US stands on the brink of a constitutional crisis as Donald Trump takes on America’s legal system
Anne Richardson Oakes, Birmingham City University
As the 19th-century French political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, memorably observed, Americans have a tendency to fight their political battles in court. Barely two months into his presidency, Donald Trump is demonstrating increasing frustration as trade unions, civil rights organisations and states attorneys general challenge the implementation of his policies with lawsuits alleging presidential overreach that undermines the constitutional separation of powers.
More than 130 lawsuits are now pending. As a result, federal courts have put on hold key policies of the Trump administration and Trump lawyers have lodged emergency petitions invoking Supreme Court intervention.
First to face court check was the federal funding freeze order. This was swiftly followed by court rulings against the birthright citizenship order. This controversial measure would withdraw citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented or non-citizen parents who are in the country legally but temporarily.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Another court ruling has overturned the Pentagon’s ban on transgender people enlisting in the US armed forces. Yet another has blocked the Department of Government Efficiency’s (Doge’s) access to treasury department records containing the personal financial details of millions of Americans.
This was blocked for the very fundamental grounds that this has not been authorised by Congress and is not within the scope of the presidential power. Whether Doge can even exist without Congressional authority is also in contention.
The president’s increasing anger with the courts erupted on March 18. The US president launched an astonishing personal attack on a US federal judge who ruled against the summary deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang and ordered the administration to turn around the plane carrying them that had already taken off.
Trump’s call for Judge James Boasberg to be impeached prompted a rare intervention from Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts. Roberts condemned the impeachment call in a statement that did not name the president but was clearly intended as a rebuke and a reminder of the constitutional boundaries that guarantee the role of the judiciary as the equal third branch of government.
Unrepentant, Trump doubled down the next day on TruthSocial calling Judge Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge” who wanted “to assume the role of president”. His charge was then echoed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt who accused the judiciary generally of attempting to paralyse the administration’s programme, usurp the power of the president and undermine the will of the American people.
Despite Judge Boasberg’s order, the plane carrying the Venezuelans did not turn back. The administration has denied wrongdoing and Judge Boasberg has yet to impose any penalty.
This was not the first occasion that the administration has appeared to openly defy court orders. The previous week Dr Raiza Alawieh, a Brown University professor with an American visa was deported despite an order from a federal judge in Boston requiring that the court be given advance notice before the government attempted to remove her.
All eyes on the Supreme Court
All these cases are likely to go to the US Supreme Court. As its name suggests, this is the highest level of the judiciary in the US. It has the final say on what the US constitution means and authorises. At issue will be the scope of the presidential power – and the outcome is uncertain.
It’s important to bear in mind that the court now has a six-to-three majority of conservative justices – three of whom were Trump nominees. We also need to be aware that this court, in a previous ruling, considerably extended the scope of presidential immunity to cover all official “core acts” so that, whatever the outcome, the president himself is unlikely to attract personal liability.
But we do know that the Supreme Court’s ruling on a constitutional issue is final – and that all government officials at federal and state level will be required to respect it. The fear now is that the administration may go ahead regardless in which case we will find ourselves in unknown constitutional territory.
To find parallels we could go back to the desegregation era of the middle of the 20th century and specifically to Little Rock in Arkansas where the then governor, Orval Faubus, called out the national guard to prevent the court-ordered desegregation of the local high school.
The ensuing crisis ended when the then president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, sent in federal troops to enforce the court order. The US Supreme Court unanimously declared that its interpretations of what the constitution required were the supreme law of the land, which bound the governor and the state legislature.
The chief justice of that era, Earl Warren, later regarded this ruling (Cooper v Aaron) as the most important of his time on the Supreme Court – more important even than the actual desegregation decision itself (Brown v Board of Education).
It is clear that the judicial branch depends upon the executive to put its orders into effect and demonstrate respect for the rule of law and the separation of powers. But we now see a president who demonstrates open hostility to judges whom he considers have opposed him. His administration has also begun to vindictively target with punitive blocking orders the big law firms who assisted in the prosecutions brought against him before he took office.
Does a constitutional crisis loom? How all this plays out remains to be seen.
Anne Richardson Oakes, Associate Professor and Director: Centre for American Legal Studies, Birmingham City University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Elon Musk Dropping Millions on Wisconsin Supreme Court Race to Rig Political Maps for GOP
Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world,” said the Working Families Party.
Early voting is underway for the April 1 election to determine ideological control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and right-wing billionaire Elon Musk recently admitted why he is pouring millions of dollars into the close contest: It “will decide how congressional districts are drawn” in the state.
As Mother Jones‘ Ari Berman reported Tuesday, Musk—the richest person in the world and a key figure in Republican President Donald Trump’s administration—made that comment Saturday, while hosting the right-wing candidate, Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), for a discussion on X, the billionaire’s social media platform.
Musk said that if Judge Susan Crawford of Dane County wins, “then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats. In my opinion that’s the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin. It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place.”
Liberals have had a 4-3 majority on the swing state’s highest court since the 2023 election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Crawford and Schimel are fighting for a 10-year term filling the seat now occupied by 74-year-old left-leaning Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who decided not to seek reelection. In addition to determining the future of Republicans’ 6-2 advantage for congressional districts, next week’s election is expected to impact abortion care, labor rights, and voter suppression efforts in Wisconsin.
Berman noted that if Crawford won and Wisconsin’s maps changed before the 2026 midterm elections, a Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Represntatives could “scrutinize the unprecedented role Musk is playing in shredding the federal government, accessing sensitive personal information on millions of Americans, and the $38 billion in federal funding his businesses receive.”
The billionaire also has a personal stake in the race related to one of his businesses. As The New York Times noted Saturday: “A conservative-controlled court could be in a position to issue a Musk-friendly decision in a lawsuit from his electric car company, Tesla, challenging Wisconsin’s law prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from owning dealerships. On social media, Mr. Musk began to show interest in the Wisconsin court election eight days after Tesla filed the lawsuit in January.”
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman told The Associated Press on Monday that “this race is the first real test point in the country on Elon Musk and his influence on our politics, and voters want an opportunity to push back on that and the influence he is trying to make on Wisconsin and the rest of country.”
As of Tuesday, Musk has recently given at least $3 million to the state’s Republican Party, according to WisPolitics—which has also “tracked nearly $19.5 million in spending” on the race by two political action committees (PACs) affiliated with the billionaire.
As Common Dreams reported last week, Musk’s America PAC is also offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing “activist judges,” which led critics to accuse the billionaire of trying to buy the state Supreme Court seat.
Those critics include the Working Families Party, which has sent a pair of emails in recent days highlighting how much Musk has spent “to install MAGA extremist Brad Schimel” on the court, and arguing that “Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world.”
Forbes reported Tuesday that “Musk is far from the only billionaire who is financially backing the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Among the other billionaires listed in public filings as spending thousands to support Schimel—either directly or through the Wisconsin Republican Party—are ABC Supply co-founder Diane Hendricks, Uline president Elizabeth Uihlein, Uline CEO Richard Uihlein, and Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs. Crawford has also drawn significant billionaire support from the likes of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and Democratic megadonor George Soros, who gave the Wisconsin Democratic Party $1 million in January.”
WisPolitics noted Tuesday that “Crawford has now reported $26.5 million raised, a record for any judicial candidate in U.S. history,” while Schimel “has now raised $14.3 million.” However, according to Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money on the race is favoring the right-wing candidate.
“It’s already the most expensive judicial race in American history,” Waldman said in a Tuesday newsletter. “According to data collected by the Brennan Center and analyzed by my colleagues Ian Vandewalker and Douglas Keith, campaigns and committees have spent $81 million so far, with a week to go.”
“Much of the money being spent is untraceable,” he stressed. “As the latest data shows, Crawford’s campaign spending of $22 million is more than double that of Schimel’s $10.4 million. But independent groups like super PACs and nonprofits spending untraceable dark money favor Schimel by a much larger margin: $13.5 million benefiting Crawford compared with almost $35.5 million boosting Schimel.”
Schimel also got a boost on Friday from Trump, who endorsed him on social media, writing in part that “Radical Left Liberal Susan Crawford… is the handpicked voice of the Leftists who are out to destroy your State, and our Country.” The president added Saturday: “It’s a really big and important race, and could have much to do with the future of our Country. Get out and VOTE, NOW, for the Republican Candidate—BRAD!!!”
Meanwhile, Crawford is backed by groups like Wisconsin Conservation Voters IEC, which has invested more than $1.13 million to turn voters out in support of her.
“The stakes in this election could not be higher,” the group’s deputy director, Seth Hoffmeister, said in a Tuesday statement. “Judge Susan Crawford will defend our democracy and protect Wisconsin’s natural resources. She is a strong advocate for the values that make Wisconsin great—fairness, accountability, and a commitment to serving the people, not polluters. Judge Crawford will ensure that our State Supreme Court remains independent and dedicated to upholding the rights and freedoms of all Wisconsinites.”
Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“The ability to dissent” is at stake in Mahmoud Khalil case, say activists
Original article by Natalia Marques republished form peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.
Hundreds attend event in support of detained Palestine activist and raise funds for Middle East Children’s Alliance
On Saturday, March 22, hundreds packed the concert hall of the New York Society for Ethical Culture in Manhattan for an event organized by the People’s Forum calling for the release of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil from ICE detention.
Weeks after his sudden arrest by plainclothes immigration authorities outside of his apartment building, Khalil still languishes in the notoriously violent ICE detention facility in Jena, Louisiana. Khalil, his family and friends, his legal team, and the growing movement for his release are currently battling the Trump administration in order to bring the activist home before the birth of his first child next month.
Activists and organizers of the event vowed to keep the struggle going for Palestine and Khalil’s release. “We will let the Trump administration know in no uncertain terms, that as they carry out their war on our right to speak, to assemble, they will have to deal with us,” said Layan Sima Fuleihan, Education Director at the People’s Forum, speaking at the event, titled “Free Mahmoud, Free Palestine”.
“We stand with Mahmoud and all the student activists daring to resist. We will stop business as usual, and we will never stop until Palestine is free,” said Manolo De Los Santos, People’s Forum Executive Director, at the event.
Last week, the Trump administration added new accusations against Khalil, in a move that appears to be intended to sidestep the anti-free speech accusations that have emerged from his case. Trump’s Justice Department lawyers claim that Khalil failed to disclose his work for UNRWA, and also some work he did for the UK government after 2022.
Legal battle continues
On Saturday, Shezza Abboushi Dallal, an attorney at the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) Project and part of Khalil’s legal team, provided some updates to his case. According to Dallal, Khalil’s legal team is fighting tooth and nail to have Khalil moved from Louisiana to ICE detention in New Jersey, and to have him released from detention on bail, to return home to his wife Noor Abdalla, who is due to give birth in less than a month. Khalil’s legal team is also fighting his immigration case in an administrative court in Louisiana.
“The legal fight continues on all fronts,” Dallal addressed the crowd of hundreds. “And it will continue until Mahmoud is brought back here, home, with his wife, and soon his newborn child, and until his constitutional rights are vindicated.”
Dallal continued: “We know this is a test case for how far the government can take punishing organizers. And this administration says as much. They tell us plainly, that Mahmoud’s case is, ‘the blueprint.’”
“What’s at stake in this case is the very ability to dissent,” she said. According to Dallal, if Khalil’s case is the blueprint, “your collective refusal to accept it is too.”
Attendees at the event shared a willingness to fight for Khalil and the right to dissent. One attendee, Sasha, who like Khalil is a green card holder, told Peoples Dispatch that she attended to support the activist because she doesn’t believe that “expressing our right to free speech should be a punishable act, especially if it’s something in support of Palestine, a country that’s being oppressed.”
Jewish activists stand against accusations of anti-semitism
“My entire life, I have been frustrated by the actions that Israel has taken in Gaza,” Montana, another attendee, told Peoples Dispatch. “I continue to be frustrated by them, and also angry. And this unconscionable arrest that was made a few weeks ago is further proof that our country is not doing what they are supposed to be doing and has always not done what they are supposed to be doing,” she continued. “I’m a Jew, and I proudly support Gaza, and do not support Israel.”
The movement for Palestine, and especially the wave of Gaza Solidarity Encampments that began at Columbia University and spread worldwide, have been accused of anti-semitism by right-wing and Zionist groups. This is also the pretext that the Trump administration is using to crack down on student activism at Columbia University.
On March 13, the Trump administration issued what has been called a “ransom note” against the institution, demanding the University take action against student protest and challenging the academic freedom of certain departments if the institution wanted to retain USD 400 million in federal funding that Trump was threatening to revoke.
Columbia expelled, fired, suspended, or revoked the degrees of 22 students over allegations of pro-Palestine protest activity on the same day that the Trump administration issued its threatening letter. And on the precise deadline issued by the Trump administration, March 20, the university capitulated to Trump’s demands, ending faculty control of the Middle East, South Asian, and African studies department and the Center for Palestinian Studies, declaring anti-Zionist policies of student clubs to be anti-semitism, and empowering campus police to arrest students.
One of those 22 sanctioned students is Grant Miner, who is the president of United Auto Workers Local 2710, which represents graduate student workers at Columbia. Miner himself is Jewish and is a Jewish studies scholar, making Trump’s accusations of anti-semitism against student leaders ring hollow. Miner also spoke at the event on Saturday.
“Many of the students who participated [in protest] were Jewish,” Miner told the crowd. “However, I would also like to dispel the myth that we, as Jewish people, hold special or necessary insight into this issue,” Miner continued. “More and more people realize everyday that what is happening in Palestine is wrong and students who protested stand on the correct side of the most important moral issue of our time.”
Artists speak out
Speakers also included filmmaker and artist Alana Hadid, who is Palestinian and the sister of supermodels Gigi and Bella Hadid, celebrated actor Susan Sarandon, as well as poet and rapper Macklemore, who wrote the song “Hind’s Hall” inspired by Columbia student protesters who extended the Gaza Solidarity Encampment to Hamilton Hall, renaming it after the five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab who was targeted and killed by Israeli forces in January of 2024.
Macklemore spoke about his own fears of speaking out in support of the Palestinian cause, including fears centering around being labeled as anti-semitic. But ultimately, he reached the conclusion that “it is our moral obligation to adamantly protest the atrocities we are witnessing and funding or we are complicit.”
“I want to live in a world where standing up against genocide isn’t brave, it’s human,” said Macklemore.
Hadid, whose family members were victims of the Nakba, said that “what is happening [in Palestine] is not complicated.” Last week, Israel broke the ceasefire agreement and resumed the genocide in Gaza.
“This is a genocide, this is ethnic cleansing, this is the crime of the century yet we are the ones being silenced, we are the ones losing our jobs, we are the ones losing our homes, because we dare to speak the truth,” Hadid said. “But we refuse to be silent.”
Original article by Natalia Marques republished form peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.
US Opinion Is Shifting on Palestine; Can Political Leaders Shift With It?
Original article by Ramzy Baroud republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Growing support for Palestine means that more U.S. voters will base their future political decisions on how the U.S. engages with Israel and its disregard for Palestinian rights.
It is crucial for any American administration to recognize that, regardless of political agendas, the views of the American public regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel are undergoing a significant shift. A critical mass of opinion is rapidly forming, and this change is becoming undeniable.
Paradoxically, while Islamophobia continues to rise across the U.S., sentiments supporting Palestinians and opposing Israeli occupation are steadily increasing.
In theory, this means that the pro-Israeli media’s success in linking Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people to the so-called “war on terror”—a narrative that has demonized Islam and Muslims for many years—is faltering.
Palestine may not be the sole measure by which the Trump administration will be judged, nor the only factor shaping future voting patterns. Yet, it is undoubtedly a crucial test.
Americans are increasingly viewing the situation in Palestine as a human rights issue, and one that is deeply relevant to domestic politics. A recent Gallup poll underscores this shift.
The poll, released on March 6, was conducted between February 3 and 16. It found that American support for Israel is at its lowest point in 25 years, while sympathy for Palestinians has reached its highest level. Having 46% of Americans supporting Israel and 33% supporting Palestinians would have seemed inconceivable in the past, when the plight of Palestine and its people was largely overlooked by the general public.
Even more remarkable is that this shift continues to gain momentum, despite the fact that mainstream media and American politicians have been more biased than ever, promoting a dehumanizing discourse of Palestinians and unprecedented, uncritical support for Israel.
While the growing shift in favor of Palestine—particularly the genocide in Gaza, which played a role in influencing political outcomes in several states during the last presidential election—had gone largely unnoticed by the Biden administration, it’s clear that the dissatisfaction with the government’s position remains unchanged.
The previous administration approved significant military aid to Israel, topping $17.9 billion in the first year alone, enabling its genocidal war in Gaza, resulting in over 160,000 casualties over a span of 15 months.
Yet, this blatant disregard for Palestinian lives and rights persisted under the new administration of President Donald Trump, who appointed some of the most staunchly anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel figures to key positions in his government.
Trump did this despite making repeated, though often contradictory, promises to end the war and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Instead, the U.S. president approved the release of a shipment of heavy MK-84 bombs and passed a nearly $3 billion arms sale to Israel.
Trump also introduced a new U.S. policy that solely focused on “taking ownership” of Gaza and displacing its population. Although this position was inconsistently articulated, Trump ultimately, on March 14, seemed to reverse it altogether. This left many wondering whether U.S. foreign policy was truly independent or simply a reflection of Israel’s influence and its Washington lobby.
Unlike Biden, whose support for Israel has been consistent, Trump’s stance has been confusing and contradictory. The U.S. news portal Axios reported on March 5 that talks between the U.S., led by Adam Boehler, and Hamas had taken place in Doha. In an interview with CNN four days later, Boehler made the striking statement that U.S. and Israeli foreign policies should be seen as separate. “We’re the United States. We’re not an agent of Israel,” he said.
However, as analysts began mulling over this unprecedented language, it was soon revealed that Boehler was removed from his position, and the traditional, unwavering support for Israel quickly returned.
As U.S. policymakers continue to swing between their unwavering commitment to Israel and the “America first” rhetoric, they must keep in mind the following.
First, the American public is increasingly aware of events in Palestine, so masking Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights under the guise of “Israel’s right to defend itself” no longer suffices.
Second, U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical: The U.S. seeks geopolitical dominance followed by stabilization and so-called “containment,” while Israel thrives on provocations, destabilization, and long-lasting conflicts.
Third, Palestine has become a domestic issue in the U.S., and the debate on Palestine and Israel is no longer one-sided. Growing support for Palestine means that more U.S. voters will base their future political decisions on how the U.S. engages with Israel and its disregard for Palestinian rights.
Fourth, crackdowns on dissent, arrests of activists, and funding cuts will only deepen the polarization around this issue, rather than fostering an open, informed, and productive debate about a matter of great importance to millions of Americans. Such actions are quickly eroding the reputation of the U.S. as a democratic state and undermining confidence in its commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Palestine may not be the sole measure by which the Trump administration will be judged, nor the only factor shaping future voting patterns. Yet, it is undoubtedly a crucial test. If the contradictions persist, and the U.S. continues to provide unwavering military support for Israel, Palestine could become the defining issue that contributes to the unraveling of U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but around the world.
It is not too late for this trajectory to shift, or for some degree of balance to emerge. The lives of millions are at stake.
Original article by Ramzy Baroud republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
- The Older Generation of Politicians Can’t Stop the American Intifada
- 5 Things a Year of Israeli Genocide in Gaza Has Taught Us About Palestine and the World
- The Gaza War Won’t End by Imposing a “Solution” on Palestinians
- Israel-Palestine: What Could Be a Nonviolent Path Forward for Ending Oppression?
- Trump Proves He’s Still No Friend of Gaza
- US Corporate Media Complicit in Demonizing Pro-Palestinian Protesters