The fallout from President Donald Trump’s policies continue as many of his executive orders and declarations are being challenged in the courts.
“He's [President Donald Trump] testing just how much people will put up with this," said Northern Illinois University law professor Evan Bernick. “That the idea here is kind of to shock everybody and make us think that he's got all the power in the world.”
Regarding immigration, part of Trump’s ongoing crusade is to paint immigrants without legal status and recent arrivals as criminals.
His executive orders include canceling temporary status granted to Venezuelans, and reports say Trump plans to remove protections provided to other nationals, such as Haitians.
Officials with the Trump Administration said that deportation efforts will target mostly “violent criminals,” but reports find that ICE has arrested a number of people who have no criminal records.
“He's blurring the distinction between illegality and criminality," Bernick said, "such that anybody who has committed an immigration offense, even if it's not a crime, is depicted by him and his administration as a criminal.”
Earlier this month the Department of Justice sued Illinois and Chicago for policies that limit law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration enforcement agents.
The suit names the Illinois Trust Act, which prohibits law enforcement from engaging with and supporting immigration agencies unless by a criminal warrant. The law passed in 2017 under then Republican Govenor Bruce Rauner.
Bernick said the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear in limiting the federal government from telling states to enforce federal law.
‘There's a doctrine that's called the anti-commandeering doctrine," he said, "that was created by the Supreme Courts in opinions written by very conservative justices that said because federalism, because of the distribution of power between the federal government and the states, the federal government does not have the power to force to commandeer states into enforcing federal programs or federal law.”
Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, Bernick said, is “flagrantly unconstitutional.”
“There’s no serious arguments," he added, "under the constitutional text, under its history, under the Supreme Court's precedence, that it is constitutional."
The order faces at least three temporary holds in U.S. District courts. The executive order would eliminate “birthright citizenship,” which is laid out in the 14th amendment. It The amendment that grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. regardless of their parent’s immigration status.
He said he was encouraged by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who placed the first temporary pause on Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.
“It's telling," Bernick said, "that a Reagan appointee looked at this argument and said, like, ‘what are we even doing here? I am now thinking about basically suggesting that you shouldn't be practicing law for coming into my court and saying this.’”
Observers say the case is likely to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While Trump has appointed many judges on the highest court in the nation, Bernick said he doesn’t see them siding with the president on this matter.
“I think," he said, "that birthright citizenship order is clearly unconstitutional, and I would be surprised if a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed."
