Trump’s head-on collision with judiciary

In every successful democracy, the strength of governance stems from a careful balance of powers.

The United States, a global symbol of democratic ideals, is built on this equilibrium – executive, legislative, judicial branches operating independently yet cooperatively, guided by a constitutional framework. But that balance is now under strain, as a growing tension between the executive and the judiciary has raised deep constitutional questions.

President Donald J. Trump, now serving his second non-consecutive term, recently criticized what he describes as “unlawful nationwide injunctions” issued by “radical left judges,” arguing they are undermining the authority of the presidency and the will of the electorate. He insists that in times of national crisis, the president must be allowed to act quickly – even unilaterally – to safeguard the country, and that legal challenges to executive orders should not be permitted to bypass the constitutional weight of his office.

This debate is not merely political; it is structural. It calls into question the role and limits of executive orders, the authority of the judiciary to block them, and whether there is sufficient parity in how different levels of government and courts interact in the hierarchy of power.

Executive orders are not new, but their scope and frequency have expanded in modern presidencies. They allow the president to manage the operations of the federal government and respond to immediate national needs. Especially during emergencies – whether related to national security, public health, or economic stability – executive orders are essential tools to act swiftly, often ahead of or in lieu of slower legislative action.

Yet, if a president is bound only to act within what already exists in the legal framework, what then is the purpose of having the power to issue executive orders at all? The very existence of such a power implies that there are moments when existing laws fall short of responding to new, urgent situations. In such cases, the president must have room to maneuver for the greater public good.

There’s a strong case for executive orders – especially those that contradict existing law or operate in a gray legal area – to include a built-in time limit. This would serve as a safeguard, ensuring they are truly temporary emergency measures, not enduring bypasses of legislative authority.

A defined time-frame ensures the executive order remains a stopgap measure, compelling the administration to seek congressional approval or legislative validation if the policy is to become permanent. Moreover, this temporary status allows the judiciary to assess the order’s constitutionality within a reasonable period without undermining the president’s ability to respond quickly in emergencies.

The judiciary’s role in this context is crucial. Federal judges, particularly those in district and appellate courts, are entrusted with upholding the Constitution and checking any executive or legislative actions that exceed their authority. But that check must be proportionate to the source of power it reviews.

This raises a critical point often overlooked: parity in the review structure. If an order is issued by a low-level executive functionary, it may be reasonable for a district court to review and potentially block it. If a cabinet secretary or department head issues a directive, perhaps a state or federal appellate court would be the proper level to intervene.

But when an executive order comes directly from the President of the United States, should it be subject to immediate blocking by a district court judge? Many argue that orders of such magnitude should, in fairness and hierarchy, be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court or at least be escalated there quickly. Otherwise, it disrupts the principle of parity between branches—allowing lower courts to halt top-level executive decisions without proper constitutional balance.

This is not just theoretical. If we reverse the logic, it would be absurd to imagine that a lower-level government officer could nullify a Supreme Court ruling, or that a district-level executive could defy a constitutional verdict. The judicial verdict of the Supreme Court applies to all levels of government, just as presidential orders, by nature, carry nationwide implications. Therefore, a system of proportional review – where the level of the court matches the authority of the order – should be a principle embedded in the judicial framework.

The president, though the head of state and chief executive, is not above the law. But equally, the courts – especially the lower ones – must exercise judicial restraint when intervening in actions taken by a nationally elected leader acting in good faith and in perceived national interest. Such a process would maintain checks without creating imbalance, and preserve both the urgency of executive action and the sanctity of judicial review.

Congress too has a role to play. It could legislate clearer limits or frameworks on the use and duration of executive orders – particularly those used in emergencies. It could also define jurisdictional thresholds, specifying which courts can hear challenges to presidential-level directives. By doing so, it would remove ambiguity and potential inter-branch friction.

Moreover, there must be continuous dialogue between branches – not in confrontation, but in coordination. The executive must respect judicial decisions, but the judiciary must also recognize the executive’s constitutional responsibilities, especially in fast-moving, high-stakes situations.

Democracy is not static. It evolves through questions like these. The strength of the American model lies in its ability to allow disagreements, test institutions, and still produce stability. But that strength is only preserved if each branch remains within its constitutional limits, while respecting the functional authority of the others.

Executive orders serve a purpose. Judicial review protects against abuse. Parity in power ensures no one branch – whether judge or president – can dominate the republic. What’s needed is a reasoned system: one where emergency executive actions are time-bound, proportionally reviewed, and constitutionally sound; where the judiciary upholds its duty without overreach; and where Congress ensures laws remain relevant to the times.

This is a defining moment for American democracy. Not because of who is in office, but because of how the system responds to constitutional strain. The issue is not whether the president should have power – but how that power should be used, checked, and respected. The issue is not whether judges should review presidential decisions – but whether they do so in a manner consistent with institutional parity and constitutional order.

If emergency executive orders are issued, let them be temporary but effective. If they are challenged, let the appropriate level of the judiciary handle them. And above all, let the guiding principle be the rule of law, not the rule of one branch over another.

In doing so, America will not just resolve a constitutional standoff – it will reaffirm its commitment to the democratic balance that has kept it strong for over two centuries.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025