Is Donald Trump above the law?

Donald Trump’s attacks on American judges and his apparent willingness to flout judicial orders is stoking fears of a constitutional crisis in the world’s most powerful democracy, say the president’s critics.

On Tuesday, America’s most senior judge took the decision to weigh in, with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rebuking the president for suggesting a judge he disagreed with should be impeached.

Without naming Trump, he suggested the president’s threats were “not an appropriate response” to his disagreements with rulings — a pointed criticism of a US leader who has endured his own chequered history in the courts.

Roberts’s comments marked a stunning display of tension between the judiciary and the executive, two of America’s three branches of government, alongside Congress.

The chief justice’s intervention came at a moment of acute peril for the US judicial system, said legal scholars, following weeks of attacks on judges by Trump and his allies.

“The rule of law in our country is dancing along the precipice, [which] overhangs a chasm of lawlessness and breakdown,” said William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School. “Whether we fall over the edge depends on whether the current administration openly defies or even stealthily evades” legal precedent, he added.

So far, Trump appears willing to keep testing the limits of his power versus the judiciary’s.

After Roberts’s statement on Tuesday, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that billionaire Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency “likely violated the United States Constitution” in shutting down the US Agency for International Development.

That ruling came days after US immigration officials allegedly ignored a Massachusetts judge’s order and deported Lebanese doctor Rasha Alawieh after holding her in a Boston airport for 36 hours. The government maintained immigration officials only learned of the order after Alawieh’s plane had taken off.

The US also deported more than 250 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador last week despite a federal judge’s order that the planes be turned around amid questions over the legality of the move. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration “acted within the confines of the law”.

Immigration has been a clear source of conflict. In the comments that prompted Roberts’s intervention, Trump raged on social media against “many of the crooked judges” that he suggested should be impeached for thwarting his mission to deport illegal immigrants.

But in an earlier case last month, a Rhode Island judge also said the government was continuing to withhold certain federal funds in violation of a previous judicial order. The administration cited clunky payments systems.

In each instance, the government has blamed circumstances — such as poor timing of the orders — while arguing it has tried to fulfil the court rulings.

But comments from Trump, a convicted felon who until his election victory in November was facing a litany of criminal charges, along with those of his allies, have made their views of the judges who intervene plain.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, railed against “radical rogue judges” in a post on X last week, claiming they “have no authority to administer the executive branch”.

Vice-president JD Vance last month was equally clear of his view: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he posted on X.

The defiance of the executive in the face of the judicial branch’s interventions begs the question of what can be done to make the US leader observe the law, if he chooses not to.

Courts typically use tools such as fines, arrests or asset freezes to counter disregard for legal decisions.

When it comes to the government — and Trump — the issue is more fraught.

“You could imagine courts being reluctant to engage in a direct confrontation with the executive branch, [such as by] going so far as issuing contempt orders,” said Douglas Keith, senior counsel at the Brennan Center’s judiciary programme.

Courts depend on the US Marshals Service, the federal judiciary’s enforcement arm, to implement compliance with their rulings. But the service is a unit of the justice department and answers to the US attorney-general, a role appointed by the president — and now held by Pam Bondi, a Trump loyalist.

Holding government officials in contempt is rare, but not unprecedented. A federal judge in 2019 held then education secretary Betsy DeVos in contempt for failing to stop loan collections from students.

But Trump’s position as president largely insulates him from legal exposure — and the Supreme Court last year granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official capacity.

Legal experts could not recall a contempt order being issued against a sitting president, because “there is a long-standing understanding that presidents follow court orders, even decisions that they don’t like”, Keith said.

Ultimately, the cases that have most inflamed Trump could reach the Supreme Court, which is split 6-3 between conservative and liberal members — three of them appointed by him during his first term.

But questions about adherence to the rule of law do not necessarily break along political lines. Roberts, who issued the statement on Tuesday, is considered a moderate conservative.

Legal experts warn that flagrant defiance by Trump of court rulings could wreck America’s system of government.

When the executive branch repeatedly ignores legal rulings, “public and even judicial expectations that officials follow the law will slowly erode”, Yale’s Eskridge said. “At some point, expectations will be so low that a president will feel free to ignore judicial orders altogether.”

Additional reporting by Steff Chávez in Washington