Jonah Patel
The US Constitution is the highest law of the land, and any federal programs or actions that contradict it are unlawful. The Trump administration has been accused of fiscal and regulatory actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution and infringe on executive power. For example, the Line-Item Veto Act, which allows the President to cancel items of appropriation, was found by the Supreme Court to violate Article I of the Constitution. Additionally, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from commandeering state and local governments, and some of President Trump's executive orders regarding federal immigration enforcement have been challenged as unconstitutional. The interpretation of the Constitution and the legality of federal programs are complex and evolving topics, with various administrations and courts offering different viewpoints.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Administration actions implying laws regulating federal government operations are invalid | Unconstitutional |
| Executive orders taking precedence over constitutionally enacted statutes | Unconstitutional |
| Withholding federal grants from nonfederal entities with "sanctuary" policies | Unconstitutional |
| Investigations, prosecutions, civil enforcement actions, and other actions against political opponents | Unconstitutional |
| Noncompliance with document-retention policies or legal obligations | Referred to Attorney General |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's executive orders and their constitutionality
During his first two weeks in office, former US President Donald Trump signed nearly 40 executive orders. These covered a range of policy areas, including immigration and public schools, and many have been challenged in court.
The US Constitution does not mention executive orders, and they do not carry more weight than laws passed by Congress. However, a president can issue executive orders to tell federal agencies how to implement a statute. For example, an executive order can be used to tell the Department of Justice whether prosecuting certain drug cases is a priority.
Several of Trump's executive orders have been deemed unlawful and unconstitutional. Many of his administration's actions imply that laws regulating how the federal government operates can be ignored, which would require invalidating many laws passed by Congress and decisions made by the Supreme Court. This would alter the structure of the US government and its system of checks and balances.
Trump's Day 1 executive orders have been described as "unconstitutional, illegal, and cruel." These orders targeted immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. One such order, "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," invoked federal law to facilitate mass deportations. Another order, "Securing Our Borders," aimed to end the "catch and release" practice, where people seeking asylum are processed, screened, and released to live with loved ones while their case proceeds.
Trump's order rescinding Johnson's order on civil rights obligations of federal contractors is another example of a lawful executive order that undermines civil rights protections. It sends a signal that equal protection is not a priority.
While the US Constitution does not define government powers or individual rights, it establishes justice as one of its objectives. Trump's executive orders that target vulnerable populations and undermine civil rights protections contradict this objective and the rule of law.
The Constitution's Caste Complicity
You may want to see also
Federal grant programs and their conditions
Federal grants are awarded to programs and projects that benefit the public, based on the Constitution's call to "promote the general welfare." The federal government has the authority to attach conditions to these grants, which has been a topic of litigation and congressional interest over the years. The Supreme Court has articulated several limitations on the federal government's authority to distribute funds with specific conditions. These conditions must not violate the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on the federal government's "commandeering" of state or local governments.
The three types of federal grants, ranging from most to least restrictive, are categorical grants, block grants, and general revenue-sharing grants. Categorical grants contain the most restrictions on how recipients can spend the funds. They are divided into four subtypes, with project categorical grants imposing the most conditions. Block grants offer more flexibility in spending, while general revenue-sharing grants are not currently utilized by any federal programs.
The expansion of federal grants has been criticized for its detrimental impact on the division of powers between states and the federal government, as established by the Constitution. This shift towards coercive federalism has resulted in wasteful practices and unsustainable spending. Restrictive grants allow the federal government to set and execute policy priorities that may be inconsistent across administrations.
Reforms to the federal grant-making process have been proposed to restore fiscal responsibility and improve intergovernmental relations. Decentralization of federal grants would reduce financial burdens on states and the federal government, while also providing greater accountability and transparency in federal spending practices. States could allocate their tax revenue more effectively to programs that address the unique needs of their taxpayers. These reforms aim to increase efficiency and effectiveness at every level of government.
Founding Fathers' Intent: Rewrite or Keep the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Weaponization of federal law enforcement
The "weaponization of federal law enforcement" refers to the systematic use of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies by an administration to target and take action against its political opponents. This phenomenon has been observed in the United States during the administrations of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
The Trump Administration
During his presidency, Donald Trump was accused of attempting to weaponize federal law enforcement to seek retribution from those he claimed had weaponized the law against him and his allies. This included the controversial nomination of Kash Patel, an unqualified zealot according to sources, as FBI Director. Patel had threatened to "come after" a list of 60 members of the "deep state." Trump's "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government" executive order was seen as an instruction to subordinates to initiate investigations and take action against his political opponents.
Trump's administration also implied that many laws regulating the federal government's operations were invalid infringements of executive power and could be ignored. This viewpoint threatened to alter the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Biden Administration
The Biden-Harris administration was also accused of weaponizing the federal government, with Mark Zuckerberg admitting that Facebook was pressured by the White House to censor Americans. The Biden campaign was also implicated in coordinating with 51 former intelligence officials to interfere in the 2020 presidential election by signing a statement calling Hunter Biden's laptop disinformation.
Addressing the Issue
The United States government has recognized the issue of the weaponization of federal law enforcement and has taken steps to address it. The "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government" executive order, issued by President Trump, aimed to correct past misconduct related to the weaponization of law enforcement and the intelligence community. However, the order did not create any enforceable rights or benefits against the United States government or its agencies.
Wisconsin's Constitution: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Still Valid?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Freezing funding and its legality
The legality of freezing funding by the federal government has been a contentious issue, with several instances of lawsuits and concerns regarding the constitutionality of such actions. One notable example is the case of Harvard University suing to block government funding cuts. Harvard alleged that the government's decision to withhold research funds was arbitrary and capricious, claiming that there was no rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the frozen research areas. The university argued that the government's actions violated their First Amendment rights, as they were being coerced to conform to certain viewpoints and ideologies. Additionally, Harvard asserted that the funding hold punished them for exercising their right to free speech.
The lawsuit also brought attention to the question of whether the executive branch has the authority to unilaterally stop the flow of money allocated by Congress. Harvard's suit contended that the executive branch lacks inherent authority to terminate or freeze appropriated federal funding without following the required procedures. This includes hearings, a waiting period, and notification of Congress before funding can be cut. The suit sought to have the government's actions declared illegal and to put prohibitions in place to prevent similar actions in the future.
The Trump Administration's fiscal and regulatory actions have also been criticised as unlawful. The Administration's viewpoint implies that many laws regulating the federal government's operations infringe on executive power and can be disregarded. This perspective has little precedent and would significantly alter the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers. Furthermore, the Administration's reliance on executive orders as having the force of law is not supported by the Constitution. The Constitution outlines that laws are made through the legislative process involving both chambers of Congress and the President.
The Line-Item Veto Act, which allowed the President to cancel items of appropriation, was found by the Supreme Court to violate Article I of the Constitution. The Court determined that by withholding funds without congressional authority, the President was effectively amending statutes, exceeding their powers. Additionally, federal law typically requires decisions to deny payment to a contractor to be made by a contracting officer, with the contractor having the right to appeal. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause also protects those facing the termination of federal funds, entitling them to notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
In January 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum ordering a temporary pause in all activity and a review of all funded agencies and programs, creating significant confusion. This funding freeze memo was later rescinded, but uncertainties remain. While some programs were exempted from the initial memo, such as Medicare and Social Security, the impact on various industries, including higher education, nonprofits, and healthcare, was substantial.
The President's Cabinet: Congressional Approval Needed?
You may want to see also
Presidential power and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US, and it plays a crucial role in the country's constitutional system of government. It has the power of judicial review, which means it can declare a legislative or executive act in violation of the Constitution. This power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is inferred. The Supreme Court ensures that each branch of the government recognizes the limits of its power and protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over almost any case involving a point of constitutional or federal law. This includes cases where the US is a party, cases involving treaties, and admiralty cases. The Court can decide whether or not to hear a case, and it agrees to hear about 100-150 cases out of the 7,000+ requests it receives annually.
The Supreme Court's decisions have significant implications for presidential power. For example, in Trump v. U.S., the Court ruled that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority." This has raised concerns about the message it sends to future presidents regarding potential lawbreaking.
In another instance, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Trump Administration's claim that the President could cancel items of appropriation without congressional authority under the Line-Item Veto Act. The Court found that this violated Article I of the Constitution, which grants legislative power solely to laws passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the validity of executive orders. It asserted that executive orders do not have the force of law and that federal workers must prioritize constitutionally enacted statutes over executive orders. This serves as a check on presidential power, ensuring that the executive branch operates within the boundaries set by Congress and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and reviewing the actions of the executive branch is critical in maintaining the balance of power and upholding the rule of law in the United States.
The Constitution: Ensuring Fair Trials
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The argument is based on the idea that laws regulating how the federal government operates infringe on executive power and can be ignored. This viewpoint is not supported by much precedent.
The Trump Administration issued an executive order in January 2017 to withhold federal grants from non-federal entities that adopted "sanctuary" policies. This was seen as an attempt to coerce state and local governments to carry out federal programs, which is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.
The Administration's actions imply that executive orders take precedence over statutes, which is not supported by the Constitution. This would alter the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers.
Yes, the Line-Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel certain items by sending a message to Congress after signing a law. The Supreme Court disagreed with this, finding that it violated Article I of the Constitution, which gives legislative effect to laws passed by both houses of Congress.
The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principle of Enumerated Powers Federalism, where the national government has limited and enumerated powers, and state powers are those that are not delegated to the federal government. The Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from "commandeering" state and local governments.
