Trump's Legal Realm: consistently asserting personal validity in legal matters.
In the turbulent first hundred days of President Donald Trump's term, the Justice Department has been actively engaged in defending a barrage of emergency lawsuits. The department's strategy, quite simply, has been to back whatever the president wants, and when that doesn't work, they muddle the waters.
One tactic includes fast-tracking or skipping the traditional order of appeals in federal civil cases. Some ongoing disputes have been pushed straight to the Supreme Court or appellate courts as soon as the Justice Department can manage it. At other times, they've adopted an approach laced with fallacy or a selective reading of court orders, as demonstrated in the case of Judge Paula Xinis of the federal court in Maryland.
In the Xinis case, concerning the mistakenly deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court explicitly instructed Xinis to order the US to "facilitate" Garcia's return. Xinis remarked that the Justice Department's interpretation - little more than a willingness to send a plane to Latin America to retrieve him - was a redefinition of "facilitate" that contradicts the law and logic.
Some former Justice Department officials have suggested that the administration is driven more by a theory of power rather than legal theory. The Supreme Court has mandated the Trump administration to provide notice to detainees who are being sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, yet courts are now questioning if the administration's notice is sufficient. Concerns have been raised, including allegations that detainees may not even receive 24 hours' notice of removal, and that the notices are being given in English rather than Spanish, despite a Justice Department lawyer denying this in court.
A common refrain from administration lawyers since Trump took office has been to argue that the president's power is nearly irreprouchable - a theory that is likely to be tested at the Supreme Court. This has led to arguments in both public and court, asserting that Trump derives more power than judges because he was elected president. The president's mandate from voters has been used, most recently, during court arguments regarding his aggressive immigration program.
The administration's legal strategy has been criticized as one that relies heavily on obfuscation and bad faith. Ty Cobb, who represented Trump during the special counsel investigations, has stated that the bolder Justice Department lawyers become in difficult-to-defend cases, the more they risk losing credibility in court.
In some cases, the administration's actions wouldn't have been approved by legal checks within the executive branch, according to several former officials. For instance, the administration's executive orders against law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale are unlikely to have been approved by lawyers in the White House counsel's office or the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under any previous administration of either party.
Critics argue that the current administration's approach to the law is fundamentally flawed, asking not "can we do this," but "is anyone going to stop us?" A federal appellate judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who has been on the bench since the Reagan administration, has sounded this alarm, warning that the branches are coming too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. Wilkinson expresses the hope that the administration perceives the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.
- The administration's approach to the law in politics has been questioned, with critics suggesting it relies heavily on obfuscation and bad faith.
- The Justice Department's strategy under President Trump has been to back whatever the president wants, and when that doesn't work, they muddle the waters, as seen in the case of Judge Paula Xinis.
- Xinis' case, concerning the mistakenly deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, highlighted a redefinition of "facilitate" by the Justice Department that contradicts the law and logic.
- The administration's legal strategy has been criticized for skipping the traditional order of appeals in federal civil cases, with some ongoing disputes being pushed straight to the Supreme Court or appellate courts.
- Concerns have been raised over the administration's notice to detainees who are being sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, with courts questioning if the notices are sufficient due to allegations of inadequate notice periods and English-only documentation.
- The president's mandate from voters has been used in court arguments regarding his aggressive immigration program, asserting that Trump derives more power than judges because he was elected president.
- Some former Justice Department officials have suggested that the administration is driven more by a theory of power rather than legal theory, leading to arguments that the president's power is nearly irreprouchable.
- The administration's actions, such as executive orders against law firms, are unlikely to have been approved by legal checks within the executive branch under any previous administration of either party, raising questions about the fundamental flaw in the current administration's approach to policy and legislation.
