The first 90 days of President Trump’s second term have been marked by a series of aggressive legal maneuvers. Among them: shaking down law firms the president regards as “anti-Trump”; threatening to revoke tax-exempt status from Harvard; the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and green-card holders on campus; and more.
Regarding the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, the Supreme Court on Saturday ordered a hold on the administration’s plans, writing: “The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”
Many critics argue that the administration’s actions stretch the limits of executive power. Others argue that they are outright unconstitutional.
The Trump White House and its defenders say that this is hysterical—and that the president is only using the powers of the presidency arrogated since the Obama administration. In the case of deporting illegal immigrants, to choose one example, they say he is doing nothing less than restoring the rule of law that the Biden administration flouted.
We decided to ask seven of the sharpest legal minds in the country from across the political spectrum—including a Bush White House lawyer, a progressive constitutional scholar, and a former federal judge—one simple question: Is the Trump administration acting lawlessly?
What should we make of Trump’s legal strategy—if there indeed is a clear strategy? What stands out about this moment? Is this the usual clash between the courts and the executive branch? Or are we heading into uncharted waters?
The consensus is striking—and perhaps surprising, given the ideological diversity of these contributors. All agreed that the president’s legal tactics reflect a dangerous willingness to ignore statutory and constitutional constraints—and that he must be reined in quickly.
Here’s what they said:
It’s Not Too Late for This Administration to Get a Grip
By Michael W. McConnell
The Trump White House is sabotaging itself with its unbridled hostility toward the courts. The Supreme Court has been doing its best to defuse the looming clash with the administration—a confrontation that would wreak certain damage both to the presidency and to the courts, and thus to our constitutional republic. The Court has reined in some of the more questionable district court interventions against the administration, insisting (as it should) on compliance with rules of jurisdiction, standing, and remedial authority, while upholding basic principles of due process.
