government agencies,” according to Jonathan Zatlin, associate professor of history at Boston University.
Legal Framework for Authoritarian Governance
Leveraging the Trump v. United States Decision
The Trump administration appears to be operating under a broad interpretation of executive power based on the Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision in Trump v. United States. This ruling granted the president immunity from criminal sanction for official acts, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing: “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”
Trump and his legal advisors reportedly believe that this decision has “already remade the presidency and blessed their actions,” despite laws and legal precedents to the contrary. This interpretation has emboldened the administration to test the limits of presidential power.
The Controversial Use of the Alien Enemies Act
In a particularly controversial move, the Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 typically applicable only during declared wars. This unprecedented application allows the administration to “disappear migrants without due process.” According to analysis from Democratic Erosion, Trump’s invocation of this act without a congressional declaration of war represents an abandonment of the democratic norm of “forbearance”—the restraint of exercising power to its fullest extent despite legal authority to do so.
The Supreme Court reportedly issued an unsigned decision allowing Trump to continue these deportations with minimal due process protections. However, when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive to pause specific deportations, the administration refused to comply and continued its operations.
Institutional Responses and Resistance
Judicial Pushback
Despite facing unprecedented attacks, the judiciary has attempted to assert its constitutional role. On January 25, 2025, Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to repeal regulations that conflict with ten recent Supreme Court decisions. While some view this as a positive step toward “restoring lawful government,” others see it as a selective application of judicial authority that ignores other court rulings against the administration’s actions.
On April 9, 2025, Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to comply with recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overruled the longstanding principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. This selective embrace of judicial authority highlights the administration’s inconsistent approach to the separation of powers.
State and Congressional Responses
Some state executives have organized to resist federal overreach. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu have vowed to fight deportations, while Democratic state executives announced a new group, “Governors Safeguarding Democracy,” to take legal actions against “threats to our democracy that come from any president or from foreign powers.”