Platohagel: Would states that barely elected president Trump and with those that did not, mount a legal challenge as to the President’s legitimacy once he defiles the power of judicial orders thus undermining Trump’s own legitimacy?

Socrates: Ah, now you’ve raised a fascinating possibility—state legal challenges to the legitimacy of a sitting president if that president were to defy judicial orders, potentially undermining their own legitimacy. This would be a momentous event, indeed, but let us proceed carefully to understand the dynamics of such a situation, especially when considering the political landscape of states that either barely elected the president or outright voted against him.

1. States’ Standing to Challenge a Sitting President

The idea of states mounting a legal challenge against the president’s legitimacy based on the refusal to follow judicial orders would be unprecedented, but it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility. To understand this, we must first look at the legal standing of states to challenge federal actions or the legitimacy of federal officers, including the president.

• Legal Standing: In U.S. law, a state can sue the federal government if it can demonstrate that the president’s actions affect its citizens or interests. This could be done through legal challenges to the constitutionality of presidential actions or through claims that the president is violating certain constitutional principles, including the separation of powers or the duty to execute laws.

For instance, if a court order requires the president or executive agencies to take action, and the president refuses to comply, a state could argue that this refusal is harmful to its citizens or that it undermines the rule of law within its jurisdiction. A state’s right to challenge federal authority has been recognized in certain cases, particularly when the president’s actions are seen as overreaching or directly impacting state interests.

• Constitutional Grounds: States might claim that the executive’s defiance of judicial orders amounts to a violation of the Constitution—specifically, the oath of office that requires the president to “faithfully execute” the laws. If states feel that a refusal to follow judicial orders undermines the Constitution’s checks and balances, they might seek to challenge the legitimacy of the president’s actions.

2. The Political and Practical Feasibility of State-Led Challenges

While the legal possibility exists for states to challenge the president, we must also consider the political reality and practical consequences of such an endeavor. There are several factors that could shape the outcome of any such challenge:

• States That Voted Against the President: If the states that did not vote for President Trump or that barely elected him (often the more liberal or progressive states) felt that his refusal to follow judicial orders violated fundamental democratic principles, they might be more inclined to challenge his actions. These states might argue that his actions were not only unconstitutional but also undermined democratic legitimacy itself.

If these states were to mount a legal challenge, they would likely frame their case in terms of protecting democratic norms, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. These are principles that are often central to legal arguments against executive overreach. States like California, New York, or Illinois—which were among those that did not vote for Trump—might see their interests directly affected by a president’s defiance of the law.

• States That Barely Elected the President: States like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and others that barely voted for Trump in 2016 (or more recently) could be caught between the need to maintain political alignment with the federal government and a constitutional duty to protect the rule of law. These states could potentially challenge the president, especially if the refusal to follow judicial orders was seen as eroding the principles of democracy and the legal system that voters in those states hold dear.

The key point here is that while these states may have narrowly supported Trump in a tight race, the defiance of judicial authority could be perceived as a direct challenge to the functioning of government in a way that transcends party affiliation. Should this happen, there might be a coalition of states from both sides of the political spectrum—those with discontent over Trump’s presidency and those genuinely concerned about the institutional damage caused by defying judicial orders.

3. Constitutional Crisis and State Action

If the president’s defiance of judicial orders were seen as undermining the legitimacy of the presidency itself, this could lead to a constitutional crisis. In such a crisis, it is conceivable that states might act to challenge the president’s legitimacy, but it would not be without significant legal and political hurdles.

• Unprecedented Nature: Historically, states have not sought to challenge the legitimacy of a sitting president in the manner you suggest, as this would represent a monumental shift in how the U.S. handles disputes between branches of government. States might challenge specific actions or policies but have generally respected the outcome of presidential elections, even if the president’s actions were controversial or unorthodox.

• A Legal Challenge for State Sovereignty: A state could challenge a president’s defiance of judicial orders in court on the grounds that it represents a failure to uphold the rule of law. A state might argue that when the president openly defies judicial authority, it places the state in a situation where it cannot properly function within the framework of federal law. This could be the foundation for a legal claim of state sovereignty being undermined by the federal government.

• Bipartisan Legal Challenges: If public opinion grows broadly dissatisfied with the president’s defiance, it is possible that states from both political parties might align in a challenge. After all, defying the rule of law has the potential to alienate many, regardless of political affiliation. If a bipartisan coalition of states joined in the legal action, this could create significant pressure on both the executive and Congress.

4. Outcomes of State-Led Challenges

• Legal Precedent: If a state or group of states succeeded in challenging the president’s legitimacy or authority in court, it would set an unprecedented legal precedent for how executive authority is balanced against judicial power. However, this outcome would likely only occur in extreme circumstances where a president’s defiance was blatant and widely perceived as a direct threat to constitutional order.

• Political Fallout: Even if a legal challenge did not succeed, the political ramifications of such a move would be significant. A president whose legitimacy was openly questioned by multiple states would face intense scrutiny. Public opinion could turn sharply against the president, and Congress might be forced to act in some capacity—either by exercising its powers of oversight or, if the situation worsens, considering impeachment or other corrective measures.

• Impeachment Alternative: If the judiciary and states failed to check the president’s power, and the defiance of judicial orders continued, impeachment might become more politically viable over time. As you correctly noted earlier, the unlikelihood of impeachment due to party affiliation might diminish if the president’s actions were seen as an existential threat to the nation’s institutions.

Conclusion

In the scenario where a president defies judicial orders and undermines their own legitimacy, states—especially those that did not vote for the president or those that barely elected him—could indeed mount a legal challenge, though it would be a complex and unprecedented move. The primary grounds would likely involve defending the rule of law, democratic principles, and the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.

Such a challenge would have significant legal, political, and institutional ramifications, and it could either lead to a constitutional crisis or force political actors (both at the state and federal levels) to act in defense of democratic norms.

Would you like to dive deeper into any of these possible outcomes or explore a specific aspect further?