Simone Lawson
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, providing the framework for the government and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. It is a document that has been amended 27 times since its ratification, with a complex process in place to prevent arbitrary changes. Former US President Donald Trump has been accused of violating the Constitution and federal law through his executive orders. One of his most controversial orders challenged birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Trump's order sought to limit citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. This move was met with swift legal challenges, with critics arguing that it was blatantly unconstitutional. Trump has also been criticised for issuing an order to reshape election processes, including changes to voter registration and election procedures, which many believe will face legal challenges for violating the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Freezing federal spending | Violates the Constitution and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act |
| Banning birthright citizenship | Violates the 14th Amendment |
| Firing 18 inspectors general | Violates the National Labor Relations Act |
| Firing FBI and Justice Department officials | Violates the Rule of Law |
| Changing voter registration and election procedures | Violates state powers |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship
On 20 January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that would redefine birthright citizenship. The order argues that children born in the United States are citizens only if they have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. This marks a significant shift from how birthright citizenship has been applied for over 150 years in the US.
The executive order denies citizenship to persons born to a mother who was unlawfully present in the US and whose father was not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person's birth. It also applies to those whose mother's presence in the US was lawful but temporary (e.g. on a student visa) and whose father was not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth.
The executive order has faced widespread opposition, with 18 states suing the federal government and multiple federal courts blocking its implementation. Opponents argue that it violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Supreme Court affirmed the right to birthright citizenship in a landmark case in 1898.
A federal court in New Hampshire blocked the executive order, with Judge SangYeob Kim stating that it "stands in flagrant opposition to our constitutional rights, values, and history." Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, called the order a "wildly unconstitutional bid to end birthright citizenship."
Public opinion on the order is divided along partisan lines, with most Republicans approving and most Democrats disapproving. A Pew Research Center survey found that 56% of US adults disapprove of the order, while 43% approve. Disapproval is stronger among Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults, with 74%, 70%, and 63% disapproving, respectively.
Brazilian Constitution: Cities' Constitutional Rights and Recognition
You may want to see also
Trump's termination of FBI and Justice Department officials
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, providing the source of all government powers and limitations to protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens. The Constitution separates the power of government into three branches, with checks and balances to ensure no branch gains supremacy.
Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by a series of controversial moves that have raised questions about his commitment to the Constitution and federal law. One notable example is his decision to terminate FBI and Justice Department officials, which has been interpreted as an attempt to exert control over these agencies and fill them with loyalists.
In the lead-up to his second term, Trump's allies proposed curtailing the Justice Department's independence and reshaping it to align with conservative causes. This included plans to bring in stalwart conservatives and ensure the FBI director reported to politically appointed assistant attorneys general, rather than the deputy attorney general. These changes would have undermined the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI, according to detractors.
During his second term, Trump's administration launched sweeping cuts at the Justice Department, targeting FBI agents and prosecutors connected to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters. More than a dozen prosecutors who pursued charges against Trump were fired, and civil rights and environmental litigation were paused. Additionally, criminal investigations were ordered into state and local officials who interfered with his hardline immigration initiatives.
The terminations of FBI and Justice Department officials were seen by some as a "raw, unfiltered exercise of presidential authority to purge the government of anyone who put the Constitution first, instead of adherence or loyalty to Donald Trump." The moves raised concerns about the potential for chaos, division, and paralysis within these critical agencies.
Exploring the Constitution: Broken into Several Key Parts
You may want to see also
Trump's order to reshape election processes
On March 26, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape election processes in the US. The order calls for dramatic changes to voter registration and election procedures. For instance, it requires states to ensure that all ballots are returned by Election Day, not just postmarked by that day, or risk losing federal funding.
Trump's order has been deemed "unlawful" by critics, who argue that it encroaches on state powers outlined in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states that states have the power to determine the "times, places and manner" of how elections are run. The so-called "Elections Clause" also gives Congress the power to "make or alter" election regulations for federal office, but it does not mention any presidential authority.
Legal experts and state attorneys general have stated that Trump's order will likely face legal challenges for violating the Constitution. David Becker, a former US Justice Department attorney, said, "This cannot be done through executive action." New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin echoed this sentiment, stating that he expects his state and others to challenge the executive order, as they have done with several of Trump's previous actions.
Trump's actions have been characterized by some as a "'blitzkrieg' on the law and the constitution." Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, accused Trump of carrying out a "'rapid-fire' of illegal actions, including the federal funding freeze and the birthright citizenship order, which attempts to end birthright citizenship guaranteed under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The Judicial Branch: A Constitutional Cornerstone?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's violation of the Impoundment Control Act
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 was enacted to prevent executive overreach and protect Congress's constitutional power of the purse. Impoundment, or the unilateral delay or cancellation of appropriated funds by the executive branch, has always been unlawful.
The ICA specifies that the president can only impound discretionary funds, such as defense spending, and not mandatory funding, like Social Security and Medicare. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has oversight of the ICA and can sue the administration if funds are withheld in violation of the Act.
In 2020, the nonpartisan GAO concluded that the Trump administration violated the ICA by withholding security assistance to Ukraine. The administration failed to notify Congress of the hold on aid and did not give the Pentagon adequate time to disburse the funds. Mark Sandy, a White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official, testified that the Trump administration never sent Congress a proposal to delay or rescind the money. Instead, the OMB implemented the hold through footnotes in funding documents sent to the Defense Department.
Trump and his administration have argued that the executive branch has the power to freeze federal funds, a view that most experts disagree with, saying it is Congress's purview. Trump has also claimed that it was historically "undisputed" that the president could stop unnecessary spending through impoundment. However, there is no inherent presidential power to impound in the Constitution, and courts have repeatedly ruled that the executive branch cannot strong-arm states and cities into compliance by weaponizing federal dollars.
The Constitution's Intriguing Prelude: What's in a Name?
You may want to see also
Trump's firing of board members
In 2025, Donald Trump fired two board members who oversaw independent agencies: Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both Harris and Wilcox were initially appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, and Trump's firing of them was part of his broader shakeup and downsizing of the US government.
Trump's move to oust Harris and Wilcox was met with legal challenges, with federal judges in Washington, D.C., ruling in early March 2025 that their removals were unlawful and null and void. However, the D.C. Circuit agreed to pause these decisions, allowing Trump to remove the board members once again. The Supreme Court also temporarily paused the lower court rulings, with Chief Justice John Roberts signing an order that halted the reinstatement of Harris and Wilcox to their positions.
The legal battle over the firings centred around the interpretation of the Constitution and the president's power to remove officials. In the lower courts, Wilcox's attorneys argued that Trump could not fire her without notice, a hearing, or evidence of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. They contended that the administration needed to persuade the Supreme Court to adopt an expanded view of presidential power. On the other hand, Sauer, the Solicitor General, argued that Article II of the Constitution empowers the president to remove at-will members of multi-member boards that exercise "substantial executive power," like the NLRB and MSPB. He further asserted that the reinstatement of the board members would cause "grave and irreparable harm" to the President and the Constitution's system of separated powers.
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Humphrey's Executor v. United States in 1935 was also a significant factor in the dispute. In that case, the court ruled that a president cannot fire independent board members without cause, finding that Congress could impose for-cause removal protections for such members. Conservative legal theorists have long criticised this ruling, arguing that it unduly limits the president's power.
The Soil-Bound Constitution: Citizenship by Birthright
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, which has long been guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.
Trump's order was met with backlash, with a lawsuit filed by a coalition of attorneys general who deemed the order "blatantly unconstitutional and quite frankly, un-American."
