GEOFF BENNETT: The start of President# Trump's second term brought dramatic## proposals and unprecedented changes to the federal## government.

That includes pushing the# legal boundaries of executive authority.

Our new series On Democracy is taking a step## back to look at the big questions about# changing laws, institutions and norms.

Stephen Vladeck is a law professor at Georgetown## University who focuses on federal# courts and constitutional law.

It's great to have you here.

STEPHEN VLADECK, Georgetown Univer.. GEOFF BENNETT: So as Donald Trump# pushes the limits of executive.. he told reporters yesterday that no# judge -- quote -- "should be allowed## to rule against" the changes# his administration is making.

Add to that a tweet from# Vice President J.D.

Vance,## who appeared to question the judicial# branch's authority after a federal judge## temporarily stopped Elon Musk and his aides# from accessing government systems.

Vance said:## "Judges aren't allowed to control# the executive's legitimate power."

So that seems to at least raise the idea# that the current administration is ignoring## or defying -- ready to ignore or defy a# federal court order.

How do you see it?

STEPHEN VLADECK: So I don't# think we're there yet.

I mean,## I think it's really important to note# that, even as .. lawsuits challenging policies from the# new administration, there's really no## sign yet that the administration is affirmatively# choosing to not comply with these court orders.

We just saw earlier today a judge in Rhode# Island who said, here are a couple places## where you're not complying fast enough.# It's not really the same thing.

I mean,## I think the rhetoric here is far out in front# of what's actually happening on the ground,## which is an administration at least so far# is largely abiding by these court orders,## even as we see this dangerous rhetoric# about maybe why they might not have to.

GEOFF BENNETT: So how much discretion# does the executive branch have?

STEPHEN VLADECK: I mean, historically, none.# I mean, we should be very clear about this.

The norm historically has been that, when# individual district judges, even in far-off parts## of the country, are blocking federal programs,# the right remedy is to appeal and to ask first## the intermediate federal courts and then the# Supreme Court to rule on the ultimate legality.

The program is what we saw during# the Biden administration.

Geoff,## it's what we saw during the first Trump# administration with the travel ban.

The## reality that -- sort of the danger in Vice# President Vance's tweet is the assumption## that what the executive branch is doing is# legitimate.

That's not up to the executive## branch.

Historically, that's up to the courts,# acting consistent with the separation of powers.

And it's up to the branches# working together to make sure## that no one branch gets too far out of line.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what would happen# if this president, any president,## for that matter, were to openly# and willingly defy a court order?

STEPHEN VLADECK: I mean, we# have been lucky historically## that we haven't had to face that problem.

The quote about Andrew Jackson and John Marshall# is actually apocryphal.

Andrew Jackson never said,## John Marshall should try to enforce this decision.

I think what would happen is a political crisis# because the question at that point would be,## are the courts going to use other# tools at their disposal?

The federal## government depends upon the federal# courts almost as much as a plaintiff## as it does when it's being sued# challenging federal policies.

So are courts going to fight back?

Is# Congress, which I think thus far has been## far too acquiescing in what the president's# been doing, going to push back?

It's a red## line we have never crossed and one that we# haven't crossed, Geoff, for good reason.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, on this matter# of the president's unilateral efforts## to reshape the federal government,# Jim Jordan, who, as you well know,## chairs the House Judiciary Committee, he was# on one of the Sunday shows and he defended## the work of Elon Musk by making this argument# that Musk is a proxy of the executive branch.

Take a listen.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): The Constitution is clear.# Ar.. the executive power shall be vested in a# president of the United States of America,## first sentence in the section about the executive.

MANU RAJU, CNN Host: But you have the# power of the purse constitutionally.

REP. JIM JORDAN: We do, but the# -- it's the president.

It's not## a bureaucrat at USAID.

It's not some# staff person or some employee at the## Department of Education.

It's the# president of the United States.

And the folks who work for DOGE are federal## employees carrying out the will# of the executive branch leader.

GEOFF BENNETT: Does that argument hold up?

STEPHEN VLADECK: I mean, so far as it# goes, Geoff, which is to say, not very..

I mean, yes, the -- DOGE is an office within# the executive office of the president.

The## president is allowed to have subordinates who# do his bidding.

But those subordinates are## even more bound to follow the relevant statutory# constraints as the president is.

And in this case,## there are mandatory appropriations that# the executive branch is not abiding by.

There are statutes limiting, for example,# the ability to cut funding for NIH,## which the executive branch is not abiding by.# So I think that's a fair amount of deflection## the part of Chairman Jordan's part.

The reality# here is that we have an executive branch that is## claiming the authority to exercise just about# unfettered control over federal spending, over## the federal bureaucracy, and, at least through# the vice president, over the federal courts.

And James Madison wrote in one of the Federalist# Papers that the accumulation of all powers,## legislative, executive, and judicial, may# justly be pronounced the definition of## tyranny.

We're not there yet, but there's# a reason why these statutes are important## constraints.

There's a reason why we depend# upon the courts to enforce these statutes.

Just because Elon Musk has all of this sway within# the executive branch doesn't change any of the## legal analysis about whether the executive branch# can really trample on these congressional powers.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, to your point, the system# was never set up to have the courts be the## only check on the executive.

And yet that's the# situation in which we find ourselves, because## Democrats are out of power, and Republicans# are giving broad consent to Donald Trump.

So what are the implications?

STEPHEN VLADECK: I mean, I think the# implications go well beyond .. moment.

Our constitutional system is premised on# the idea, to quote James Madison one more time,## that ambition must be made to counteract ambition,# that each of the branches should be pushing up## against each other, even when they're controlled# by folks who largely agree with each other.

We have an ambitious president.

We have# an ambitious judiciary.

We have a Congress## that is doing almost nothing to assert its# institutional prerogative.

And I think that's## a big part, Geoff, not just of where we are# today, but why in recent years so many of our## national policy fights have turned into fights# between the executive branch and the courts.

It's not sustainable in the long term.

And I think# we're starting to see a lot of evidence as to why.

GEOFF BENNETT: How do you answer the# question that some Republicans ask,## which is, well, isn't this what Joe Biden# did when he tried to waive student debt?## The Supreme Court said you can't do that, and# he tried to find a path forward regardless.

STEPHEN VLADECK: Yes, I mean, so I think, again,# we ought to be careful to be nuanced here.

So President Biden, after he lost on the# HEROES Act version of his student loan program,## tried again through a different statute.

What# he did is he said, I want to try to accomplish## the same policy result through a legal# authority the courts have not yet blocked.

Now, he lost that one too.

But, Geoff,# nowhere along the way in either of those## rounds of litigation did you have President# Biden or Vice President Harris or anyone else## in the administration say the courts have# no power to review the legality of this## program.

They conceded that they did.

They# just tried two different ways to get there.

That's not new.

President Trump himself# tried three shots at the travel ban during## his first administration.

The third# one worked.

What's different about## what we're hearing this week is the notion that# there's something inherently illegitimate about## federal judges reviewing the legality# of what the executive branch is doing.

That has never been how we have understood## the relationship between the courts# and the executive in this country.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what will you# be watching for moving forward?

STEPHEN VLADECK: A lot.

I mean,# there's a lot to keep track of.

I think, to me, there are a couple of# real big pressure points here.

One,## which of these cases gets to the Supreme Court# first?

Two, how's the executive branch going## to react if it loses in the Supreme Court?

I# mean, even this Supreme Court, which obviously## gave President Trump a huge win last July in# the immunity case, I think is not going to be## inclined to completely restructure the separation# of powers the way that President Trump wants to.

If he loses in this court, is he going to abide by# those rulings?

And then, third, Geoff, what is it## going to take to get at least some Republicans in# Congress, even a handful in the House, a handful## in the Senate, to actually think that Congress'# institutional prerogatives are worth asserting?

What's going to be the red line past which we# see those folks really begin to push back?

I## think that's the big question looming# over all of this litigation activity.

GEOFF BENNETT: Stephen Vladeck,# thanks, as always, for your insights.

STEPHEN VLADECK: Thank you.