The Limits of Executive Power: Examining Constitutional Authority and Overreach
February 26, 2025 | Is A Constitutional Convention in the Cards…and More Critical Constitutional Questions
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, constitutional law expert and UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky provided critical insights into the evolving nature of presidential power and the role of checks and balances. The conversation focused on whether the United States is facing a constitutional crisis due to the Trump administration’s recent executive actions, particularly its resistance to court rulings and legislative oversight. Chemerinsky compared past executive challenges to the judiciary with the current administration’s actions, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of recent presidential assertions of authority. The discussion shed light on the dangers of executive overreach and the necessity of judicial enforcement in preserving the rule of law.
Historical Precedents and Presidential Power
Throughout U.S. history, presidents have clashed with the judiciary and sought to expand executive power. Andrew Jackson famously (though possibly apocryphally) defied the Supreme Court, while Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed court-packing after facing resistance to New Deal policies. However, Chemerinsky noted a key distinction—these presidents never outright defied a court order. Even Richard Nixon, despite his resistance to handing over White House tapes, ultimately complied when the Supreme Court ruled against him.
What makes the current situation unique, according to Chemerinsky, is both the sheer volume of unconstitutional actions and the explicit rhetoric from the Trump administration indicating a willingness to ignore legal constraints. The claim that a president can override the law to “save the country” challenges the very foundation of constitutional governance.
The Role of Executive Orders in Expanding Power
A major concern is the administration’s use of executive orders to bypass Congress and disregard court rulings. Chemerinsky highlighted several examples:
- TikTok Ban Extension: The Supreme Court ruled against the federal restriction on TikTok, yet Trump issued an executive order extending its operation by 75 days—effectively ignoring the ruling.
- Withholding Congressional Funding: The Trump administration has refused to allocate billions in federal funds authorized by Congress, violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which mandates that the president spend appropriated funds as directed by law.
- Foreign Aid Reductions: Trump recently announced a 90% cut in U.S. foreign aid, despite congressional mandates that such funds be allocated to international development programs.
Chemerinsky stressed that no president has the unilateral power to override congressional spending authority. While presidents have some discretion over enforcement priorities, they cannot ignore clear statutory obligations—a fundamental principle of separation of powers.
Comparing Trump’s Actions to Previous Administrations
Defenders of Trump’s approach argue that past presidents have also acted unilaterally. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Biden’s student loan forgiveness are cited as examples of executive overreach. However, Chemerinsky clarified the legal distinctions:
- DACA was based on prosecutorial discretion—choosing not to deport certain undocumented immigrants due to limited enforcement resources. This is different from outright ignoring federal statutes.
- Biden’s student loan policies were rooted in specific statutory authority (the HEROES Act). When courts ruled against Biden, his administration complied and sought alternative legal justifications—unlike Trump, who has disregarded direct judicial orders.
The Trump administration’s actions, therefore, represent a fundamental break from traditional executive authority.
The Supreme Court and the Future of Executive Power
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court will play a crucial role in determining the limits of executive power. Chemerinsky believes the Court is likely to rule against Trump on issues of spending authority, as precedent firmly establishes Congress’s control over the budget. However, other areas, such as presidential immunity and agency oversight, may see rulings that favor broader executive discretion.
The Risks of Unchecked Executive Authority
The greatest danger, Chemerinsky warned, is the erosion of judicial enforcement. If the administration continues to disregard court rulings without consequence, the entire system of checks and balances could collapse. The Constitution relies on voluntary compliance—if a president refuses to follow legal constraints and Congress fails to act, the rule of law is effectively undermined.
Ultimately, the conversation underscored a critical question: Will the American legal system hold firm against executive overreach, or are we witnessing the beginning of a constitutional crisis? The answer, Chemerinsky suggested, depends on whether the courts, Congress, and the public demand accountability.
Conclusion
Chemerinsky highlighted an urgent issue: the survival of constitutional democracy depends on enforcing limits on presidential power. The legal battles over executive authority will shape the future of governance in the United States, determining whether the rule of law remains intact or is eroded by unchecked executive actions.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.