In this thought-provoking discussion, legal scholar Samuel R. Bagenstos unpacks why the term "constitutional crisis" fails to fully capture the actions of the Trump administration, which he views as a systematic erosion of the legal and constitutional order. Bagenstos argues that Trump’s repeated defiance or slow-walking of court orders—particularly in cases concerning immigration and government funding—points to a broader strategy of undermining congressional authority and reshaping executive power. He warns that instead of a single moment of crisis, what we’re witnessing is an incremental dismantling of democratic norms. "It’s really an assault on the prerogatives of Congress, which is the people’s branch," he states, emphasizing that courts alone cannot remedy this breakdown when Congress itself refuses to act. Through examples such as the controversial deportation of Venezuelan asylum seekers and a funding freeze order in Rhode Island, Bagenstos highlights how the administration is testing the limits of judicial authority in ways that could have profound constitutional implications.

Key Points:

• Beyond "Constitutional Crisis" – Bagenstos argues that the term is misleading because it implies a singular moment of rupture rather than an ongoing systemic breakdown of legal norms.
• Trump’s Legal Defiance – The administration has regularly ignored or slow-walked compliance with legal rulings, particularly concerning immigration and congressional funding.
• Pattern of Disregard – High-profile cases include the unauthorized deportation of Venezuelan migrants, the contested deportation of Lebanese doctor Rasha Alawieh, and a Rhode Island case where the administration failed to unfreeze federal funds despite court orders.
• Manipulating Legal Loopholes – The government often presents implausible legal defenses to justify actions that appear to defy judicial authority, signaling an intentional challenge to courts' power.
• Congressional Inaction – Bagenstos stresses that the real failure lies with Congress, which has not meaningfully pushed back against executive overreach. He notes that the judiciary alone cannot fix a legislative branch unwilling to assert its power.
• Historical Perspective – Drawing from landmark constitutional cases like Truman’s attempted steel seizure, he suggests that past judicial rulings upheld congressional authority—something not happening as strongly today.
• Implications for Democracy – Ultimately, the concern isn’t just the Trump administration’s defiance, but the precedent it sets for future presidents to similarly disregard the constraints of law.

This is more than just a political fight—it's a fundamental challenge to the rule of law. What happens when the legal guardrails of democracy are slowly eroded, and no one steps in to stop it?
Link to Article