Legal experts fire outrage at J.D. Vance after he falsely claims U.S. judges have no authority to keep the Trump administration within the boundaries of the law

Vance and Trump: Clueless in the capital (Getty)

 

Legal experts are putting heat on Vice President J.D. Vance -- essentially suggesting he needs a refresher course in constitutional law -- after he falsely claimed U.S. judges do not have the authority to keep the Trump administration in check. On top of that, we learned in recent days that President Donald Trump is clueless about the constitution he is sworn to uphold. How comforting.

From a report at The Guardian under the headline "Outrage after JD Vance claims judges are not allowed to check executive power; Vice-president accused of threatening constitution after saying judges have no right to restrain president’s agenda:

JD Vance, the US vice president, has been accused of threatening the US constitution after telling judges who have issued rulings temporarily blocking some of Donald Trump’s most contentious executive orders that they “aren’t allowed” to control the president’s “legitimate power”.

Vance’s intervention came after Judge Paul Engelmayer, a US district court judge, issued an injunction stopping Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) unit from accessing the treasury department’s central payment system in search of supposed corruption and waste.

Engelmayer’s ruling triggered an angry riposte from Vance, a graduate of Yale law school, who claimed judges had no legal right to restrain the president’s agenda and compared it to telling a military commander how to act on the battlefield.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” he wrote.

“If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

In fact, article III of the US constitution confers a power known as judicial review, which gives federal judges the authority to rule on cases involving the president, as well as other branches of government.

Vance’s comments drew widespread criticism.

Daniel Goldman, a Democratic representative from New York, responded on X: “It’s called the ‘rule of law’. Our constitution created three co-equal branches of government to provide checks and balances on each other (‘separation of powers’).

“The judiciary makes sure that the executive follows the law. If you do, then you won’t have problems.”

Quinta Jurecic, a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, told The New York Times: “What Vance’s wording suggests is that the executive could potentially respond to a court order by saying to the court, ‘You’re unconstitutionally intruding on my authority and I’m not going to do what you say.’

“At that point, the constitution falls apart.”

Trump has previously been happy to embrace rulings on his actions by judges if they ruled in his favor. He has frequently applauded Aileen Cannon, a Florida judge he appointed in his first presidency, for her orders restricting the investigation into him carried out by the former special counsel, Jack Smith.

The injunction against DOGE for seizing treasury information was granted after 19 attorneys general in Democratic states filed a lawsuit. It complained that Musk’s entry into the treasury system – which holds the bank accounts and social security numbers of millions of Americans – was unlawful. A hearing has been set for 14 February. The payments system processes trillions of dollars of government spending and handles multiple functions, including tax refunds, Social Security payments and benefits for Medicare and Medicaid.

The ruling also provoked an outburst from Musk, the multibillionaire entrepreneur whose attempt to seize control of public spending has been denounced as a coup by Democrats.

“A corrupt judge protecting corruption. He needs to be impeached NOW!” posted Musk.

Trump joined the criticism, telling journalists onboard Air Force One en route to the Super Bowl in New Orleans on Sunday that “we’re very disappointed with the judges that would make such a ruling, but we have a long way to go”.

He indicated his administration was prepared to fight negative rulings. “No judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision. It’s a disgrace.”

Judges do not have authority to make decisions that go against the Trump administration? All Americans -- MAGA or otherwise -- should be concerned that we find ourselves with a president who is that clueless about the Constitution. And it should not come as a surprise to anyone. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump said he intended to act outside the law, mainly by seeking revenge-driven prosecutions against his perceived enemies.

That is against the law, as we have reported on numerous occasions.  On top of that, it was well known on election day that Trump was a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a confessed sexual abuser, Now we know Trump is clueless about the Constitution he is supposed to uphold, with news outlets reporting that we are headed for a constitutional crisis. Our nation is likely to pay a steep price if that unfolds.

Trump has been in a rush to throw out executive orders -- many that might not have grounding in the law -- and his frenzied state of mind now has led us to the edge of a cliff many of us have never seen before. And to think, he has not even been in office for a month. How much worse can things get on his watch? From The Guardian report: 

Engelmayer’s ruling is one of nine court orders issued against the administration in response to about 40 separate cases filed as the federal courts have emerged as the main bulwark against Trump’s headlong rush to remake the US government's federal bureaucracy and assert his vision of an imperial presidency.

Court orders have temporarily stayed Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants, as well as his effort to transfer transgender female inmates to male-only prisons. Judges have also delayed White House attempts to freeze up to $3tn in federal spending and uncover the identities of FBI agents who worked on the investigation into the January 6 insurrection, as well as DOGE’s efforts to cajole federal workers into submitting deferred resignations.

Last Friday, a Washington district court paused the attempt to put 2,200 staff from USAID, the foreign assistance agency, on administrative leave and recall its overseas workers within 30 days. The judge, Carl Nichols, also ordered the temporary reinstatement of 500 staff previously put on leave.

All of this raises these questions: What thought, if any, did Trump put into issuing these executive orders? Does he even care if his actions are unlawful?