Topline
Fears the U.S. is in a “constitutional crisis” have ramped up among Trump critics and legal experts in recent days, as one judge ruled Wednesday there’s probable cause the White House intentionally ignored a court ruling, while another judge seeks the government’s compliance with a Supreme Court order.
Key Facts
A “constitutional crisis” happens when “one branch of the government ignor[es]” another branch’s “legitimate orders,” retired federal judge Nancy Gertner told NPR, though legal experts differ on where the line is.
Some experts argue a president disobeying a court order or acting unlawfully would qualify as a crisis, while others suggest the president would have to specifically defy a Supreme Court ruling and present a scenario in which the Constitution does not outline what should be done.
Now, a pair of legal developments have renewed scrutiny of the issue, as the Trump administration faces allegations of defying court rulings governing the removal of migrants to El Salvador.
Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday there’s “probable cause” the Trump administration committed criminal contempt by intentionally defying his March 15 court order barring the government from deporting migrants under the Alien Enemies Act—as the Trump administration sent more than 200 people to El Salvador under that law, with flights landing after Boasberg’s ruling came out.
Judge Paula Xinis has separately ordered the Trump administration to provide more information about how it’s complying with a Supreme Court ruling ordering the government to “facilitate” returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
The Trump administration admitted it accidentally deported Garcia, a Maryland resident, to El Salvador, and officials have so far resisted taking steps to return Garcia to the U.S. despite the Supreme Court’s order.
The Trump administration, for its part, has denied it’s intentionally violated any court rulings, arguing it didn’t violate Boasberg’s order because the flights had already left U.S. airspace by the time the judge issued his written ruling, and that its hands are tied in Garcia’s case because he’s now in El Salvador’s custody—and if the government there was willing to return him, the Trump administration would “facilitate” it by providing a plane, thus complying with the Supreme Court.
What Is A Constitutional Crisis?
There’s no “fixed definition” of the term “constitutional crisis,” Northeastern University professor Dan Urman said in 2024, though it’s broadly taken to refer to a clash between the various branches of government. Within that, though, there are a range of opinions about where exactly the threshold of a “constitutional crisis” falls: Washington Post columnist David Ignatius told The Atlantic he believes it’s “when the president defies the Supreme Court,” for instance, while Harvard Law School professor Ruth Greenwood said at a February panel discussion she “think[s] you only start calling something a constitutional crisis if the Constitution is not equipped to handle what is happening.” Columbia University law professor Jamal Greene told The New York Times he thinks the definition is more liberal, saying, “A president who does whatever he wants until someone stops him is a constitutional crisis whether or not he is sometimes stopped.”
Is The U.s. Now In A Constitutional Crisis?
Legal experts are also divided when it comes to whether the Trump administration has done enough so far to plunge the country into a constitutional crisis. Some experts have long said the Trump administration’s actions constituted a crisis even before the latest debates over the El Salvador migrants, with Boston University law professor Jessica Silbey saying back in February that Trump was creating a constitutional crisis by “openly resisting the plain meaning of laws that we have accepted for a long time.” Legal experts are largely in agreement that the Trump administration is defying the Supreme Court’s ruling by not returning Garcia to the U.S.—despite the government’s protestations that it is following the law. Katherine Hawkins, senior legal analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, told Courthouse News she “[doesn’t]
think any good faith interpretation” of the Supreme Court’s order on Garcia “allows the administration to say, ‘We’re not actually going to do anything to facilitate his return home.’” For some experts, the situation still isn’t enough to reach a full-blown constitutional crisis: Since court proceedings over Garcia’s case are still ongoing, there’s still a constitutional path forward. Others believe the administration’s actions are already past that point. “If anyone is being detained or removed based on the administration’s assertion that it can do so without judicial review or due process,” Greene said, “the president is asserting dictatorial power and ‘constitutional crisis’ doesn’t capture the gravity of the situation.”
What Has The Trump Administration Said About Following Court Orders?
The Trump administration has broadly criticized federal judges for exercising sweeping authority over the president’s actions. Vice President JD Vance said in February that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” while White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in response to Boasberg’s ruling blocking deportation flights, “A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.” At the same time, the administration has also repeatedly insisted it has not and will not defy court rulings: Leavitt said in the same statement the administration “did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order” because Boasberg’s ruling came out after the migrants “had already been removed from U.S. territory.” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Axios, “the Administration remains fully compliant with Supreme Court rulings” when asked about its compliance with the Garcia case. Trump himself told Fox News host Laura Ingraham in March he “never did defy a court order.” “No, you can’t do that,” Trump added when asked if he would defy the courts in the future, before telling reporters on April 11 he would follow the Supreme Court’s ruling on Garcia. “If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back I would do that,” Trump said. “I respect the Supreme Court.” The president was noncommittal when asked Thursday if he would bring Garcia back to the country, however, only saying, “I’m not involved in it … You’ll have to speak to the lawyers, the DOJ.” He also deflected when asked about Boasberg’s contempt ruling, saying, “You’re gonna have to speak to the lawyers.”
What Happens Next?
The dispute over the Trump administration is still playing out in court: Boasberg has asked the Trump administration to say by April 23 whether they intend to try and erase his contempt finding by returning migrants to the U.S. from El Salvador, or else they must identify who made the call to ignore his ruling so they can be prosecuted for contempt. Criminal contempt is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment if found guilty, though legal experts told Forbes Trump could likely pardon any officials who are sentenced. Xinis has given the Trump administration until the end of the month to provide evidence showing it’s complying with the Supreme Court’s order to facilitate Garcia’s removal. If it doesn’t, the judge has suggested she could also start contempt proceedings, as Garcia’s attorneys have asked her to do. Should the Trump administration escalate its defiance of court rulings and present an unequivocal constitutional crisis with no set recourse in the Constitution, legal experts say it’s unclear how things could play out. “Your guess is as good as mine,” University of Minnesota political science and law professor Timothy Johnson told local outlet KARE 11 when asked how Trump’s refusal to follow court rulings could end. “We are absolutely in uncharted territory where you have a president that says, I won’t listen.”