Warning shot from the US Supreme Court: Follow the rule of law

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

―John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

At issue was a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, staring down the barrel of the presidential invocation of a very iffy 1798 law, the “Alien Enemies Act.” The law is a section of the Alien and Sedition Acts, only used three times in American history – the last time being the concentration and imprisonment or relocation of Japanese people and Americans of Japanese heritage during the Second World War.

Avoiding, for the moment, the controversy surrounding that use of the law, the law itself is of questionable constitutionality. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as quoted in The Hill, use of the act in this manner is “at odds with centuries of legislative, presidential, and judicial practice, all of which confirm that the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority.”

But let’s sweep all of that aside.

President Donald Trump has threatened to use this law since it first came to his attention during the campaign ― and it should come as no surprise that he tried to do so in deporting a group of Venezuelans he identified as members of a brutal gang. It should also come as no surprise that the federal judiciary was waiting for a case in the law’s application, and when one emerged, ruled for a pause in its use pending further investigation.

What does come as a surprise is what happened next.

Screaming on social platform X, Trump called the judge a “Radical Left Lunatic,” a “troublemaker and agitator” and shrieked for his impeachment.

Enter the chief justice.

When the boss of the United States Supreme Court decides he needs to intervene in a political discussion ― which this one has never done unprompted by legal action, cases or pleas ― you are in serious trouble. In an environment where the legislature is utterly spineless and moribund in protecting their own powers, where the bureaucracy is laid waste by mass firings, the judiciary remains the final arbiter and guardrail against the massive excesses of the executive.

And it is active, robust and engaged. Rolling Congress is a popular pastime of the executive branch; but taking on the federal judiciary ― even rhetorically ― by threatening to erase its members is playing with nuclear-grade fire.

Justice Roberts’ warning is a shot across the bow: Don’t mess with the bull.

The issue at hand is the rule of law, the jurisprudential enforcement of the rules and practice of due process, and the resistance of the administration to the rulings of federal judges. You can disagree with a federal judge, but you ignore their ruling(s) at your peril. Ask Richard Nixon, who commanded far higher real loyalty in Congress than Trump and actually entered office with a real mandate. His party turned on him overnight, like rabid weasels, when he tried this “strategy” on for size.

They did so because the American people, whatever their political leanings or policy preferences, hold the judiciary, rightly, as hallowed, as the final protection of the rights of all Americans.

To his credit, Trump knows this, announcing on FOX News last Monday night that “you can’t” just disregard judicial rulings. There is no “constitutional crisis” – both sides are engaged in court, and while you may not like what they are saying, they are saying it in exactly the appropriate place.

Trump has experienced a great deal of latitude from the high court. But he fully knows, in my opinion, that that latitude will evaporate in an instant if he decides to shirk the rulings of the judiciary. At any level.

R. Bruce Anderson is the Dr. Sarah D. and L. Kirk McKay, Jr. Endowed Chair in American History, Government, and Civics and Miller Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Florida Southern College in Lakeland. He is also a columnist for The Ledger and political consultant and on-air commentator for WLKF Radio.

This article originally appeared on The Ledger: Warning shot from the Supreme Court over the rule of law | Anderson