T
he recent actions of the Trump Administration over the weekend have raised significant concerns among Democrats and legal experts, sparking fears that the anticipated constitutional crisis, once considered a distant possibility after Trump’s election, is now becoming a reality.
On Saturday, federal authorities defied a ruling from Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which ordered the halt of deportation flights for Venezuelan detainees. Instead, these flights continued to El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, proudly announced that the 238 detainees would be held for at least a year at the nation’s Terrorism Confinement Center. Bukele’s social media post, “Oopsie … Too late,” was later echoed by officials from the White House. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed his gratitude for Bukele’s actions, conveniently ignoring the judge’s directive.
A similar scenario unfolded in Boston, where a federal judge issued a restraining order to prevent the deportation of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a medical professor at Brown University, who was returning from Lebanon with a valid visa. Despite the judicial order, she was still deported.
These incidents collectively suggest a troubling trend within the Trump Administration, hinting at a willingness to disregard judicial authority for the sake of achieving policy goals. This behavior aligns with a broader pattern where Trump and his supporters have consistently sought to challenge judicial power, often bypassing court rulings or openly criticizing judges.
According to Kim Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and former assistant U.S. attorney, the nation is “far beyond” facing a constitutional crisis. She states, “A constitutional crisis arises from the accumulation of unchecked power in one branch of government. The Trump Administration has been neglecting Congressional actions for weeks,” drawing attention to the President’s disregard for Congress’s financial authority by withholding federal funds and arbitrarily dismissing federal employees and high-ranking officials.
While other legal experts share concerns, they hesitate to label the administration’s behavior as an outright crisis. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, acknowledges the administration’s actions as a challenge to the courts but refrains from calling it a constitutional crisis.
“I’m hesitant to label it a constitutional crisis because I am waiting for them to explicitly state, ‘We will no longer comply with court orders,’” Frost explains, who leads UVA’s Immigration, Migration, and Human Rights Program. “They haven’t made that declaration yet. While their actions may skirt legality, they have, for the most part, complied.”
She adds, “I find their approach troubling and feel they are being disingenuous, but I wouldn’t claim they’ve definitively crossed the threshold into outright refusal to adhere to the rule of law.”
Nevertheless, signs of open defiance are beginning to emerge. White House officials indicated that the judge’s order was issued after the planes transporting Venezuelan migrants had already left the U.S. Tom Homan, the White House “border czar,” dismissed the weekend’s court rulings, asserting they were issued too late to have any real impact.
“We’re not stopping,” Homan declared. “I don’t care what the judges think.”
When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to clarify Homan’s remarks, she insisted that the Administration was complying with the court order, even though the flights carrying Venezuelan deportees had landed in El Salvador mere hours after the judge instructed Justice Department attorneys that the flights should return to the U.S. “We are confident in our position and believe we will prevail in court,” Leavitt assured reporters. She also questioned whether a verbal order holds the same weight as a written one.
Federal judges are contemplating how to handle cases that could potentially reach the Supreme Court. Judge Boasberg has scheduled a hearing for Monday evening to determine whether the administration violated his ruling. In Massachusetts, Judge Leo T. Sorokin has demanded an explanation from the government regarding Dr. Alawieh’s deportation, which appears to contravene his order.
The Administration claims it invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a rarely used wartime law—to deport Venezuelans identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang, circumventing due process. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled against the administration’s use of emergency powers in immigration and border security matters, yet officials have continued actions that many perceive as undermining judicial authority.
Concerning Dr. Alawieh, who has Lebanese roots, the Department of Homeland Security stated that she “openly admitted” her support for a Hezbollah leader to CBP agents and attended the leader’s funeral. “A visa is a privilege, not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa denial,” the statement asserted. The official White House account on social media remarked, “Bye-bye, Rasha,” alongside a waving emoji. Alawieh was sent back to Lebanon, despite the judge’s order to keep her in the U.S. for a court hearing scheduled for Monday.
Legal experts warn that allowing such blatant defiance to go unpunished could significantly undermine the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. “There is a substantial concentration of power in one entity,” Wehle cautions. “This suggests that Donald Trump is defining the law and determining who benefits or suffers under it.”
“The system of checks and balances is eroding,” she adds.
The Trump Administration is actively framing both the deportations and its noncompliance with judicial orders as triumphs for the American public. Social media posts from administration officials and pro-Trump supporters have celebrated these deportations. One post featured a video of detained individuals being escorted onto planes, with the 1998 Semisonic hit “Closing Time” playing in the background.
