Washington – A week after winning a court decision, according to which the Trump government had to read billions of dollars of federal finance, California and other states were back to court on Friday to ask the judge, and argued that the government had the order not adhered to.
Although it was “conceivable” that the thawing of freezing would take some time, there was “no world” in which the government could be regarded as compliance with the order of the court.
The Trump government did not say true in response. It is said that federal authorities “have worked hard to ensure compliance with compliance”, and that no additional enforcement of the court was necessary because it introduced an appeal against the order of the judge.
The dispute was one of many who played in the last days of federal courts across the country, since states, non -profit organizations, schools, doctors, unions, federal employees, immigrants, individual citizens and others have hurried, a wave of one -sided and legally dubious measures to challenge at will. The Trump administration to redesign the federal government.
It was also in a growing debate about the authority of the federal courts nearby and in the center to contain the president when he violates the law – especially in view of the fact that the Republicans who control the congress last year an impressive Decide that he cannot be held responsible for official acts in office.
As the default of the government to comply with the external financing regulation into the political sphere, the Democrats and other critics began to cause alarms over the Kohls court pollution. When Vice President JD Vance signaled on Sunday that this could actually be the intention -by writing on the social media platform X that judge “cannot control the legitimate power of the executive” -some of them have, among other things, with the Explanation founded. that the nation was in a constitutional crisis.
“This is not an exaggeration to say that we starve the death of democracy in our eyes,” said Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) On Monday. “The core of our democracy is that we observe judgments.”
Some general lawyers for the states who sued the administration – both in the financing procedure and others – agreed.
“There is a lot of talk now: are we in a constitutional crisis?” New Jersey Atty. General Matthew Platkin said during a meeting of the Democratic Attorney General in Los Angeles on Tuesday. “In my opinion we are in one. I will wave a flag and say: 'It has started.' “
Arizona Atty. General Kris Mayes said she believes “what we see today is a continuous coup against American democracy” and that the nation is “shortly before a dictatorship” and “was never in a more dangerous position”.
However, others were more prudent – including California Atty. General Rob Bilta, who was asked on Tuesday whether the nation is in a constitutional crisis, said “not yet”.
The crossing of this line would be a “blatant, outrageous failure to comply with a clear judicial order” that he has not yet seen.
When asked whether the statements of Vances are doing such a moment, Bonta said that the Trump government officials like Vance had the idea that the presidents should not follow judicial orders – an attempt to “sell it” do what he was dangerous.
“I'm not naive at all,” he said. “But it hasn't come yet.”
Several scientists agreed. They said the legal moment was indeed burdened, and Trump clearly tried to replace the system of control and compensation of the constitution with an almighty executive department. But the nation is still opposite the abyss between restless waters and full crisis-and has not yet fallen over.
Adam Winkler, a legal professor from UCLA, said we seem to be “on the abyss of a constitutional transformation”, but it was too early to say whether Trump would manage to bend the other government branches.
Michael McConnell, a law professor of Stanford and a former federal judge, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said that he would not yet say that the nation is in a constitutional crisis, although Trump seems to have broken the law again.
“The mere volume of the controversial orders allows everyone to snap for air. Some are lawful and others are not. I am quite confident that the courts will knock down the illegal ones, ”he said. “If the president has decided to refuse to fulfill direct court resolutions, we could be exposed to a crisis.”
David Cole, a legal professor of Georgetown and former ACLU law director, said violation of the constitutional principles of the core and ignored clear legal requirements. “
However, he said he doubted that the nation would fall into a constitutional crisis, with Trump in a direct despite the dishes.
“No president in history has opposed the Supreme Court,” said Cole. “If he exceeded this line, the political Fallout would be immense and Trump would get out of the loser.”
In addition to public outrage, despite the courts, the courts themselves – including the Supreme Court – Rile. In his annual report, the senior judge John G. Roberts Jr. named the final threat to the rule of law despite the court descriptions.
“Every administration suffers defeats in the court system – sometimes in cases with great effects on executive or legislative power”, ” Roberts wrote. “In recent years, however, chosen officials from the entire political spectrum have raised the ghost of the open disregard for the decisions of the Federal Court.”
“These dangerous suggestions,” he said, “have to be rejected.”
The American Bar Assn. beat a similar note on Monday called up Chosen civil servants and lawyers across the country to speak to defend the rule of law.
“We ask every lawyer to join and insist that our government, a government of the people, follows the law,” Aba President William R. Bay wrote. “It is part of the oath we did when we became lawyers. Regardless of your political party or your views, change must be made correctly. Americans don't expect less. “
How the administration will come from here is unclear, partly because her actions did not always reflect her rhetoric.
Sometimes the administration did not seem to follow in court, even if it spoke to court, as well as the judge's assessment in the event of funding. At other times it normally acted in court and apparently followed the command, also sold the courts as its top officials and apparently ask a direct rebellion in comments on X and elsewhere.
Despite all the hard conversations, there was no showdown moment in which Trump explained his intention to defy the courts directly. And the lawyers of the Trump administration have signaled the opposite in court files -which have much more weight than social media contributions.
Trump himself has proposed that judicial shots fluctuate.
On Monday, the US district judge John J. McConnell Jr. agreed with the states in the event of funding. Others violate his “clear and clear” order.
On Tuesday, Trump was in the Oval Office, where he was asked about the wave of judicial challenges that his administration was facing with efficiency.
Trump said he always stayed on a court order, but would continue to make those with whom he did not agree – what he said that he had slowed his agenda. Musk, who has repeatedly and openly questioned the legitimacy of the courts in the past few days, said: “People voted for a great government reform and that is what the people will get,” and added: “That is why democracy is about. “
Around the same time, an appellate court rejected an application from the Trump government to remain instructions in the course of the legal dispute, which gives the president's agenda a legal blow and expanded the loss stack.
Trump has repeatedly lost to court in the past few weeks. Federal judges have blocked his executive commands and other steps that allegedly rewrite the constitution by hiding citizenship. To block out -of -the -congress programs to reduce federal financing to hospitals, researchers and others; to design a large number of federal employees; and Musk and his MEPs to give access to databases and other systems from the financial department.
The scientists found that the decisions are normal, and the Trump government does not have to turn away as if they were not playing a role – sometimes to their advantage.
On Saturday at 1 a.m., the US district judge Paul Engelmayer, without hearing from the administration, handed over a broad order in the case of Doge that Trump and his administration may not show any “access to a data departmental department”.
While “civil servants” who work for the agency may have access to the records, the arrangement refused access to “all political employees, special employees and government employees from outside the finance department” – clearly aimed at Musk and his team.
Republicans and conservatives reacted angrily and argued that the order seemed to apply for the finance minister Scott better, what they said was absurd. Trump described the verdict as “shame”, Vance made his post that courts were not “allowed” to question the president, and Musk accused the judge of being “corrupt” and said he must now be accused of ” become”.
However, administration lawyers went back to court. They submitted an emergency call argue “The basic democratic accountability requires that the work of each agency is supervised by politically responsible leadership that ultimately respond to the president.”
And on Tuesday, another federal judge granted the complaint that had not admitted the order against Musk and Musiness for better.
The administration, which was established at the legal proceedings, had achieved a victory.
Savage reported from Washington, Rector from San Francisco and Sharp from Los Angeles.