UC Davis students and law professors discuss the situation’s implications on the separation of powers
By GRACIELA TIU — features@theaggie.org
Since Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump and his administration have been working to move their agenda forward through various executive actions, many of which have been facing legal contestation. Executive actions include specific directives and general measures issued by the president regarding federal government functioning. If these actions are within the constitutional powers of the president, they do not require congressional approval, according to an NPR article.
However, the numerous legal battles surrounding these actions highlight the controversy over whether the president has the power to carry them out, raising significant constitutional questions and points of contention regarding the federal separation of powers.
Several checks on the power of the executive branch exist, including Congress’ ability to nominate judges and justices for federal courts and their ability to pass laws that can sometimes invalidate certain executive actions, according to a U.S. government website. A large check on the president on behalf of the judiciary is the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. This power, established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, gives federal courts the power to consider if certain actions taken by the executive or legislative branches are constitutionally permissible.
The lawsuits against Trump demonstrate a direct use of this power, with lower federal courts and, in certain cases the Supreme Court, hearing cases against the president or executive branch petitioned by states, organizations and various entities.
Adithi Sumitran, a fourth-year political science major and learning assistant for the UC Davis course POL 150: Judicial Politics — Constitutional Structure of Powers, described her view of the country’s system of checks and balances.
“When our founders decided to create a singular executive to lead the country, they were aware of the potential for abuse of that power — remember, they engaged in rebellion against a king,” Sumitran said. “However, they were largely hopeful that the system of checks and balances would prevent that. The legal pushback we’ve witnessed has on some level proven these checks to be valuable, but there’s always potential for someone to exploit the system to their advantage.”
Carlton W. F. Larson, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, discussed two of the possible effects that these lawsuits might have on the determination of who holds certain federal powers.
“These lawsuits will be important in determining whether the president can refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated and whether the president can fire all executive officials, including those for whom Congress provided longer terms and intended to be insulated from political pressure,” Larson said. “It is likely that the Supreme Court will recognize a broader power for the president to fire certain executive branch employees, but it is less likely that they will permit the president to unilaterally refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated.”
Information about the multitude of lawsuits against Trump and his administration comes out almost daily, with updates about ongoing cases being released and new cases coming up each week. Each case brings along important constitutional questions and potential future implications, and though it would be incredibly difficult to thoroughly describe the details of each and every case surrounding his executive actions, there are certain general categories of Trump’s agenda facing multiple suits and public scrutiny.
Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship is a significant part of his agenda that is currently facing legal pushback, drawing massive public attention and multiple lawsuits on behalf of several states and various immigrants’ rights organizations. Multiple federal judges have temporarily blocked the executive order, though the case could potentially be heading to the Supreme Court. Most of these suits bring the Citizenship Clause, located in the Fourteenth Amendment, into question, with many petitioners arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly enumerates birthright citizenship, according to a U.S. News and World Report article.
“Our courts have historically agreed that, barring a few exceptions, people born in the United States are citizens of this country,” Sumitran said. “Attempting to change that standard was always going to be challenged.”
Sumitran also delineated why Trump’s defense of the order has less legal and historical grounds for success and may not be implemented.
“In terms of key legal arguments, it’s hard to argue in favor of the order,” Sumitran said. “It would require overhauling the existing idea of citizenship in the United States, which follows the ‘jus soli’ system (people born in the country are citizens). There are some places where that’s not the case, but in the U.S., that’s been our policy for the last 200 years. Our court has undoubtedly shown a lot of favorability toward Trump in the past, but given the history of citizenship, I’m not sure they’d be willing to back this order.”
Another part of Trump’s agenda facing legal backlash is his creation and implementation of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. Though the Trump administration claims the department will aid in ensuring the federal government’s effectiveness, critics of the move argue against the creation of the department itself, Musk’s broad scope of power and the department’s ignoring of certain privacy protections.
The lawsuits against DOGE address multiple questions regarding federal law and the Constitution. Some suits bring up whether the department’s implementation and actions violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a federal law that regulates the establishment and operations of advisory committees, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Certain lawsuits also question whether the department’s handling of certain data violates a federal law that prohibits obtaining Americans’ data without their consent, and many have also brought Musk’s power into question as an unchecked, unelected official.
Larson summarized the legality of Trump’s authority relating to DOGE, specifically its clashing with Congress and existing departments and the questions surrounding Musk’s leadership.
“The president has no legal authority to create a federal department equivalent to the existing departments; That would require an act of Congress,” Larson said. “The president has greater authority to create units within the Executive Office of the President, where it seems DOGE is located. There is much that is unclear about who is running DOGE, its actual source of authority and what it is actually doing. That should become more clear as litigation proceeds.”
Larson described his thoughts regarding the question of whether DOGE infringes upon Congress’ authority to oversee government operations and budget allocations.
“It all depends on what exactly DOGE is doing, which is very hard to determine,” Larson said. “If it is basically an advisory council, making recommendations to Cabinet heads about how to do certain things more efficiently, it probably doesn’t create significant constitutional problems. However, if DOGE is itself directly laying off federal employees or cancelling federal contracts, it raises very serious constitutional questions. In court, the Trump administration is insisting it’s the former, but it is not clear whether those representations are true.”
Trump and DOGE have also been working to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which acted as a significant provider of foreign aid, implementing substantial staff and budget cuts, according to a BBC News article. Similarly to the other cases, the constitutional question at hand was whether Trump or Congress had this dismantling ability, but a federal judge ruled in Trump’s favor, according to an AP News article.
The president also signed a number of executive orders ending federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, not only facing backlash from the left but also raising various questions of constitutionality, especially concerning the First Amendment.
“I think that the executive actions that Trump took to end DEI initiatives in the federal government were completely unnecessary,” Sophia Cortez, a first-year political science major, said. “I agree with the legal arguments that ending DEI initiatives in the federal government is a complete violation of the First Amendment.”
Another executive decision facing legal issues is Trump’s ending of federal monetary support of gender-affirming care, which has temporarily been blocked by the courts. Though the action brings up many issues and opinions surrounding transgender rights and constitutionality, the order is facing issues particularly regarding Trump’s overstepping into Congress’ power of the purse.
“If Trump is able to end monetary support for gender-affirming care, this decision would be adverse for the separation of powers that currently exists in the federal government,” Cortez said. “It would set a precedent of granting far too much power in favor of the executive branch and impact future budgetary decisions, taking power from the legislative.”
A federal judge also temporarily blocked Trump’s executive order instituting a indefinite pause on refugee admissions, primarily due to conflicts with congressional power, according to a Politico article. The judge that issued the ruling outlined the issues with the order.
“[The executive order] has crossed the line from permissible discretionary action to effective nullification of congressional will,” U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead said.
Because of the power of judicial review, these lawsuits have the potential to generate significant pushback against Trump’s executive actions. Some organizations and states have already succeeded in winning their cases and freezing the actions temporarily. The coverage of these cases in the media also influences how the public views these presidential actions and signifies that, at the very least, the administration could be violating constitutional law. The decisions of the court could also establish legal precedents for future courts to follow, again leaving a lasting effect on our government’s operation.
The legal pushback against this administration’s actions and conflicting public opinion surrounding the cases denotes the deep partisan divide present in our country and widespread questioning surrounding the separation of powers and whether the inter-branch checks are sufficiently preventing an overreach of executive power.
As these UC Davis sources shared, there is widespread uncertainty about Trump’s scope of power and the constitutionality of his recent actions.
Cortez discussed how staying updated on current events helps her navigate through this uncertainty and stressed the importance of keeping up with these executive actions.
“I typically hear about the legal issues surrounding the Trump administration and their executive orders through a news subscription to the New York Times,” Cortez said. “I think it’s really important to stay informed about these things because they have very direct and measurable impacts on society, and even some personal impacts on people in my life.”
While the courts continue to rule on these cases, the American public will continue to see the extent to which a president can reshape and influence policy solely through the use of executive action.
Written by: Graciela Tiu — features@theaggie.org
