Constitutional Law

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding raids by ICE agents in Los Angeles and other cities, targeting people based on their skin color and accents.

Daniel Farber, the author of “Contested Ground: How To Understand the Limits of Presidential Power,” says one avenue members could take would be to try to coerce Mr. Trump by refusing to confirm his appointees or to fund something he wants until he enforces the law. “It’s true that the president has the right to prioritize laws, but that doesn’t mean that he can simply decide that he doesn’t like some laws and is not going to enforce them at all.”

“Besides its economic significance, that is what makes the tariffs case so fascinating in the Supreme Court,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “Will the conservative justices adhere to what they have said and held recently, or will they just rubber stamp whatever Trump does?”

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discusses four major recent court decisions against Trump.

“Under federal law, the president can use troops in domestic situations only in very limited circumstances, such as by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “Trump has not done so, and the circumstances allowing for that law to be used have not been met.”

“There is much that is disturbing in what the court is doing,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “The process of full briefing and of oral argument is based on the premise that advocacy matters. This is absent in shadow docket cases.”

“Being on a UC campus, it feels clear to me that the faculty and students strongly oppose a settlement,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinksy. “They want university officials and the regents to challenge the illegal actions of the Trump administration.” 

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discusses two matters pending on the Supreme Court’s docket that portend potential significant changes in the law of voting rights and of civil rights more generally.

“President Donald Trump’s cutoff of funds to universities, including UCLA, is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It is about inflicting great harm on universities, as evidenced by Trump’s statement that he would settle with UCLA for $1 billion.”

“There is a way forward that doesn’t undermine either the will of the voters or sacrifice electoral integrity: play by the rules and win at the ballot box,” write the California Constitution Center’s executive director David A. Carrillo and senior research fellow Stephen M. Duvernay. “Tit-for-tat gerrymandering isn’t a shortcut to victory.”