The arrest of a Wisconsin judge in his rooms on Friday is only the most recent and dramatic effort of the Trump administration to intimidate the judiciary. He follows the gaming book from other countries where those looking for authoritarian power sought to withdraw the judges and reduce their authority.
President Trump and those around him know that at this stage, the only real control over his actions will come from the courts. Neither the congress nor the members of its administration have shown a propensity to guarantee compliance with the law. Asset posted his disdain On X and its Truth Social platform: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.”
Dozens of federal judges have issued temporary ban and preliminary injunctions interrupting the actions of Trump unconstitutional and illegal since its inauguration on January 20. The president's response was to attack so cheeky judges because he violated the law. When the judge of the American district court James Boasberg made a temporary prohibition order prohibiting the flights taking supposed gang members in a maximum security prison in Salvador, Trump described him as a “radical left leaving a judge, a disorders and a agitator” which should be implemented.
In fact, the Republicans of the House of Representatives have introduced dismissal resolutions against Six judges of the Federal District Court who ruled against Trump's policies. The Constitution allows judges to be dismissed only for “betrayal, corruption or high crimes and crimes”. In an extraordinary public statement, the chief judge of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., said: “The indictment is not an appropriate response to the disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The Republicans know, of course, that their attempts will fail. Even if the Chamber adopts the indictment resolutions, there is no means that two thirds of the Senate would vote to withdraw the judges from the functions. But that lacks the goal of attacks: they send a message that the Trump administration will go after those of the bench that block its policies and a message to the country that the courts cannot stop it.
Chamber Mike Johnson joined intimidation. Speaking of the congress, he said: “We have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have the power of financing on the courts and all these other things. ” No one thinks that Congress is about to eliminate federal courts, but Johnson wants to intimidate and discredit them.
The arrest by the FBI of the county judge of Milwaukee, Hannah Dugan, in her courtroom, for having pretended to help an immigrant undocumented to avoid arrest after having appeared before the court, is the tactic of the most blatant fear to date. The sight of federal officials putting a handcuffed judge is undeniably frightening.
Historically, immigration officials do not stop people with business in a courthouse. It is important that witnesses and parties in disputes can manifest themselves and participate in the legal system without fear of arrest or expulsion. Likewise, so far, hospitals, schools and churches have been prohibited for immigration and customs application. People should be able to ask for medical care, take their children to school and worship without fear. But the Trump administration sends ice in all these places.
Unsurprisingly, this creates a conflict between the federal government and other levels of government, including, allegedly, the Wisconsin judge. The administration could have verbally condemn the judge or if a large jury indicate it, which would have been scandalous. Public security was in no way served by Dugan at the courthouse. This was fully done for media attention.
The attack on the administration against the judiciary, taken in collaboration with its exorbital executive requests of law firms, represents a challenge to the rule of law contrary to anything in American history. But what he and his allies do is not unknown.
I used to start my courses in constitutional law by asking students to read the American Constitution and the non -disseminated Soviet Constitution of the Stalin era. They have always been surprised by the much more elaborate rights statement in the Russian document compared to that of America. I also made them read a description of the murders of Stalin and the gulags.
Why, did I ask, has a country become a police state when the other did not do it? The answer, I suggested, was that in the Soviet Union, no court could or invalidate government's actions. Words on paper do not make sense if they are not enforceable.
The Trump administration goes beyond the limits of the executive power to weaken and discredit the only railing left against its authoritarianism – lawyers, judges and courts. Those of all political parties and ideologies must speak loudly and clearly: these attacks are false and must stop. Our constitutional democracy depends on an independent judicial power which applies the law against all those who violate it.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is a writer contributing to opinion voices.
