What is a “constitutional crisis”?
March 19, 2025 9:53 AM Subscribe
According to many news and opinion pieces I’ve recently read, when the US president defies court orders, that means a “constitutional crisis” is underway. What does this actually mean?
Can someone please explain what a constitutional crisis means, practically, for the US government and for every day people?
I understand this is a very very bad thing. But I’d also appreciate an explanation that doesn’t imply that the world is ending due to a constitutional crisis, if indeed it isn’t.
If it is, well, it was nice knowing you all!
Can someone please explain what a constitutional crisis means, practically, for the US government and for every day people?
I understand this is a very very bad thing. But I’d also appreciate an explanation that doesn’t imply that the world is ending due to a constitutional crisis, if indeed it isn’t.
If it is, well, it was nice knowing you all!
What I've gleaned over the years is that there is no real definition for a constitutional crisis, but in general it refers to a situation where two or all three of the branches have different interpretations of the constitution.
In this situation the Judicial branch is ruling that the Executive branch has exceeded its authority, but based on its on interpretation of the constitution the Executive branch is on the verge of rejecting the rulings.
If the Executive branch continues on the path of saying that Judicial rulings don't apply to it, that would be a constitutional crisis.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:07 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
In this situation the Judicial branch is ruling that the Executive branch has exceeded its authority, but based on its on interpretation of the constitution the Executive branch is on the verge of rejecting the rulings.
If the Executive branch continues on the path of saying that Judicial rulings don't apply to it, that would be a constitutional crisis.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:07 AM on March 19 [2 favorites]
My lay answer is that one branch of the government outline in the Constitution (the Executive) is no longer recognizing the authority of one of the other branches (Judicial if court orders are ignored).
posted by warriorqueen at 10:08 AM on March 19
posted by warriorqueen at 10:08 AM on March 19
To overly simplify it a bit: If you think of the Constitution (and the laws written as a result of its interpretation) as a set of written rules by which the United States runs, the Trump Administration has basically decided they do not care to abide by most, if not all, of those rules, and that nobody can stop them from not caring, and from doing whatever they want, solely because they're in charge now. That is the crisis, pretty much.
Societies need to run on rules, and if those in power just say "fuck it, I make the rules now", societies tend to either fall apart or dramatically restructure themselves in the image of those in power.
Either one of those outcomes is...not great, in the current context. The world may not be ending, but it will look dramatically different in a few months' time than it does now, and not in a good way for a great many people.
posted by pdb at 10:10 AM on March 19 [5 favorites]
Societies need to run on rules, and if those in power just say "fuck it, I make the rules now", societies tend to either fall apart or dramatically restructure themselves in the image of those in power.
Either one of those outcomes is...not great, in the current context. The world may not be ending, but it will look dramatically different in a few months' time than it does now, and not in a good way for a great many people.
posted by pdb at 10:10 AM on March 19 [5 favorites]
I have blessedly not looked at any news even once for a week while I've been visiting family, I have no idea what new fresh horror is pending, this is a general answer.
The US Constitution has a lot of parts in it that are ambiguous. Some of this ambiguity is cool, like the ninth amendment. Some of this ambiguity is potentially less cool, especially when the President is a shit, because Presidents will attempt to ride roughshod over State constitutions, Federal rulings, labor unions, etc. The US Constitution has had a long, long history of being ambiguous enough to let executive branch overreach get through.
In theory we should have the Supreme Court there for checks and balances, but since SCOTUS is currently 1/3 appointed by Trump himself, getting his most shit rulings annulled or overturned doesn't seem like a likely prospect.
posted by phunniemee at 10:12 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
The US Constitution has a lot of parts in it that are ambiguous. Some of this ambiguity is cool, like the ninth amendment. Some of this ambiguity is potentially less cool, especially when the President is a shit, because Presidents will attempt to ride roughshod over State constitutions, Federal rulings, labor unions, etc. The US Constitution has had a long, long history of being ambiguous enough to let executive branch overreach get through.
In theory we should have the Supreme Court there for checks and balances, but since SCOTUS is currently 1/3 appointed by Trump himself, getting his most shit rulings annulled or overturned doesn't seem like a likely prospect.
posted by phunniemee at 10:12 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
The UK legal commentator David Allen Green has been following events closely over the past few days, and I've found his explanation helpful:
17 March: “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis
18 March: Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case
On the wider question of 'what is a constitutional crisis?' some of his earlier posts are also helpful:
18 Feb: Making sense of what is happening in the United States
25 Feb: The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States
He points out that when you're living in the middle of a revolution, it's often hard to see what's going on. It's only in retrospect that events take on a clear shape and meaning.
posted by verstegan at 10:53 AM on March 19 [11 favorites]
17 March: “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis
18 March: Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case
On the wider question of 'what is a constitutional crisis?' some of his earlier posts are also helpful:
18 Feb: Making sense of what is happening in the United States
25 Feb: The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States
He points out that when you're living in the middle of a revolution, it's often hard to see what's going on. It's only in retrospect that events take on a clear shape and meaning.
posted by verstegan at 10:53 AM on March 19 [11 favorites]
I think the ELI5 version is that we have three branches of government, with different sorts of power as defined by the constitution. It's somewhat normal for the Legislative and Executive Branch to push the boundaries of their power to see where they are - think Biden with student loan forgiveness. But, it's agreed that the Supreme Court gets to ultimately determine where those boundaries are in the end. Trump though (and Vance) is making it clear he thinks he can operate under a different set of rules (or no rules), and has little regard for the other two branches.
posted by coffeecat at 10:58 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeecat at 10:58 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
I think one potential way to know you're in a constitutional crisis is that there could arise a situation in which one kind of American armed forces/law enforcement (like State police) is pointing their guns at another kind of law enforcement (like City police or Nat'l Guard or whatnot) -- and then we are in Big Trouble.
posted by egeanin at 11:30 AM on March 19 [3 favorites]
posted by egeanin at 11:30 AM on March 19 [3 favorites]
As others have said, there's different definitions of it. In this case, I'd say the key thing is that the crisis is that the branch of government charged with upholding federal laws is the branch that is blatantly breaking them. The supposed check on this is that the legislative branch can impeach the executive branch, but in this case they won't do so because they're aligned with the President. Which I'd call a political crisis on top of the constitutional one.
The founders didn't really expect the political parties to end up the way they are and so the system is poorly designed for a rogue party taking power.
The other slow rolling constitutional crisis is that it's pretty apparent that the Constitution is no longer a viable way of running the country in the mid to long term. The same problems with it that give Republicans a huge advantage in controlling congress also exist in the only ways to solve those problems. Unless things change for the better in a big way, the fixes to that problem are things like massive strikes, civil war, etc.
what a constitutional crisis means, practically, for the US government and for every day people?
We don't know yet. It means a drop in how our allies think of and trust us and how many of us think of our country. The USSR/Russia has long sought that as a goal to justify their own problems by saying we're just as bad, just better at PR.
The real question is just how far things will go. If they enact the full Project 2025, it means the end of liberal democracy in the US. If Trump just continues breaking random things like a bored toddler and then changing his mind, things will be damaged, but with time it would be recoverable. The fact that they fired all of the head military lawyers who would do things like tell the army whether invading Portland or whatever is legal is a chilling sign.
posted by Candleman at 3:11 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]
The founders didn't really expect the political parties to end up the way they are and so the system is poorly designed for a rogue party taking power.
The other slow rolling constitutional crisis is that it's pretty apparent that the Constitution is no longer a viable way of running the country in the mid to long term. The same problems with it that give Republicans a huge advantage in controlling congress also exist in the only ways to solve those problems. Unless things change for the better in a big way, the fixes to that problem are things like massive strikes, civil war, etc.
what a constitutional crisis means, practically, for the US government and for every day people?
We don't know yet. It means a drop in how our allies think of and trust us and how many of us think of our country. The USSR/Russia has long sought that as a goal to justify their own problems by saying we're just as bad, just better at PR.
The real question is just how far things will go. If they enact the full Project 2025, it means the end of liberal democracy in the US. If Trump just continues breaking random things like a bored toddler and then changing his mind, things will be damaged, but with time it would be recoverable. The fact that they fired all of the head military lawyers who would do things like tell the army whether invading Portland or whatever is legal is a chilling sign.
posted by Candleman at 3:11 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]
This post from David Allen Green is probably most directly on point:
From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis
posted by BungaDunga at 5:49 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]
From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis
Constitutional crises are serious political conflicts where constitutional means are unable to resolve the conflict, and the ultimate outcome of the conflict then becomes uncertain.The way I read it, a constitutional crisis is when the rules start to fail, and threaten to become subordinated to brute facts like, eg, "who controls the water supply" and "who has more guns."
Often the political actors involved in the crisis will resort to violence – or be prepared to do so.
At such times it may not matter that a constitution is codified or not. For what has failed is not the form of the constitution, but its substance. The real failure is that of constitutionalism.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:49 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]
Relevant:
Jamelle Bouie, NYT opinion gift link: Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional dives into constitutionalism and why Trump's actions are anti-constitutional.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:53 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]
Jamelle Bouie, NYT opinion gift link: Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional dives into constitutionalism and why Trump's actions are anti-constitutional.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:53 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]
(I prefer these definitions because not every government has a tripartite structure, and there are lots of ways you might have a constitutional crisis that look different in different constitutions. the general principle is I think more enlightening: it's when a serious political conflict threatens to be resolved via extra-constitutional means. When the constitution matters less than force, threats, physical possession, guys occupying buildings, etc.)
posted by BungaDunga at 6:02 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 6:02 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]
To me it means when someone violates the Constitution... and substantially gets away with it because nobody will enforce it. So then the "crisis" is, "do we really even have a constitution if it's unenforceable?"
I mean, the Judicial branch doesn't have an army. If everyone ignores their rulings, what can they do? Problem is, then you've destroyed constitutional government, and up until recently that has seemed undesirable to the vast majority of people in power.
posted by ctmf at 6:06 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]
I mean, the Judicial branch doesn't have an army. If everyone ignores their rulings, what can they do? Problem is, then you've destroyed constitutional government, and up until recently that has seemed undesirable to the vast majority of people in power.
posted by ctmf at 6:06 PM on March 19 [1 favorite]
there's an upside-down alternate universe where a MAGA judge starts issuing obviously insane rulings that President Harris refuses to implement, like "due to the Guarantee Clause, it's illegal for Harris not to invade Mexico" or whatever, and we get into a standoff that way. Or a Republican House refuses to raise the debt limit but President Harris just asserts that the debt limit isn't real and keeps issuing debt, etc. These aren't what we're facing but they would arguably count.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:15 PM on March 19
posted by BungaDunga at 6:15 PM on March 19
(just as a side note, it's Congress that has power over the Executive via the purse strings and impeachment. Congress could stop this at any moment they wanted to, but they are choosing not to.)
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:06 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:06 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
it's Congress that has power over the Executive via the purse strings
Theoretically. Actual control over the actual purse is now in the hands of Elon's kindergarten goon squad.
posted by flabdablet at 9:00 PM on March 20
Theoretically. Actual control over the actual purse is now in the hands of Elon's kindergarten goon squad.
posted by flabdablet at 9:00 PM on March 20
The simplest method of looking at this, for us here in America, the Constitution is the written set of rules that determines what game we all agree we are playing. And there's refs on the field, and some commissioners and such that tinker with the interpretations of the rules, but we've essentially all decided together that we're all playing, say, football.
But one team has been consistently losing, and they're not having fun anymore. So when they have the ball, they say, "Fuck it, I don't want to play football. We're going to play another game instead, a game I made up with my buddies while we were all drinking beer last night. It's kind of like dodgeball, except we're throwing it at the stands."
And no one is really sure what to do. Most people would rather still play football - it's the game they know. But they're also not sure how to get it back, because while there are rules for "what if one player gets rowdy", no one has ever written rules for "What if an entire team decides they aren't playing the game anymore". The ref is trying to expand those rules, and he's calling them out, but they're ignoring the ref. And no one who wasn't out drinking beer knows the rules, and they're not sure they like the rules, and they're not sure what to do.
So what actually happens? No one knows. And that's scary and uncomfortable.
Right now, this seems like kind of an abstract thing: "Okay, so the President is ignoring judicial orders: what of that? How does that affect me?" But it actually affects everyday people very much, because a lot of the behavior that impacts everyday people is restrained because people expect to receive judicial orders that they have to follow. When they think they can ignore them without consequence, bad things happen.
For example: what stops a police officer from going over to his ex-girlfriend's house, breaking down the door, and dragging her out by the hair? What stops police from knocking over small businesses and demanding protection money? Social norms, but mostly the idea that people will go to prosecutors, who will go to a judge and get a warrant for their arrest, which the other police will have to follow, even if they like that officer very much. But what if they knew they didn't have to? That they could just ignore that, and choose not to arrest their buddy at the station? Then you have police, the armed wing of the state, essentially able to do whatever the fuck they want, to whoever they want, because who is going to stop them?
What stops a store from saying "We don't serve [insert race here] people here"? Again, the threat of prosecution or fines. But what if the government has signalled that they aren't going to prosecute those things anymore - that instead, they're going to prosecute people who treat everyone equally? Then you're going to have more and more voluntary segregation, and little people can do about it.
Constitutional crises are actually pretty big and scary, and they're part of what makes governments in certain other countries appear 'lawless'.
posted by FutureExpatCorb at 9:05 AM on March 21 [3 favorites]
But one team has been consistently losing, and they're not having fun anymore. So when they have the ball, they say, "Fuck it, I don't want to play football. We're going to play another game instead, a game I made up with my buddies while we were all drinking beer last night. It's kind of like dodgeball, except we're throwing it at the stands."
And no one is really sure what to do. Most people would rather still play football - it's the game they know. But they're also not sure how to get it back, because while there are rules for "what if one player gets rowdy", no one has ever written rules for "What if an entire team decides they aren't playing the game anymore". The ref is trying to expand those rules, and he's calling them out, but they're ignoring the ref. And no one who wasn't out drinking beer knows the rules, and they're not sure they like the rules, and they're not sure what to do.
So what actually happens? No one knows. And that's scary and uncomfortable.
Right now, this seems like kind of an abstract thing: "Okay, so the President is ignoring judicial orders: what of that? How does that affect me?" But it actually affects everyday people very much, because a lot of the behavior that impacts everyday people is restrained because people expect to receive judicial orders that they have to follow. When they think they can ignore them without consequence, bad things happen.
For example: what stops a police officer from going over to his ex-girlfriend's house, breaking down the door, and dragging her out by the hair? What stops police from knocking over small businesses and demanding protection money? Social norms, but mostly the idea that people will go to prosecutors, who will go to a judge and get a warrant for their arrest, which the other police will have to follow, even if they like that officer very much. But what if they knew they didn't have to? That they could just ignore that, and choose not to arrest their buddy at the station? Then you have police, the armed wing of the state, essentially able to do whatever the fuck they want, to whoever they want, because who is going to stop them?
What stops a store from saying "We don't serve [insert race here] people here"? Again, the threat of prosecution or fines. But what if the government has signalled that they aren't going to prosecute those things anymore - that instead, they're going to prosecute people who treat everyone equally? Then you're going to have more and more voluntary segregation, and little people can do about it.
Constitutional crises are actually pretty big and scary, and they're part of what makes governments in certain other countries appear 'lawless'.
posted by FutureExpatCorb at 9:05 AM on March 21 [3 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:06 AM on March 19 [3 favorites]