Dozens of lawsuits were filed to block Trump’s executive orders, and he lost almost every case. The courts stopped freezing the funds, made their efforts to close USAID, drew his efforts to buy government officials, paying them by September, so that nothing brought, and fell in love with the orders that prohibit transgender women who were put on their safety, Fixed, enshrined in his efforts to overcome citizenship. Basically the courts do their jobs – so far. But what if he challenges them? Or what if the Supreme Court changes all the lower court action? We asked David Koule, who recently left the post of National Law Director Aklo to return to the law teaching in Georgetown. He writes The New York Times. Washington Postand New York Review of Booksand he is a legal affairs correspondent Nation.
This interview was edited and thickened – you can read the full transcript there.
John Winer: What if the courts continue to rule against Trump, which seems likely and he defies them? The New York Times Recently, in his printed edition, he conducted a headline of five columns after the federal judge stated that the White House did not succumb to the release of billions of dollars in federal grants. This is the first time the judge stated directly that Trump did not obey the court mandates. In this case, the court agreed with the General Lawyer 22 applications that the Trump administration had to provide state money that was allocated by Congress for Medicaid, school lunches, low -income housing subsidies and other necessary services. What is your analysis of the judge in this case at this point?
David Cole: I think people do it much more than guarantees. Essentially, what the judge did, it was an order to freeze on certain funds based on one executive order, and the government came and said: “Well, we had other executive orders that in this case were not questioned And so we had an alternative legal basis to reduce financing in these different contexts. ” And the court said, “No, you’re wrong. The sphere of my order was wider. It covered what you say.” This is like a regular court dispute over the original order. One side says that “it doesn’t require us” to do something, the other said, “It turned out.”
But there were no arguments of the Trump administration’s lawyers that “we understand that you have forbidden us to do it, but you can’t and we’re going to give up your order.” No. They said, “We believe that there is an alternative legal basis that justifies what we are doing.” They made traditional legal arguments, and the court rejected these traditional legal arguments. So, we did not come to the case where you are close to the point of view, refusing the court ruling.
JW: Shortly after this ruling, the Trump administration appealed to the Appeal Court of the first district. The White House spokesman said: “Each executive order will follow in court, since every action of Trump-Vans administration is quite legal.” The New York Times He called it “tilting”. Is that what you would call it?
DC: No. First of all, I believe it is false to say that everything they did is legal. But they have the right, like any defendant, first appealed to the Court of Appeal and then to the US Supreme Court. Biden took these actions when his decisions were considered illegal. Obama took those when his decisions were considered illegal. It’s just a regular business in the US courts.
JW: Our biggest concern is that the Supreme Court will support Trump. But maybe not. Trump has lost some great things in the Supreme Court.
DC: The last time I was in the AKLO. I started at ACLU nine days before Trump took office. We have launched more than 400 legal action against Trump administration. He has lost a lot of them, and some really great: efforts to put the issue of citizenship to the census to oppress the immigration communities; Efforts not to report unnecessary censuses, although you must report all the people who respond to the census; Efforts to stop DACA’s help for dreamers is all that is fixed by the United States Supreme Court. And he adhered to these rulings. I am sure he was not satisfied with these rulings, but obeyed these decisions.
JW: People say: yes, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump five years ago, but the court has changed since then.
DC: Yes, Trump has appointed a number of people in the court court, but the court ruled against him 7-2 in 2020, according to a summons, where he sought to challenge both the New York prosecutor and the Congress’ efforts to court for his tax documents. In these cases, he was appointed by the judges against him. So I think it’s too cynical to say that they just whitewash all he’s doing, they are on Trump’s team. It’s just not the way it works.
JW: The New York Times suggested that the Supreme Court could issue what they called “an early spit against Trump” to send a signal of their own power and independence, and they suggested that maintaining citizenship, which, according to Trump, is unconstitutional It will become a good candidate – and what they can actually do it. What do you think about it?
DC: I have very little doubt that they will destroy his efforts to undermine the born citizenship. It is in the text of the Constitution, the 14th amendment. The court has already ruled and stated that it was a constitutional guarantee for all the people born here and “subject to their jurisdiction”. And what “given their jurisdiction” they read very narrowly to refer only to people, such as diplomats who do not actually obey our laws. But everyone else obeys our laws. So I think they will rule against the president when he eventually gets there.
JW: Our friends, who are most experienced in this point of the Supreme Court, give it immunity from criminal prosecution. If Trump is insured against criminal prosecution, they say, does it mean that he can do anything that wants and nothing can stop it?
DC: No, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean. The case of criminal prosecution was, I think, the abomination. The text or history of the Constitution had no reason for the immunity they provided to the president. But they made it clear that there were any other checks. We had 200 years plus presidents. None of them were held accountable for criminal activity. The vast majority of them did not even say that they were engaged in criminal activity, except for Nixon himself and Trump himself. I don’t think it’s because they were afraid to prosecute after they left the post. I think this is because the system has a number of checks that ensure that presidents do not participate in brazen criminal behavior. These checks include the opportunity to sue the president, the fact that the Supreme Court clearly established power to order the president to stop doing what he is doing, the powers of Congress to reduce financing for everything he disagrees or refuse A. the budget, if they are unhappy with what the president made, the ability of Congress to the president and urge his people to testify before Congress; And eventually impeachment.
Of course, if Congress is controlled by the Republican Party, these recent checks in Congress are unlikely to play such a role, but there are still many checks that I think by presidents. And I do not think we will go forward, except for President Trump, who has already proven himself able to participate in criminal behavior, even if he thought – and his lawyers claimed – that he could be held accountable after the fact. He made this argument in the second trial of impeachment. He said, “Don’t force me because I can try after the fact.”
And then, when he went out for impeachment, he then turned and said, “Oh, I can’t try after the fact.” Fortunately, Trump is a unique case in our history, and we will have to deal with this unique case. But there are many checks.
JW: Some of our friends say that for people a big mistake thinks that “the courts will save us.”
DC: I think people can be too cynical relative to the courts, and this is based on my experience repeatedly sue Trump and Victory – for example, the reunification of thousands of families divided by the president in the family division policy because we They sued in court and won. So I saw the evidence and I think it is.
But I do not believe that we can just sit and hope for courts to save us. The courts work when the American people advocate their rights, standing for, joining, joining and upholding the values they believe. When we all sit and wait until the courts save us, they do not. But when we come forward, when we act when we join organizations that seek to support the rule of law and basic principles of our constitutional democracy, that is, how the Constitution has a significant one through such actions of civil society – with the help Mass media, the academy, all non -governmental institutions that are strong in this country, supporting the sacred principle of the independent judicial system.
JW: I would have added the last one. What Trump makes is not popular. All incoming presidents have a famous honeymoon period, but Trump already has the highest rating of abandonment from any president at this moment. Pew poll asked last week, “Does Trump respect the country’s democratic values?” Thirty -one percent said so. Fifty -three percent said “no”. They asked, “Does Trump act ethically in office?” Twenty -nine percent said so. Fifty -four percent said “no”. So we are not alone. We present most.
DC: Absolutely. What undermines us is cynicism and despair. When we get up, when we fight off, we have tools to protect our values. We pushed back for the last time. It made a big difference. Many people’s rights have been protected. Much harm has been prevented. And then the middle terms were a disaster for Trump, and in the last two years it had no majority in the house, so he could do nothing in Congress. This is a country in which, fortunately, we have a lot of instruments to use people to speak and fight cruelty, including resorting to courts; And we need to use them, not humiliate them and not reduce them.
