Trump can say to the Supreme Court: “The ball is in your court now!”
Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The first few weeks of the second Trump administration have been an blur of executive measures aimed at radically changing the federal government as we have known it. The administration has conducted major changes in the structure, size, purpose and management of federal agencies with controversial funds, everything from President’s executive order to one Financing “Freeze” is imposed by Office of Management and Budget to high -speed attacks on data data systems and financing flows carried out by Elon Musk’s Pirate DogE operation (now legitimate by a Trump executive order gives them a mandate to make deep reductions in the federal labor force).

Those who are upset by Trump’s President Blitzkrieg – everything from advocate groups to non -profit organizations financed by federal authorities to the state and local authorities that often manage federal programs – have gone to court. Bit by bit, Federal judges has begun to make unusual claims about the executive authority in anticipation until they can be examined, with a, Rhode Island -based district court John McConnell, which indicates the entire agenda for executive power play May have to stop.

There is currently a lot of fear that the administration will simply defy the legal government and immediately trigger a constitutional crisis. This is partly based on a comment from vice president JD Vance claims Powerlessness of federal judges to stop “legitimate” deployments by the executive authority. There is no doubt that such an attitude would be met with cheers from MAGA activists who are ready to storm courts, just like the “patriots” on January 6 stormed the capital. But we’re not there yet, and for all bluster, Trump’s lawyers are for the Ministry of Justice signal compliance with legal orders (albeit slow and sometimes partially compliance) and is appealing judge McConnell’s decisive to the first appealed court instead of simply ignoring it. For all performances, the administration will continue its claims of major executive powers all the way to the US Supreme Court, with its Trump-friendly conservative majority. But it is good to have a sense of the main legal theory that Trump promotes.

There are two main arguments for hugely expanded presidential power that we can expect the administration to do. The first, which is the key to Trump’s claim that he has the right to fire federal employees at any time and redirects what they do, is known as the uniform executive theory. The theory grows out of a dissensence of fair Antonin Scalia in a 1988 Supreme Court case is the theory that Article II Initial statement that “the executive power should be devoted to a president of the United States of America” ​​means all Executive powers should be controlled by the president, despite the efforts of Congress over the years to horns into executive functions. A favorite among the conservative legal movement that goes back to Reagan administration, at least a limited version of the uniform executive theory was eventually embrace of the current Supreme Court as one of the foundation of its extension of the president’s immunity in Trump v. USA. The Court decided that Trump’s use of “exclusive presidential powers” over the legislative system placed its alleged abuse of such powers to try to reverse its choice of 2020 selection out of reach of Congress or Prosecutor.

What Trump’s lawyers are likely to urge the court to do is to recognize an extended doctrine of the uniform CEO who will give him full authority over all federal CEO- Includes those employed by the so-called “independent agencies” as the federal Federal Trade Commission or Federal Reserve System – regardless of congressional regulations that confess to protect or control them.

It is unclear what the Supreme Court will decide. They could, as Scalia did in his original Dissens from 1988, limit full presidential power over executive employees to “Officials in the United States,” Usually interpreted as Those who exercise “significant authority”, Which would enable congressional protection for civil services in order to run the bureaucrats. They could simply let the White House do as it wishes with federal employees who do not perform congress mandates, or that work in areas that are closely associated with presidential power as foreign issues. Or they could go the whole pig and make Trump the king of everything he investigates in the executive branch.

Probably Trump’s lawyers will take what they can get from the Supreme Court before considering any direct challenge to the legal authority. But there is a separate one about closely associated legal theory that Team Trump wants to strive for as no doubt is even more important: the theory that the president has the unlimited power to turn off (ie refuse to spend) congressive appropriations. This idea, loved by OMB director Russell Vought (which was also one Main co -authors to Project 2025 And a advocate for truly revolutionary executive powers) suggests that the president’s power to “carry out” laws include determinations of exactly how many dollars are necessary to do so. He claims that congress agents represent a “roof” but not a “floor” on expenses and that laws (especially they Action Control Act from 1974 from 1974passed to stretch the waste of Richard Nixon) Limiting the president’s ability to introduce “tax discipline” in Washington is in fact unconstitutional.

This is the constitutional justification for OMB “financing freezing” and potentially for a federal budget that is completely dictated by the Trump administration in violation of Congress’s article I is to “add and collect taxes, information, settings and cuts, pay the debts and Prescribe the US joint defense and general welfare. “Known as the” expenditure power “, this congressional pre -performance has repeatedly been confirmed by the Supreme Court, and that it would really be a sign of a Maga Supreme Court. but Trump’s lawyers can hope for a partial victory that gives the president power over funding for certain functions that are central to the executive authority (again, such as foreign issues or national defense).

The public is, of course, not teachers of constitutional law, and as shown in Trump’s election victory, is not extremely worried about his eternal claims of total power and his willingness to use his office for unclear purposes as personal revenge. So as litigation continues, you can expect Trump and his allies (including congressional republicans, which at least publicly Does not object to at all to Trump’s approach At their own expense) to assert the wonderful benefits of dictatorial rule over “bureaucrats” and “wasteful expenses” while his opponents Brandish Law Books in one hand and consider the public’s concern about the effect on popular federal programs with the other. It will be a wild trip all the way to the Supreme Court.