grants and loans to state and local governments, increasing tariffs and ending birthright citizenship, among other measures. He says the actions are part of his plan to get rid of government “waste, fraud and abuse.”
Attorneys general across the U.S., including Brown, and private citizens and institutions, like Johns Hopkins, have pursued legal action against the Trump administration in federal court, resulting in a bevy of restraining orders on the president’s policies and some wins for the plaintiffs.
The Associated Press reported Thursday that a fourth federal judge blocked Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution under the 14th Amendment. In a joint-statement with a dozen other attorneys general, Brown said that state chief law officers “immediately stood up for our Constitution, for the rule of law, and for American children across the country who would have been deprived of their constitutional rights.”
“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” they said.
Federal courts also ruled that the Trump administration could not implement a blanket freeze on federal grants and loans.
But that hasn’t stopped Trump from withholding money from certain agencies and projects.
Last week, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration is violating the court-ordered pause on the funding freeze. The Associated Press reported Wednesday that a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s attempt to reinstate the funding freeze, noting that the administration had flouted a previous order.
People in Trump’s camp have defended the administration’s decision to overlook judicial rulings. In a post on X, Vice President JD Vance said, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” he wrote. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.”
Brown, who served as a Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, said Vance’s military analogy was “misplaced.”
“I can tell you right now there wasn’t a single general that went into battle that didn’t have their Judge Advocate General — their army lawyer — at their side advising them on the do’s and don’ts,” he said. “Even in warfare, there are do’s and don’ts.”
Brown and attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut Delaware, Hawai‛i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state said in a joint statement Friday that Vance’s view is “as wrong as it is reckless.”
“Judges do not ‘control’ executive power. Judges stop the unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of power.” they said. “Americans understand the principle of checks and balances. The judiciary is a check on unlawful action by the executive and legislative branches of government. Generals, prosecutors, and all public officials are subject to checks and balances. No one is above the law.”
The Associated Press contributed to this story. Have a news tip? Contact Hannah Gaskill at hgaskill@baltsun.com.