Legal Experts Discuss Congress and Courts' Power to Check Trump's Executive Authority: Part One

Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump has signed over 150 executive orders, spanning a broad range of policy areas including tariffs, trade, birthright citizenship, immigration, and border security. This unprecedented level of unilateral executive action has reignited national debate about the limits of presidential power and the integrity of the U.S. constitutional system.

Many observers note that Trump’s reliance on executive orders not only exceeds the rate of his predecessor Joe Biden—who signed 162 such orders over his entire four-year term—but also marks a shift in how governance is conducted in Washington. Unlike prior presidents, who often tempered executive actions with congressional dialogue and judicial review, Trump’s approach routinely bypasses substantive legislative debate, prompting some to dub this strategy “governing by executive order.”

Political science and legal scholars emphasize that while the issuance of executive orders itself is not new, the context and aggressive nature of their use under Trump set this period apart. Past presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, issued hundreds of executive orders during wartime or periods of crisis. However, as highlighted by constitutional experts, the key distinction lies in both the breadth and legal boldness of Trump’s directives. In particular, the willingness to invoke rarely used statutes and push the boundaries of established law and constitutional norms has drawn intense scrutiny domestically and internationally.

According to legal experts, several of Trump’s executive orders aim for significant policy shifts, particularly in areas like immigration and tariffs. Some orders carry real legal weight, such as those challenging the doctrine of birthright citizenship or imposing sweeping tariffs, while others serve primarily as political statements intended to shape public discourse. Even where executive orders do not directly alter government operations, their cumulative effect is perceived as fundamentally altering America’s governance tradition, tilting the balance toward a stronger presidency at the expense of congressional authority.

This dynamic is reflected in the growing wave of litigation confronting the administration. Since January 20, legal challenges have surged, with over 200 lawsuits filed against various unilateral moves—an indication of both the controversial nature and possible overreach of Trump’s executive actions. Experts argue that such a high volume of legal opposition is the inevitable result of an aggressive executive branch pressing the outer limits of its authority without the customary legislative or judicial checks.

Some analysts point out that these confrontations are rooted in decades-long trends: a gradual expansion of executive power, repeated delegation of congressional authority to the White House, and a judiciary that has sometimes been hesitant to rein in presidential actions, especially in areas like foreign policy. However, the current landscape is marked by a president who is not only leveraging every available power lever but is also creating new mechanisms to assert control, such as the establishment of new agencies tasked with overhauling government spending and operations.

The emergence of this governing style has sparked concerns about the erosion of the “co-equal branches” model enshrined in the Constitution. Legal scholars warn that many of the administration’s executive orders and associated agency actions directly contradict existing laws, raising fundamental questions about the rule of law and the capacity of Congress and the courts to serve as effective checks.

Courts have so far taken a cautious approach, often seeking to avoid direct confrontation with the executive branch. Yet the sheer frequency and nature of the administration’s actions have forced the judiciary to address issues that might previously have been left unchallenged. The coming months may reveal whether the Supreme Court—now with a 6-3 conservative majority—will act to constrain any overreach, or if the trend toward a more dominant executive remains unchecked.

As the situation continues to evolve, the balance of power among America’s branches of government remains a topic of heated discussion—one with potentially far-reaching implications for the nation’s constitutional framework and democratic norms.