The federal judiciary system in the U.S. exists to solve disputes between executive powers made by the president while interpreting the Constitution; calling for the impeachment of those who interpret how the law functions is not an effective mode for dealing with dissent.
On March 15, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the act allows the president to detain or deport citizens and native people of an “enemy nation.”
James Boasberg, the Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled hours later Trump could not invoke such an act. Per NPR, Boasberg ordered the administration to turn planes that were already carrying deportees around.
The following Tuesday, March 18, Trump called for the impeachment of Boasberg, claiming in a Truth Social post, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
This is a worrying problem for Americans because Trump’s reasoning could be applied to any person who disagrees with his orders. If a judge blocks his actions, Trump could simply say such a judge should be impeached. That rhetoric damages the integrity of the court system because it encourages district and federal courts to conform to Trump’s idea of the law.
A court system that complies with every Trump order does not operate under democratic ideals. It serves an authoritarian system whose leader becomes its king.
According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of people satisfied with the way democracy works in their country has declined by 10 percentage points in the U.S. The Trump Administration continues to have success with its rhetoric and orders because Trump has leverage on a country increasingly dissatisfied with the way its government works.
According to PBS, Trump deported the Venezuelan migrants who were alleged gang members. Trump is willing to disobey the orders of federal courts to enact his agenda, even if the function of those courts is to check his presidential power. If he is willing to disobey the District Court’s orders, there are lengths that he will go to that the American people have yet to see.
A future where judges cannot oppose the president’s actions without consequence eliminates the power of dissent critical to U.S. democracy.
North Carolina Central University notes that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “Dissents speak to a future age. It's not simply to say, 'My colleagues are wrong, and I would do it this way.’” Writing a dissent is writing for the ambitions of tomorrow. That is its function. It is to express a disagreement, but it is not to express a motion for silence.
On Tuesday, The Hill reported that Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said in a press conference, “We do have authority over the federal courts. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is willing to act.”
The rhetoric Trump and his allies employ, wishing to silence their opponents, is a dangerous way to deal with disagreement. The power of federal and district courts is immense because they impose limits against a president seeking complete authority over the government. In the face of massive changes to the federal bureaucracy, the power of peaceful dissent must stay.
Aiden is a freshman studying journalism. Please note that the views expressed in this column do not reflect those of The Post. Want to talk to Aiden? Reach him on Instagram at @aiden_with_an_i_ or email him at ar260223@ohio.edu.
