Experts say that Trump’s judicial challenge is new in the essential playing book

President Trump’s intense struggle with federal courts is unusually aggressive compared to similar disputes in other countries, according to researchers. Unlike Mr. Trump behaves as if the judges who were ruined or re -set their structure behave as if the rulers were very weak to restrict his authority.

“Honest to God, I have not seen anything like him,” Stephen Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University and co -author “How Democrats die” and “competitive tyranny”.

“We look at these comparative cases in the twenty -first century, such as Hungary, Poland and Turkey. In many respects, this is worse,” he said. “These two first two months were more powerful than an infection than any other comparable condition, which I know about the democratic decline.”

He said that there are many examples of authoritarian leaders who restrict the authority of the judiciary by mobilizing the courts with compatible judges, or by changing the laws granted by power. But it is extremely rare for the leaders to simply demand the authority to ignore or overcome the orders of the court directly, especially after taking office directly.

In Türkiye, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has cleared thousands of judges from the judiciary as part of a wider effort to unify power in his hands. But this requires contracts of voltage and multiple constitutional changes, Mr. Levitsky said. He became completely successful only after he made a failed coup for 2016 a political justification for disinfection.

In Hungary, Prime Minister Victor Urban mobilized constitutional courts with friendly judges and forced hundreds of others to retire, but he did so over the years, using constitutional amendments and administrative changes.

During the weekend, Trump administration Ignore the Federal Judge order A group of Venezuelan men was not deported, and later tried to justify their actions retroactively with a very far from the stable law and the ordinary practice that legal experts said they limited trivial.

Trump administration defenders claimed that judges have a lot of authority over the executive authority.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump has publicly raised risks Call to dismissal From the judge who issued the matter, which prompted Nader rebuke From the chief of judges John J. Roberts.

“For more than two centuries, it has been proven that the dismissal is not an appropriate response to the dispute regarding a judicial decision. There is a regular appeal review process for this purpose.”

Mr. Levitskysaid was struggling to find a former of what the Trump administration is doing.

“The enthusiasm with which these men participate in increasing behavior, the authoritarian behavior is almost similar to anything I saw. Erdogan, Chavez, Urban – hide it,” said Mr. Levitsky.

Interrogation

The conflict between the Trump administration and Judge James E. But legal experts say it has become a confrontation about whether judges should be able to restrict the executive branch at all.

“Judges are not allowed to control the legitimate authority of the executive.” “I do not care about what the judges think – I don’t care what the left thinks,” said Tom Human, Tom Human this week during the appearance of “Fox & Friends”.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump books On social media, Judge Boasberg was “a fundamental crazy” and must be “isolated”, because the judge “was not president – he did not win the popular vote (a lot!), He did not win the seven swinging states, and he did not win 2750 to 525 provinces, and did not win anything!”

“One judge” cannot impose the movements of a group of people “who were physically expelled from the American soil.

(In fact, American courts It can do Ask for the return of the foreigners who have been wrongly deported.)

Andrew Odonoho, an unresolved researcher at Carnegie International Peace, who studies clashes between courts and leaders elected all over the world, said the Trump administration tactics are very unusual. Usually, the battles on the authority of the court tend to the extensions of political divisions.

In Israel, for example, the right -wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu sought to reduce the strength of the courts, which was historically associated with the country’s left wing. In Türkiye, the courts have been associated with the secular state, and clashed with the Nassif Passover President, Tayeb Erdogan.

But Mr. Trump and federal courts are not ideological opponents in the same way. Federal judges maintain a set of opinions, but the judiciary has grown more conservative in recent decades. The Supreme Court, which has a majority, has achieved the political right with a number of important legal victories in recent years, including granting presidents to be a clear immunity of the criminal prosecution.

Self -control rules, turned against them

The courts do not have their own armies or important police forces. However, leaders obey the orders of judges, due to the political costs of disposing of them.

Voters usually do not reward their elected leaders for violating standards, disrupting a stable constitutional matter, or taking illegal measures in essence, said Aziz Base, a law professor at the University of Chicago and the co -author of the book “How to Save Constitutional Democracy”.

But this differentiation and integration account may not apply to Mr. Trump, who was based on his political attractiveness on amazing screaming standards. Hoan said that refusing to accept the courts of the courts may actually resume the president’s base, if they take it as evidence of power rather than chaos.

Former presidents were also more restricted by elites within the political establishment.

“Richard Nixon had to care not only to public opinion, but Walter Kronkite, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic Party,” said Mr. Levitsky. “This restriction, which was difficult to measure, but I think it is very real in the twentieth century.

Today, the gate guards are much weaker – especially when leaders such as Mr. Trump benefit politically by choosing battles with the institution.

There are proven ways that the courts can successfully defend their authority against non -compliance with leaders or attacks. The most effective protection source is when the courts can benefit from other government officials outside the judiciary, “who can put the muscles behind the court’s decision“ Mr. Odonoho said.

When President Gere Bolsonaro from Brazil tried to challenge court decisions regarding the closure and public health measures during the epidemic, the mayors and local governors followed the court rulings in any case.

But this tactic may be difficult to use when it comes to the federal agency directly. Local leaders cannot compel the Ministry of Internal Security to comply with a court order to stop a deportation trip, or to restore funding for the United States for International Development.

Political pressure to protect the authority of the courts can also be effective, even in cases where the leader’s components are paid in the opposite direction.

In Israel, for example, supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu preferred strongly to the proposed laws that would have severely shorten the authority of the courts to restrict political leaders. But the broader audience mobilized a fierce opposition to reforms.

In 2023, thousands of Israelis moved to the streets almost every Saturday Republic protests against judicial reform. The influential sectors in society, including military reserve soldiers, business leaders, unions and senior politicians, openly oppose the law. Their business closed companies, traffic and even Ben Gurion International Airport. In the end, Netanyahu was forced to suspend most of the planned changes.

It is difficult to form and preserve mass protest movements. So far, there are few signs that a similar movement is formed in the United States.

Political pressure can also come from Trump’s political alliance.

“If even dozens of Republicans in Congress have the ability to stand in the face of Trump, this will be a completely different ball game,” said Mr. Levitsky. “Trump, Mousic and Stephen Miller could not do this on his own. They are doing this in the full cooperation of the majority party in Congress.”

“We are in a bad place,” he said.