Who Will Stand Up?

If Donald Trump refuses court orders we will find ourselves, officially, in a constitutional crisis.

Many of us have named President Donald Trump as authoritarian. Now we see escalating authoritarianism. While American society may have more resilience than many of the countries whose democracies have fallen to the “authoritarian playbook”, the question before all of us now is, “who will stand up?”

Those who want total executive power always seek to undermine the judiciary in their countries. Trump is now trying to do that and overturn the separation of powers that have been the bedrock of American democracy. If Donald Trump refuses court orders we will find ourselves, officially, in a constitutional crisis.

This week, the courts have stood up to Trump’s executive orders and actions. Two federal courts in California and in Maryland have raised constitutional questions about the way Musk, with presidential support, has so quickly and massively fired millions of federal workers without legislative approval or due process. Both eastern and western district courts have called upon the new administration to rescind those firings and reinstate those federal workers.

In another Maryland case, a federal court judge has now challenged Musk and Trump’s dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with devastating life and death consequences for vulnerable people around the world. DOGE kicked all the USAID staff out of their building, then Trump gleefully had their sign on the building taken down. But now the court says he must re-establish and reinstate USAID and allow their staff back into the building, where the sign will likely have to be put back up. That is if Trump obeys.

In a most dramatic court action, the chief federal district court judge in Washington D.C. challenged the use of the war time Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to be used for deportations in arresting hundreds of Venezuelans and then flying them to prisons in El Salvador– without any due process. Some are accused members of violent gangs, whom all of us would want to see deported, but many have already been identified as not being gang members. The court order is not to block deportations, but to do them legally. All the court is seeking to ensure is that we are all held to the standard of legal due process and, specifically, keep the government accountable to the rule of law.

Donald Trump, on his Truth Social media outlet, called for District Judge James Boasberg to be “IMPEACHED” because his ruling didn’t coincide with the President's political agenda. He also called the veteran and respected judge a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge,” adding “appointed by Obama.” Boasberg was actually appointed by George W. Bush, and then elevated by Barack Obama. But Trump, like other autocrats, never lets facts get in his way.

But in a remarkable rebuke, a personal statement quickly and directly came from Chief Justice John Roberts saying in short and simple language:

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review exists for that purpose.

Bloomberg quoted Yale law school professor and expert on constitutional law, Keith Whittington, as saying, “This kind of public rebuke from a chief justice of a president is extremely unusual. It’s a very serious ratcheting up of tension between the White House and the judicial branch.”

---

---

After a long string of judicial challenges to Trump’s rapid and sweeping executive orders in his first fifty days, the courts are standing up to the Executive Branch and reminding them that they have to obey the law.

Clearly the issues at stake now are not reforming fraud and abuse as the Trump/Musk administration claims or deporting violent criminals, both of which most Americans support. The issue for Washington D.C.’s new regime is power and Trump wants to have all of it.

So far the courts are standing firm. What will happen if Trump and Musk disobey, dismiss, or ignore these court orders? Will a president be cited for contempt of court and how will the judiciary enforce its rulings?

The judiciary is the weakest branch of government when it comes to enforcement. “The court has no armies” is a quote often attributed to Andrew Jackson. But the more accurate and most cited quote from Jackson in response to a Supreme Court ruling the president didn’t like is “John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it”. We may soon hear echoes of this sentiment again.

There are over 150 legal cases now pending against the Trump Administration. That includes the lawsuit that the Georgetown Center on Faith and Justice helped coordinate with our colleagues at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection also based at Georgetown. Twenty seven plaintiffs, including 12 national churches and denominations, both Christian and Jewish, are seeking to prevent ICE raids from entering into previously designated “sensitive locations,” like our churches and congregations.

Trump could disobey or ignore all those court decisions and injunctions, with Trump’s “border czar” and head of ICE, Tom Holman, saying, “I don’t care what the judges think.” One or more of these cases will be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court where John Roberts and all the other justices will decide what to do.

Will churches and faith communities stand up to all of this?

---