The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Free Press Symposium on "Is Donald Trump Breaking the Law?"
The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.

Today, the Free Press published a symposium on "Is Donald Trump Breaking the Law?"
Participants include (in addition to myself), several prominent constitutional law scholars and legal commentators : Jonathan Adler (Case Western/Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger), Aziz Huq (University of Chicago), Larry Lessig (Harvard), Andrew McCarthy (National Review), Michael McConnell (Stanford), Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center), and yours truly.
The editors of FP summarize the contributions, as follows:
The consensus is striking—and perhaps surprising, given the ideological diversity of these contributors. All agreed that the president's legal tactics reflect a dangerous willingness to ignore statutory and constitutional constraints—and that he must be reined in quickly.
Speaking for myself alone, I think I have never before been part of an ideologically diverse symposium on a contentious topic where I agreed with over 90% of what the other participants said. But I do here, despite major ideological differences with all the others (except, probably, Adler). If I have a disagreement, it may be with Larry Lessig's argument that the best analogy to Trump's behavior is that of Mafia bosses. I think that comparison is a bit unfair to the Mafiosi, and the better analogy is to various nationalist authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians. But I do agree that what Lessig says is illegal is in fact so.
It's perhaps notable that two of the contributors (Huq and Lessig) are far to the left of me, and two others (McCarthy and Whelan) are far to the right. McConnell is also substantially more conservative than I am, but probably to a lesser degree than McCarthy and Whelan.
Skeptics can argue that FP cherry-picked the participants. But it's worth noting that Free Press is generally viewed as a right-leaning "anti-woke" publication. They've even been criticized for being excessively friendly to the MAGA movement and overly tolerant of its excesses.
Here's an excerpt from my own contribution:
The second Trump administration is trying to undermine the Constitution on so many fronts that it's hard to keep track. But three are particularly dangerous: the usurpation of Congress's spending power; unconstitutional measures against immigration justified by bogus claims that the U.S. is under "invasion"; and assertions of virtually limitless presidential power to impose tariffs….
Trump has claimed the power to "impound" federal funds expended by Congress, and to impose conditions on federal grants to state governments and private entities that Congress never authorized. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, not the president….
On immigration, Trump has issued an executive order claiming illegal migration amounts to an "invasion," thereby authorizing him to suspend most legal migration. The order is at odds with overwhelming evidence indicating that, under the Constitution, "invasion" means an "operation of war" (as James Madison put it), not mere illegal border crossing or drug smuggling. The invasion order threatens not only immigrants, but U.S. citizens….
Similar bogus invocations of "invasion" have been cited by Trump to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—legislation that can only be used in the event of war, "invasion," or "predatory incursion"—to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process to imprisonment in El Salvador….
The administration's claims that courts are powerless to order the return of illegally deported and imprisoned people menace not only immigrants, but American citizens. Under Trump's logic, they, too, could be deported and imprisoned abroad, and courts could not order their return.
Finally, Trump has usurped congressional authority over international commerce to impose his massive "Liberation Day" tariffs, thereby starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression, and gravely damaging the U.S. economy….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump is not just going to shops and putting things in his jacket. Everything Trump does is out in the open and based up by an officially promulgated legal theory of how it is a legitimate use of his powers backed up by other recognized legal scholars. It might not be a theory you agree. Also a lot of stuff is still working it's way through the courts. if this counts as breaking the law. Then so is any official who does something novel I don't like. Not to mention countless other officials who for example write laws clearly flouting the letter and intent of the first and second Amendment against doctrine that has already been settled and continue to look for ways to undermine the Constitution even after they are slapped by the courts. Or the countless pols whocircumvent our immigration laws that make Trump's actions necessary in the first place.
Trump decides what he wants to do and then asks his lawyers to find spurious but plausible legal justifications so that cultists can repeat them in defence of Dear Leader.
Trump isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do. (Has he ever read a book? I doubt it.) Rather, he is susceptible to being influenced and manipulated by his flunkies, including the Project 2025 gang. He is essentially reading from a script prepared for him in advance by the cultists and their lawyers.
So the cultists tell him what to do, and he tells the cultists. A regular perpetual-motion machine.
The cultists are the ones who claim that a billionaire who was twice elected President and nearly so a third time "isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do." This is just trash talk gone metastatic. A guy up in the bleachers pointing at somebody getting the gold medal at the Olympics and yelling "Clumsy!". It's a claim that beclowns everybody who makes it.
Is Trump breaking the law? Yes, OF COURSE he's breaking the law! Name a President in the last 50 years who didn't break the law in some way! Maybe Ford and Carter. Maybe. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and, yes, Trump, all broke the law.
The more interesting question is whether he breaks the law to different ends and a different degree than most Presidents. But asking that requires acknowledging that Presidential lawlessness is endemic in this country.
Yes. That is literally what lawyer's are for.
Like, that's alao how most people operate - what do I want to do and how can I do it without breaking the law.
No, that’s not what lawyers are for. No, that’s not how Trump operates.
"No, that’s not what lawyers are for."
I assume you mean that normatively, because no way is that a reasonable empirical claim.
Doge is not open about what they are doing or accessing or planning.
They are pulling visas and telling no one so they can grab people with no notice.
RIFs come to agencies with no warning or explanation.
This is hardly a transparent administration.
Please remind us how you felt about Biden trying to cancel student loan debt, out in the open and based up by an officially promulgated legal theory of how it was a legitimate use of his powers backed up by other recognized legal scholars.
That was actually one of the things I was disappointed about with a trump victory. Ate out a bit too much and was a little too irresponsible and not ambitious enough. Before you know it got a big ball and chain and I was hoping for some of Dem gimmiedats to wipe it all away.
Stupid Trump
He didn't actually have that legal theory.
His plan was 'well, we'll do it again and again because it'll take the courts a few months to stop me'.
A better example would be Obama and Obamacare - tons of sneaky procedural bullshit to make that happen - but all *technically* legal.
Like the Senate gutting and amending a House bill so they could pretend the House originated a revenue bill, then Roberts covered their ass by calling it a penalty.
I wouldn't call that legal, but I wouldn't call most of FDR's New Deal legal either. Doesn't matter though, it's the courts which decide, and I'll give Sarcastr0 another chance to pick nits when I say that's just another example of how Rule of Law is just a fig leaf covering up Rule of Men.
That happens very regularly, both by Republicans and Democrats. If the bill says "H.R.", it originated in the House. (Otherwise how would the President know where to send it when vetoing?)
As an extra safety, though, the Senate usually uses a revenue bill as a legislative vehicle. Affordable Care Act used "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." This is a revenue bill, and "the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills".
Plus, there is a convincing argument that the Origination Clause can only be enforced by Congress.
"Like the Senate gutting and amending a House bill so they could pretend the House originated a revenue bill, then Roberts covered their ass by calling it a penalty."
That actually got Roberts' "penaltax" stupidity backwards. The Court simply doesn't give a damn about gutting and amending to let the Senate originate revenue bills. Under the "enrolled bill" doctrine, they flatly and expressly refuse to look at those sorts of procedural irregularities. It doesn't matter how much proof you have, they won't look at it.
The actual constitutional problem with Obamacare, (Well, the one in question here, there were plenty.) was that it levied a "penalty" without benefit of trial. It literally CALLED the penalty a "penalty" in the law, remember?
And Roberts construed the penalty to be a tax to save its constitutionality. Literally, the exact opposite of what you wrote.
Oh hey, it's BrettLaw but some other schmo is doing it.
All of which was true. And when The Court blocked one avenue for cancelling debt Biden tried another, which is something people are allowed to do when told one method is invalid. That doesn't stop them from trying another. It's not like the Court said Thou Shalt Never Under Any Circumstances cancel debt.
As for the relative merits of the two presidents, one attempted to cancel student debt. The other is throwing people into El Salvador prisons without due process. I kind of prefer the former. Cancelling debt has biblical support. Throwing people into prison without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, less so.
Right, one was attempting to void valid debts in order to transfer them to people who hadn't incurred them. The other was attempting to enforce laws despite an engineered resource scarcity. I prefer the latter. But I really dislike the means chosen, and Trump ought to expend more effort publicly shaming Congress for failing to properly fund the system.
>The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.
Might be an indication that their ideological differences aren't all that great - or they're just 'Orange-man-badding' like everyone else does.
Because, surprisingly, the courts - at least above the district levels - keep siding with Trump on all but details. So he can't be that far out of bounds.
There's a cross-ideological belief that Trump is awful, but that's to be expected: Trump is a wrecking ball the GOP base is using to bust up a pathological political establishment, (Not saying he's not using them, too, to his own ends.) and the Republican intelligentsia are heavily entangled in that establishment.
It's been really impressive seeing a number of long term 'conservative' Republicans of that class jump ship and move over to the Democratic side of the aisle over this.
the courts - at least above the district levels - keep siding with Trump on all but details.
That's...a take.
We've passed the point of Trump breaking the law in the sense of violating it and come to the point where he is breaking the law in the sense of damaging it to the point of rendering it inoperable.
Judge Wilkinson's opinion underscores the courts' difficulty--they must act with deliberation while the executive can move with dispatch. In a struggle between the two branches, time is very much on the President's side. Such is why heeding Alito's complaints that SCOTUS is acting prematurely would amount to surrender. Unless the courts can act prospectively, a rogue executive will serve up fait accompli after fait accompli that will render any ruling moot.
He's innocent until proven guilty, and has not broken laws yet.
Not all lawbreaking is criminal, and Trump the private citizen ≠ Trump the POTUS. Trump the private citizen has been convicted of so many crimes, you could be forgiven for thinking that's the subject when "Trump" and "breaking the law" appear in the same sentence. It just happens to have nothing to do with what barryajacobs is discussing. He's referring to Trump's lawbreaking as POTUS, which may or may not be criminal, and even if the acts in question are criminal, SCOTUS has so inoculated Trump from liability that any talk of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. That said, of course he's broken laws already.
Imagine if all that talent and effort went into doing something good for people’s, building homes like Jimmuh Cartuh(and during his break takes care of the Guinea Worm) taking out poor Haitians Cataracts like Rand(y) Paul, or working at the “Free” Clinic like I do once in a while
I am sure we will you will be talking about how the judiciary has ignored its own statutory and constitutional constraints, issuing midnight ex parte orders with no jurisdiction.
What statutory constraints?
What constitutional constraints?
What do you believe ex parte means, and how does it apply here?
What is the jurisdictional issue, in your view?
You just write legalish sounding things.
Skeptics can argue that FP cherry-picked the participants.
"Skeptics" or anyone even casually familiar with the names of the participants. Trump's approval among conservatives is probably 95% or better. If you were to ask for a list of anti-Trump conservatives, the names Michael McConnell, Ed Whelan, and Andrew McCarthy would be near the top because they have all been engaging in anti-Trump tirades for years. They have zero credibility or influence in the conservative movement outside their own tiny circle of Trump haters. But the Free Press just couldn't find a single "legal expert" to express a counterpoint.
These are all anti-Trump clowns whose only audience is each other. If the Democrats win the House in 2026, there is a 100% chance they will impeach Trump for a third time. For what? They don't really care; any flimsy pretext will do. And, when that impeachment happens, there will also be a 100% chance that every participant in this symposium will fully support it.