[Shortened and Edited for Clarity]
In the first months of President Trump’s second presidency, I have watched the administration repeatedly test the boundaries of the enumerated powers granted to the executive branch by the U.S. Constitution. While the public reaction to these actions often suggests that President Trump is setting unprecedented constitutional norms, a closer look at Supreme Court precedent tells a more familiar story: American presidents, not just Trump, have sought to expand, test, or exceed the limits of their constitutional authority.
When these challenges arise, the burden of preservation falls on the judiciary. Time and again, it is the courts, the judges who sit on them, that serve as the institutional safeguard of the democratic governance and federalist principles upon which America was founded. Thus, in this reflection, I will highlight two contemporary constitutional challenges posed by actions of the Trump administration and compare them with historical Supreme Court cases addressing similar tensions. The purpose is to highlight that the tension between presidential ambition and constitutional restraint is not new. While President Trump may be using new techniques, the overall question of federal overreach, is one the United States Supreme Court has had to handle numerous times.
I. Funding Freezes and the Limits of Executive Authority
The Trump administration’s decision to defund or pause funding from various federally authorized programs including but not limited to USAID, the Departments of Education and Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and many others, presents a compelling example of potential executive overreach. Can a president unilaterally restrict congressionally approved funding for programs with which he disagrees?
America’s Congress answered this question in 1974 with the passage of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The ICA was passed to prevent, then, President Nixon from abusing his authority to impound the funding of programs he politically opposed. It establishes specific procedures that a president must follow to delay or cancel federal spending, including notification to Congress through formal “special messages.” The Trump administration’s actions to withhold funds without the notification of congress violates the act and may be unconstitutional per judicial scrutiny.
This controversy echoes principles articulated in the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. 1 In that case, President Franklin D. Roosevelt defended the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) as a necessary response to revive the American economy following the economic devastation of the1929 Great Depression. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the statute, holding that Congress could not delegate broad legislative powers to the executive branch under the guise of economic necessity. Essentially, the president cannot pass laws in an attempt to fix the economy.
When President Trump decided to withhold federal funding from various, previously approved, organizations, the provided reason by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was curtailing government spending and improving the economy. An economically virtuous goal. Regardless, just as FDR could not impose industrial codes on local businesses to revive the US economy, I believe President Trump cannot withhold congressionally appropriated funds simply because his administration seeks to reduce government spending or improve fiscal efficiency.
As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote in the Court’s majority opinion: “The President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal.” While a funding freeze is not itself a law, it cannot be allowed to function as a substitute for legislative authority, no matter how honorable the goal may seem.
II. Civil Service Protections and Due Process
A second constitutional challenge arises from the Trump administration’s dismissal of federal employees who are protected under civil service laws. While civil servants may lawfully be terminated for misconduct or performance deficiencies, the process for doing so is deliberately structured and procedurally demanding. These safeguards exist to prevent politicized firings and preserve institutional continuity.
If the administration wished to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, lawful mechanisms existed to pursue that objective, though they would have required time and adherence to procedural norms. Instead, the Trump administration’s approach appears to bypass these processes, firing these workers anyway, in a manner that seems illegal.
A useful comparison can be drawn to the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning. 2 This case questioned the powers of the President, then Barack Obama, to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board during pro forma Senate sessions i.e a period when formal business is not conducted but congress is technically still in session. Although the goal was virtuous, to ensure the Board could function and persecute Noel Canning, a violator of federal labor laws, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the appointments violated the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, reversing the appointments.
The lesson from Noel Canning is clear: even well-intentioned executive actions must comply with constitutional process. Had President Obama followed the proper confirmation procedures, the Board’s authority might have remained intact. Instead, his circumvention of the Senate rendered the appointments invalid and prompted then–Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe the move as a “brazen power grab.”
The same principle applies to President Trump. Regardless of his objectives, whether efficiency, fiscal restraint, or bureaucratic reform, executive action cannot disregard due process without risking constitutional violation. Failure to respect these constraints invites judicial intervention and undermines democratic legitimacy.
The role of the Judiciary as Constitutional Backstop
Despite these challenges, there is reason for Americans to be optimistic. The judiciary remains the final institutional foothold and safeguard against executive overreach. As mentioned in my introduction, it is the courts and the judges, who time and again come to the rescue, preserving the citadel of democracy that America claims, the city upon a hill. True to this, throughout the month I have read news of various district courts ordering injunctions to block President Trump’s orders that exceed constitutional authority. These decisions underscore the reason why the Judiciary must be protected and remain the independent block in our political world.
Finally, from my analysis above, it should be clear to any reader that President Trump’s actions of the past few months are not unique in design, they may be wide in scope. Still, this pattern is not new. Courts have historically intervened when presidents, of both parties, have pushed beyond constitutional limits. The current moment, therefore, is less an anomaly than a reaffirmation of constitutional design.
There are some commentators, academics and political activists who warn, earnestly, that the United States is sliding toward authoritarianism. History suggests a more measured conclusion. Presidential ambition and constitutional tension are recurring features of American governance. What matters is not the absence of conflict, but the resilience of the institutions designed to resolve it.
The American constitution has endured because its checks and balances function. It may be imperfect, but it is persistent. And if history is any guide, I believe it will continue to do so.