|
The Founders built safeguards into the constitutional system to guard against any one branch of government becoming all-powerful: If the president overreaches, Congress is supposed to stop him. If Congress fails to do its duty, the courts are supposed to intervene. If a lower court gets it wrong, the Supreme Court will set things right.
That is how the system is supposed to work.
But constitutional rights are only as meaningful as the remedies available when government violates them, and increasingly those remedies come with strings attached: You must have standing. Your case must not be moot. You must prove that you were personally and directly harmed. You must sue the right government official in the right court at the right time. You must survive questions of jurisdiction, immunity, procedure and remedy before anyone ever reaches the underlying question of whether the government had the constitutional authority to act in the first place.
Lawyers understand these distinctions.
People whose rights are being violated experience these distinctions differently. To them, it can feel like having the courthouse doors shut in their faces.
This is not to say that standing, jurisdiction and other limits on judicial power are meaningless technicalities. They are part of a constitutional system intended to keep courts from becoming roving commissions empowered to settle every political disagreement.
The judiciary is not supposed to govern the country.
Neither is the president.
That is the whole point of dividing government power among three separate, coequal branches.
Our constitutional system depends upon each branch restraining the others.
Yet when Congress refuses to assert its authority, the Executive Branch overreaches and the courts intervene only after increasingly difficult procedural hurdles have been cleared, the balance of power begins to collapse.
This is how freedom falls and tyranny rises.
The White House ballroom is not an isolated dispute. It is a particularly visible example of government by fait accompli.
This has become Trump’s go-to method for sidestepping the rule of law: delay, deflect, deny, and run out the clock until he can claim it’s too late to put things back the way they were.
Governments have relied on this tactic for years, but Trump has turned it into a governing philosophy: Act. Escalate. Delay. Appeal. Keep going. And force everyone else to catch up.
The result is a constitutional system increasingly incapable of preventing government misconduct before the harm occurs.
That distinction matters.
A court ruling issued years after the fact may establish an important principle. It may vindicate someone whose rights were violated. It may even prevent the government from repeating exactly the same conduct in exactly the same way.
But it cannot always undo the harms the government has already inflicted.
You cannot un-deport someone after the government has wrongly removed them from the country. You cannot un-search a home. You cannot un-collect a person’s DNA. You cannot make a surveillance database forget where someone traveled. You cannot restore privacy once the government has mapped a person’s movements.
You cannot restore months someone wrongly spent behind bars. You cannot restore a destroyed building. You cannot give back the life of someone killed by government agents.
You cannot un-launch a war.
In such cases, justice delayed is not merely justice denied. Justice delayed can become justice rendered irrelevant.
This is the problem when courts that were established to serve as Courts of Justice too often function like Courts of Order—more concerned with preserving government authority and institutional stability than with safeguarding the rights of the people.
This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court.
When presented with difficult constitutional questions, the Court too often ducks, remains silent or speaks to the narrowest possible concern. It refuses cases whose underlying constitutional questions desperately need answers. It invokes doctrines of standing, immunity, jurisdiction and procedure that can prevent injured Americans from ever receiving a ruling on the merits of what government did to them.
Too often, the benefit of the doubt goes to the government and the powers of the police state, but the danger has evolved. It now extends far beyond police searches, excessive force and qualified immunity.
We have entered an age in which the government can act far faster than the constitutional mechanisms designed to restrain it.
Recent Supreme Court cases illustrate how complicated—and dangerous—this problem has become.
Consider President Trump’s sweeping tariff schemes.
Trump imposed massive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, claiming that an emergency statute enacted by Congress decades earlier gave the president authority to effectively rewrite American trade policy.
Businesses paid the tariffs. Consumers absorbed higher costs. Supply chains shifted. Investment decisions were made. Foreign governments retaliated. And while the legal challenges worked their way through the courts, the tariffs remained in effect.
The administration itself warned the Supreme Court that delay could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs being collected and international economic arrangements becoming increasingly difficult to unwind.
Eventually, in February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the president did not have the authority he claimed to impose tariffs under that particular statute.
That was an important victory for the separation of powers, but consider what had already happened by the time the Court drew the constitutional line: The money had been collected. The prices had changed. The businesses had adapted. The trade relationships had shifted.
And what was Trump’s response? He responded by turning to different statutory authority in an effort to impose similar punitive tariffs.
When you’re dealing with entities with no regard for the rule of law, an arrogant belief that the laws do not apply to them, and a determination to find other routes to accomplish substantially the same thing, the damage cannot simply be erased by a judicial opinion.
Immigration enforcement presents the same problem in even starker terms.
Under the Trump administration, immigrants have repeatedly found themselves detained, transferred and deported while courts were still trying to determine what process the Constitution required.
While litigation over Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act made its way through the courts, dozens of detainees were flown out of the United States and sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador before they had received meaningful opportunities to challenge the government’s claims against them.
Other immigrants were subjected to a policy allowing the government to deport them rapidly to third countries—not necessarily their countries of origin—with little notice and no meaningful opportunity to explain why they might face persecution, torture or death there.
Eventually, in some cases, justice has prevailed, but due process that arrives after deportation is not much process at all.
You cannot meaningfully exercise the right to be heard after the government has already put you on a plane. You cannot easily restore a person to their family, community, job or legal position after they have been expelled from the country. And you cannot pretend that a later judicial declaration fully repairs the harm.
This is government by fait accompli in its most brutal form: Act first. Force the individual to fight for review. Appeal every adverse ruling. Keep the machinery moving. And rely on the fact that by the time the courts finally determine what the Constitution requires, the government may already have accomplished what it set out to do.
Even victories for constitutional limits can therefore arrive with an asterisk.
This is tyranny by technicality.
The Court may eventually say the president exceeded his authority. It may eventually recognize that a search implicates the Fourth Amendment. It may eventually insist that immigrants receive due process. But the tariff may already have been paid. The data may already have been collected. The immigrant may already have been deported. The institution may already have been dismantled.
The injury comes first. The remedy comes later. Sometimes much later.
Consider the Court’s ruling this summer in Chatrie v. United States, involving the government's use of a geofence warrant to obtain location information about every cellphone found within a particular area surrounding a crime scene.
The Court rightly recognized that accessing this vast trove of location information constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. That was an important victory for privacy, but even there, the Court stopped short of finally determining whether the government's search was constitutional, sending the case back for further proceedings.
Meanwhile, the search happened seven years ago. The data was collected. The defendant was identified, prosecuted and convicted. The constitutional answer came later. Much later.
This is the pattern.
Surveillance outruns the Fourth Amendment. Immigration enforcement outruns due process. Military deployments outrun congressional oversight. Executive orders outrun legislation. Presidential action outruns judicial review.
By the time the constitutional system catches up, the government has often already changed the facts on the ground.
Yet what good are rights when the courts intervene only after the damage has been done?
And what good is Congress when its members abandon their constitutional duty to check the Executive Branch and instead vote along party lines to rubberstamp whatever their side chooses to do?
The courts were never intended to be the first and only line of defense against an overreaching president.
Congress is supposed to act before the damage is done. It controls the purse. It writes the laws. It conducts oversight. It can compel testimony, investigate abuses, restrict appropriations and refuse to give the executive branch powers it has no business possessing.
Yet increasingly, members of Congress behave as though their constitutional responsibility begins and ends with supporting or opposing whichever party controls the White House.
That is abdication of the worst kind.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly responded to questions about controversial actions by the Trump administration by pleading ignorance, insisting he does not know enough to comment, has not looked into the matter, has not been following it, or regards it as outside his area of responsibility.
That kind of excuse should be unacceptable from any member of Congress, regardless of party.
“I don’t know.” “I haven’t looked into it.” “That’s not my area.” Those may be acceptable answers from an ordinary citizen. They are not acceptable answers from the people elected to Congress to safeguard the constitutional balance of power.
Members of Congress do not get to declare government abuse outside their “wheelhouse.”
Their wheelhouse is the Constitution. Their job is oversight.
Their responsibility is to “We the People.”
If members of Congress cannot be bothered to know how government power is being used, to investigate credible abuses, to challenge unconstitutional actions or to defend the rights of the people they represent, then they are not doing the job they were elected to do.
If they cannot be bothered to fulfill that responsibility, voters should find representatives who will.
While Congress looks away and the courts deliberate, the machinery of the police state keeps expanding.
Automated license plate readers such as those operated by Flock Safety have proliferated across the country, creating vast networks capable of documenting where millions of Americans travel.
For years, these systems were sold as efficient tools for fighting crime.
Only now, after the infrastructure has become widespread, are politicians and communities across the political spectrum beginning to ask harder questions about who can access the information, how broadly it can be shared, how long it can be stored and how easily a system built for one purpose can be used for another.
The backlash is welcome, but it is also late.
The cameras are already there. The databases already exist. The information has already been collected. Once surveillance becomes normalized, promises of restraint are poor substitutes for enforceable constitutional limits.
The same is true of immigration enforcement.
ICE raids intensify. Detention centers expand. Federal agents operate with increasingly militarized equipment and tactics. Case in point: ICE is buying thousands of electric-shock gloves capable of delivering painful electrical pulses and moving to acquire robot dogs equipped with cameras and sensors for enforcement operations.
Each new weapon, technology and detention facility increases the government's capacity to act before meaningful oversight ever occurs.
None of this happens in a constitutional vacuum.
Congress funds it. Congress authorizes it. Congress can investigate it, restrain it, condition the money and demand accountability.
Too often, Congress does none of those things.
The same congressional unwillingness to act has allowed Trump to treat the National Guard as a presidential domestic police force, deploying troops into American cities amid protests, immigration operations and claims of public disorder.
No matter the reason, the precedent should alarm anyone who understands why the Founders feared standing armies and concentrated executive power.
A president should not be able to normalize military deployments against civilian populations simply because Congress prefers not to pick a fight with the White House.
Yet again, the government acts first. Congress watches. The courts deliberate. The precedent takes hold.
Government power has a way of outliving the emergency, administration or political coalition that first demanded it.
Today’s crime-fighting database becomes tomorrow’s immigration-enforcement tool. Today’s immigration-enforcement tool becomes tomorrow’s political surveillance system. Today’s Republican police-state power becomes tomorrow’s Democratic police-state power, and back again.
The names change. The machinery remains.
This is not merely a Trump problem.
That point cannot be emphasized strongly enough.
Donald Trump is exploiting weaknesses in the constitutional system with an aggressiveness few presidents have matched, but every president has benefited from powers accumulated by his predecessors.
George W. Bush expanded the surveillance state and the war presidency in the aftermath of 9/11. Barack Obama inherited those powers and enlarged many of them. Donald Trump inherited them. Joe Biden inherited them. Trump inherited them again.
This is how presidential power grows: amassed by each administration and passed on to the next. Very little of it disappears when administrations change.
This is why partisan celebrations of executive power are so shortsighted. Give your president the authority to bypass Congress, surveil Americans, invoke emergency powers, deploy military forces, punish political enemies or govern by unilateral decree and you have also given that authority to the president you fear most.
|
