Trump Fails at Separation of Powers*
The U.S. president has so far encountered relatively little resistance during his second term. Yet, the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship proves the court is not acting as an extension of the executive branch.
The United States was the first country to permanently adopt the separation of powers doctrine which establishes a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch. But does this system still function in the United States? Since Donald Trump began his second term, there have been grounds for concern.
Congress rarely defies the president. Republicans are too afraid of the personal consequences defiance would bring. Prosecutors pursue Trump’s political enemies at his behest, and the Supreme Court justices have sided with Trump in several cases. The court granted him immunity from criminal liability for his official acts. The high court has recently issued a decision that effectively diminished the achievements of the civil rights movement. And its decisions have backed Trump’s anti-immigration policies.
In recent months, however, it has also become clear that despite its conservative majority, the court will not simply rubber-stamp every decision the Trump administration makes. It did not allow Trump to deploy the National Guard to certain cities, and it struck down his tariffs. Now, the highest court in the land has taken a stand against the president on another key principle, by ruling that Trump cannot change the definition of U.S. citizenship by executive order.
Trump wanted to amend the constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States
The president sought to end “birthright” citizenship for children born in the United States if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of the birth. The majority of the justices took the view that Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment. It was not a political judgment, but purely came down to considering whether Trump's presidential decree was compatible with the Constitution and the law. As such, they proved that they were not acting as an extension of the administration.
The justices rule in Trump’s favor if they find the law affords them sufficient latitude. But they will not do so if they consider it unlawful. Ordinarily, you might take such a thing for granted. In the Trump era, however, it’s encouraging news — and a fitting gift on the 250th anniversary of the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence.
*Editor’s note: This article can be read in its original language with a subscription.
The United States was the first country to permanently adopt the separation of powers doctrine which establishes a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch. But does this system still function in the United States? Since Donald Trump began his second term, there have been grounds for concern.
Congress rarely defies the president. Republicans are too afraid of the personal consequences defiance would bring. Prosecutors pursue Trump’s political enemies at his behest, and the Supreme Court justices have sided with Trump in several cases. The court granted him immunity from criminal liability for his official acts. The high court has recently issued a decision that effectively diminished the achievements of the civil rights movement. And its decisions have backed Trump’s anti-immigration policies.
In recent months, however, it has also become clear that despite its conservative majority, the court will not simply rubber-stamp every decision the Trump administration makes. It did not allow Trump to deploy the National Guard to certain cities, and it struck down his tariffs. Now, the highest court in the land has taken a stand against the president on another key principle, by ruling that Trump cannot change the definition of U.S. citizenship by executive order.
Trump wanted to amend the constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States
The president sought to end “birthright” citizenship for children born in the United States if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of the birth. The majority of the justices took the view that Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment. It was not a political judgment, but purely came down to considering whether Trump's presidential decree was compatible with the Constitution and the law. As such, they proved that they were not acting as an extension of the administration.
The justices rule in Trump’s favor if they find the law affords them sufficient latitude. But they will not do so if they consider it unlawful. Ordinarily, you might take such a thing for granted. In the Trump era, however, it’s encouraging news — and a fitting gift on the 250th anniversary of the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence.
*Editor’s note: This article can be read in its original language with a subscription.
Previous article![]( "The US-Iran Conflict and Decline of US Hegemony")
Next article![]( "Ankara Summit: A Turning Point for NATO and the US")