By Rola Riachi WASHINGTON, Feb 16 (KUNA) -- President Donald Trump's executive orders in addition to shifts in US government signal a possible constitutional battle with the judicial authorities as the current situation is viewed as acts of overstepping and encroachments.
Trump's issuing of some "unprecedented" executive orders such as denying birthright citizenship as well as decisions by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, had led the Federal Court to halt execution and deliberate many of those controversial steps.
The founders of the United States of America, after declaring independence from Britain in July 1776, separated authorities into three executive, legislative, and judicial branches each given certain authorities with no encroachment on each other.
Despite confrontation between former US Presidents and legal authorities in the past, the current dilemma signals a possible wide scale battle with the executive authority attempting to expand its jurisdiction in the US.
In his first days in office, President Trump issued an executive order to cancel birthright citizenship, leading those affected to seek legal action, which in turn led a federal court judge to temporarily suspend the order until the court of cassation looks into the matter before relaying it to the supreme court.
This matter is the clearest example of contention between the executive and legal authorities with the executive order seen as a clear violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Going down in the ladder, the conflict between DOGE and those affected by measures taken by the department, which included termination of contracts and entering other departments' databases, was another headache and possible constitutional battleground.
On the firing of employees, a federal judge postponed the deadline for government employees to voluntarily leave their jobs with benefits, which affected 2,500 workers including 500 who already were terminated. The judge also extended the period of this verdict.
Regarding DOGE's meddling into departments' data, a federal judge denied DOGE employees from entering the financial and personal data of millions of Americans in addition to that students in the University of California managed to attain a verdict that denied DOGE from gaining entry to their data, which is viewed as a federal violation of privacy.
Elon Musk reacted unfavorably towards the verdicts, claiming in a post on X that the judge was "protecting" corruption, a matter, which required removing the person from his post.
Vice President JD Vance also took a swipe against the judicial system, saying in a statement on X that the court could not control or intervene in executive orders.
Trump did not stand on the sidelines, he took offense to the courts' decision against DOGE, saying that it was a "sham", but indicated that he would abide by it and would seek legal action.
Commenting on the tit-for-tat, legal expert Jessica Levinson spoke to CNBC and questioned how far the President could go solely with executive decisions, bearing in mind that the US three authorities were founded to counter the British royal system.
She indicated that the decisions could be tackled by the federal court due to their controversial nature, noting that any decision or legal action could not surpass the constitution.
On whether DOGE could terminate employment, reach data, or restructure departments, Levinson revealed that the situation was different.
In over 220 years, it was understood that federal judges had a role to play towards notifying the executive branch and Congress over any overstepping of authority, stressing that judges had the last say in such matters.
The current butting of heads between the executive and judicial branches warn of a severe constitutional dilemma, especially with Trump have an upper hand both House of Congress, which leaves the judicial authority as the only obstacles in the face of the President and his administration. (end) rsr.gta