1k
499
0
199
388
3471A strong majority of Americans think the president should follow federal court rulings, even when they disagree with them, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The survey found that 82% of respondents, including most Democrats and Republicans, agree with the statement: “The president of the United States should obey federal court rulings even if the president does not want to.”
This finding comes as President Donald Trump’s administration faces criticism for ignoring a judge’s order to stop deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants. Despite the ruling, the administration allowed planes carrying the migrants to leave the country. When questioned about the move, immigration official Thomas Homan told Fox News, “I don’t care what the judges think.”
Support For Defying the Courts on Immigration
While most Americans back the courts, the poll shows that Republican voters are more willing to make exceptions when it comes to immigration. About 76% of Republicans said the Trump administration should continue deporting people it views as a threat, even after the court said to stop. Just 8% of Democrats agreed.
Trump won the November election, promising mass deportations, and has taken aggressive action on immigration since returning to office in January. His approval rating on immigration stands at 49%, the highest among the topics polled, while his overall job approval is 45%.
Experts Warn About Long-Term Risks
Legal experts say this open defiance could do lasting damage to the U.S. legal system. Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, told NPR that the courts have options if presidents don’t comply. “They can hold any litigant, including government officials, in contempt,” he said. That can include fines or even jail time.
Waldman said the bigger concern is the impact on the rule of law: “Ultimately, what will be the main tool is the recognition by this president and all presidents that the Constitution requires us to all follow the rule of law.”
Chief Justice John Roberts also weighed in after Trump called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, who issued the deportation halt. Roberts responded, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
Judges Facing Threats, Harassment
The conflict between the courts and the executive branch isn’t just legal—it’s getting personal. Judges and their families have been targeted with harassment, including fake bomb threats and “swatting” incidents. Federal Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed in a 2020 attack, said, “It does impact a judicial officer. We have emotions, we have fears, we have concerns for our family members and for our own safety.”
A Constitutional Crisis?
Legal scholars say the current situation is without precedent. J. Michael Luttig, a respected former federal judge, called it a constitutional crisis on MSNBC: “The president of the United States has essentially declared war on the rule of law in America.”
Some believe that last year’s Supreme Court decision granting Trump partial immunity for official actions has only emboldened his approach. Now, instead of working within legal limits, critics say the administration is pushing boundaries to see what it can get away with.
“They’re testing the fences,” said Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor. “Whether you call it a crisis or not, this is certainly an unprecedented degree of resistance on the part of the executive branch to adverse court rulings.”
While judges still have enforcement tools, many are warning that continued defiance of court rulings could break down trust in the legal system and result in long-term instability—something no branch of government can afford.
1k4990199
3883471
