The Supreme Court Building on 1 First Street, NE. Original image from Carol M. Highsmith’s America, Library of Congress collection. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.

In mid-March, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This is despite the fact that Mr. Garcia was barred from being deported under an order from a judge. Since this event, the Judiciary has been hitting back at the Trump administration for violating Mr. Garica’s court order and judge Xinis demanded the executive to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Mr. Garcia. The supreme court review judge Xinis’ order by reaffirming the executive branch has to “facilitate” Mr. Garcia’s return. Currently, the ball is in the Trump administration’s court. This series of events is leading to a possible constitutional crisis.

The Al-Jazeera article shed light on this possibility as they interviewed Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor. Frost noted three dangerous steps that would turn the fear of a constitutional crisis into reality. 

First, the executive needs to issue a decision that violates the law. This has been fulfilled with the illegal deportation of Mr. Garcia, despite his court protections. Second, the judiciary must intervene to tell the executive that they are breaching the law with their action. Judge Xinis and the Supreme Court pushing back against the executive branch checks this condition. Third, which Frost notes as the most dangerous, is “the executive responds by rejecting the court’s authority, refusing to follow its ruling even after exhausting all appeal options” (Dwayne Oxford). Fortunately, this has not occurred yet. However, whereas the ball is in the Trump administration’s side of the court, all we can do is wait and see. 

If the executive branch decides to undermine the court’s authority and open the pandora’s box, it would lead to a multitude of problems. The most important is the erosion of norms. Most notably, the norm of institutional forbearance. This is the norm where a politician performs “the action of restraining from exercising a legal right”. While the executive has the right to ignore the courts, doing so would lead to the rapid deterioration of the rule of law. The loss of the rule of law can quickly break the United States as Citizens can face deportations if the administration deports quick enough before the judiciary can respond. 

Frost notes that the weakening of the rule of law would affect the economy, however I would argue that the economy shouldn’t be the primary issue. Going down this path really means the erasure of the United States as a country. The foundation of the country is the constitution, which provides legitimacy to the state. If the government doesn’t even respect its own constitution and continues to act against it, then the state doesn’t have any legitimacy to govern over the American people. 

By going around the judiciary branch, the administration would be subverting the constitution of the United States. This would de facto break the social contract between the American people and the federal government. After all, why should Americans follow a government that continues to breach the terms and conditions of a signed contract that acts as a binding fabric between all sectors of American society?

Link to Al-Jazeera Article : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/16/trump-v-us-courts-are-judges-pushing-back-against-controversial-orders