Only a week into President Donald Trump’s second term and he has already tested the limits of executive power, a strategy to implement — with blazing speed — a controversial and bold conservative agenda, from ending birthright citizenship to ending federal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies.
He also issued pardons and clemencies for over 1,500 people involved with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, including ones convicted of violently attacking police officers.
Legal experts and historians tell ABC News that the sheer number of these executive orders is unprecedented based on past presidents’ actions but whether they will stick is far from guaranteed. In fact, Trump’s agenda hit its first snag after a federal judge issued a temporary injunction on his EO over birthright citizenship Thursday.
“Executive orders do not have the same legal status or legal quality as laws enacted by Congress. Some are more just mere wishes that a president would like to see. And some are pursuant to law and can only be stopped by judicial review,” Stephen Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Tulane Law School, told ABC News.
Griffin and other legal experts said it is likely that some of the other decrees will not stand up to the airtight laws grounded in the Constitution. However, given the Republican-controlled Congress, the battles of these orders could be long drawn out and accomplish what they say Trump is really seeking with his “rapid-fire” decrees, sending a stark message to the nation.
“It’s going to take a few weeks to see whether the orders have the force of law or more of those are just signals,” Griffin said.
Griffin said traditionally presidents have been more cautious about issuing many executive actions this early into their administration given the likely legal challenges that they face, even if the order is just done for face value.
“The use of executive orders at the beginning of an administration goes as far back as [President Ronald] Reagan. It really ramped up starting with the [George W.] Bush administration and hasn’t stopped,” he explained.
Legal experts said that Trump’s latest decrees are unusual in that not only did he publicly announce his plans to crack down on immigration and diversity on “day one,” but he and his allies have been working for years to craft these orders to meet that goal.
Sally Katzen, professor of law at New York University School of Law who worked in the Clinton administration and served in the Obama-Biden transition team, told ABC News that Trump’s actions are far from a gimmick.
“My own personal view is I believe what he says and he’s going big time. He’s shooting for Mars and he’s shooting to change so many things any way he can,” she said.
Katzen noted that Trump has boasted that he could get away with anything even shooting someone on 5th Avenue and now that the Supreme Court has given him some immunity for his actions and he has both houses of Congress in Republican control he is ready to test out those limits.
Despite those weakened guardrails, Trump will still have limits that make it harder for his orders to go into full effect or remain in place, the experts said.
Several state attorneys general have filed a legal challenge to the birthright executive order, Katzen said, and have a strong case based on the wording and the strict guidelines put in place by the 14th Amendment.
“I don’t think he can blink at that. I don’t think a court would be receptive to executive power. I don’t think they would be willing to rewrite the Constitution even with judges that are more favorable toward him,” she said.
A federal judge overseeing the lawsuit agreed and signed a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship Thursday in a Seattle court.
““I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Trump told reporters Thursday he plans on appealing the order.
Griffin noted that the case of the EO involving TikTok, the law that banned the social network is strictly written and only a full Congressional change can undo the ban.
Katzen and Griffin, however, warned that the biggest factor at play in this situation is time.
As seen in previous executive orders, such as Trump’s first administration’s attempt to ban immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, the legal fights will take a long time and likely see a back-and-forth of injunctions that stall the implementation of the policies.
“There will be a significant amount of time before any of this is resolved,” Katzen said.
Griffin noted that that time in the courts may not benefit the president.
“What matters is what does he and his legal time want to spend his resources. Presidential time is finite and there will be more matters that come up in the next four years that he can not ignore,” he said.
Although the president does have Congress on his side, there is also no guarantee that they will stick with him on these extreme orders, according to Katzen.
Recent polling has shown that the majority of Americans are opposed to the Eos that banned birthright citizenship and pardoned the Jan. 6 rioters. Kazen noted that the House Republicans have a very slim majority that can easily be changed based on how voters react.
Even Trump’s threats of being primaried can go so far, according to Kazen.
“As a candidate, he did not seem receptive to any limits to his authority, but there is a consequence and that would be the Congress, which for the next 2 years, is willing to kiss his ring. Let’s see how some of these play out,” she said.
ABC News’ Peter Charalambous contributed to this report.
ABC News: Top Stories
Read the full article .
