Article originally in the Financial Times. Other articles .
Donald Trump’s attacks on US judges and his obvious unwillingness to respect trial orders are concerned about the constitutional crisis in the most powerful democracy of the world. This is what critics say. On Tuesday, the highest US judge decided to take a position. The President of the Supreme Court John Roberts reprimanded the President for indicating that the judge he disagreed with should be accused.
Without Roberts appointing Trump, he indicated that the President’s threats “are not a reasonable response” to his disagreement with his judgments. This is a sharp criticism of the American leader who has its own varied experience with the courts. Roberts’ statements are a manifestation of tensions between judicial and executive power, which are two of the three components of the US government alongside the congress.
The government of the law over the abyss
The intervention of the President of the Supreme Court came at the moment of an acute threat to the US judicial system, says legal scientists after Trump and his allies attacked judges for several weeks. “The government of the law in our country is dancing on the edge of the abyss of injustice and decomposition,” said Professor at Yale Law School William Eskridge.
“Whether we fall over the edge depends on whether the current government will openly deny the legal precedent or even to circumvent them,” he added. Meanwhile, Trump seems to continue to test the boundaries of his power in relation to judicial power.
After Roberts Tuesday’s statement, the federal judge in Maryland decided that the billionaire Elon Musk and the so -called State Administration Mesuration Commission (Doga) “probably violated the United States Institute” when they abolished the US Agency for International Development.
This decision came a few days after US immigration officials allegedly ignored the order of a Massachusetts judge and deported Lebanese doctor Rasha Alawieh after he was detained at the Boston Airport for 36 hours. The government claimed that immigration officials only learned about the command after Alawieh’s plane flew.
They do not want them to control their courts
Last week, the United States also deported more than 250 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang to Salvador, despite the fact that the federal judge ordered doubts about the legality of this step to turn the aircraft. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the government “acted within the limits of the law”.
Immigration was clearly a source of conflicts. In his statements that prompted Roberts’ intervention, Trump on social networks was striking against “many crooked judges” who, according to him, should be accused for Maria’s mission to deport illegal immigrants.
In the previous case, however, last month, a judge from Rhode Island also stated that the government continues to detain certain federal funds contrary to the earlier court order. The government referred to confusing payment systems. She blamed the circumstances, such as poor timing of orders, and at the same time claimed that she was trying to fulfill the court decisions.
Trump, however, is a convicted criminal who, until his November electoral victory, faced a number of charges of crimes. With his statements, as well as the statements of his allies, he clearly showed his opinion on the judges.
The deputy head of Trump’s staff Stephen Miller, last week in the X post, objected to the “radical villain judges” and claimed that “they do not have the power to manage executive power”. JD Vance Vice President expressed his opinion in February equally clearly: “Judges must not control legitimate executive power,” he wrote on X.
What options do the barrels have?
The resistance of the executive to the intervention of judicial power raises the question of what can be done to keep the US leader with laws if he decides not to do it. The courts to avert violations of final decisions usually use tools such as fines, arrest or freezing of property. In the case of government and Trump, this question is more complex.
“It can be understood that the courts will be reluctant to be involved in direct confrontation with executive power, and [napríklad] Going so far that they will issue contempt for judicial power, ”said Douglas Keith, the chief advisor to the Brennan Center for Judicial Center.
The courts are dependent on the US Marshals Service, which is the body of the federal judiciary, when promoting their decisions. However, it is part of the Ministry of Justice and is responsible for the Attorney General of the United States appointed by the President. At present, Pam Bondi, who is loyal, is held this position.
The allegations of government officials of contempt for the court are rare, but not unprecedented. In 2019, the federal judge acknowledged the then Minister of Education Betsy Devos for guilty of contempt for the court for not stopping the enforcement of students from students.
Trump could destroy the government system
However, Trump is largely protected by the position of the President from legal penalty. Last year, the Supreme Court granted him a broad immunity before the prosecution for the proceedings he committed as part of his office.
Legal experts did not remember that the acting president was recognized as guilty of contempt for the court, since “the presumption of the presidents is a long -term assumption that the presidents are governed by the court orders, even by decisions they do not like”, Keith said.
The cases that have the most outraged Trump could eventually reach the Supreme Court, which is divided into conservative and liberal judges in a proportion of six to three. Three of them appointed Trump during his first term.
However, questions concerning compliance with the rule of law may not necessarily be broken according to political lines. Roberts, who issued a statement on Tuesday, is considered a moderate conservative. Legal experts warn that Trump’s flagrant ignoring court decisions could destroy the US government system.
When executive power repeatedly ignores judicial decisions, “public expectations and even courts that officials will comply with the law will slowly fade,” said Eskridge of Yale. “At some point, expectations will be so low that the president will feel that he can completely ignore court orders.”
More news was provided by Steff Chávez in Washington
© The Financial Times Limited 2025. All rights reserved. It must not be further spread, copied or modified. Ringier Slovakia Media is responsible for providing this translation. The Financial Times Limited is not responsible for the accuracy or quality of the translation.
