Even before he became vice president, JD Vance argued more than once that officials should be able to defy court rulings they consider “illegitimate.” With this in mind, it was shocking but not surprising that after the Trump administration suffered a variety of legal setbacks in the courts, the Ohio Republican argued, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
His confederates followed suit. Pointing to a specific court defeat, Donald Trump told reporters that judges shouldn’t be “allowed” to issue such a ruling. Elon Musk and House Speaker Mike Johnson argued along similar lines.
As such Republican chatter renewed concerns about a “constitutional crisis” in the United States — one in which the White House considers itself, and not the judiciary, the final word on the rule of law — evidence has emerged of the administration taking steps that appeared to be, at a minimum, in conflict with court orders.
It’s against this backdrop that some Trump nominees for key Justice Department positions confronted some pointed questions about constitutional law. NBC News reported:
Several of President Donald Trump’s nominees for senior Justice Department positions faced questions from Senate Democrats on Wednesday about whether it would ever be lawful for a president to defy a court order, with the nominees largely suggesting they couldn’t fully answer without more specifics.
At issue were three nominees: D. John Sauer, a former Trump lawyer whom the president nominated to serve as solicitor general; Harmeet Dhillon, a former Trump lawyer whom the president nominated to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division; and Aaron Reitz, whom the president tapped to lead the Office of Legal Policy.
The trio faced similar questions about the scope of judicial authority, but none of the nominees offered a direct and satisfying answer.
Reitz, for example, was reminded about an old item he published to social media in which he appeared to suggest Trump ignore a Supreme Court order. Pressed on the point, he testified, “There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision. There are some instances in which he or she may be lawfully bound and some instances where he or she may not be lawfully bound.”
It would’ve been easy for Reitz to say something along the lines of, “Of course officials must honor court orders.” Instead, he appeared to leave the door wide open to a more Vance-like interpretation of our legal system.
Sauer’s answer was better, but it included a notable qualifier. “Generally, if there’s a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Pressed on his use of the word “generally,” he added, “I can’t think of a hypothetical one way or another.” Those looking for reassurances about the administration’s position were left wanting. In an unexpected development, Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana took a moment during the hearing to express a degree of sympathy for Democratic concerns. “Don’t ever, ever take the position that you’re not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever,” the conservative senator reminded the nominees. “Now, you can disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics, you can criticize it. You can appeal it, or you can resign.” If Trump’s Justice Department nominees agreed, they did not say so.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
