Talk:Constitutional crisis

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump must "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvador prison. "Facilitate" is admittedly vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Trump has not flat-out defied the order and interprets the order as telling him to help bring Garcia back. (The president of El Salvador has said he won't bring him back). The Supreme Court did not rule that Trump must bring Garcia back immediately and Trump said that he respects the Supreme Court. Overall, I don't think this counts as a constitutional crisis. What are your thoughts? GN22 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's wait and see? Ss0jse (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Any "crisis" begins already when chaos presents serious doubts and therefore cause significant confusion and conflicts. The chaos started when the Trump administration deliberately rushed through Garcia's "deportation" (and that of others) by invoking wartime law without Congress against the Constitution, without due process against 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, and directly against Judge Boasberg's temporary restraining order.^[1] This is definitely 1) a crisis; 2) involving the US Constitution in a direct and central way. Therefore this is already a constitutional crisis. That the chaos of the crisis has not reached its deciding moment does not change its character. EdLeMa (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that the editors of this page set a high bar for inclusion in the form of three conditions: 1) "a breaking of a constitution"; 2) "a lack of ability to resolve the dispute from within the constitution" and 3) "a post-crisis change - either actual or interpretational - of the constitution". I disagree with 2) and 3), which are closely related, since they imply that a crisis averted is no crisis at all, which defies my usual understanding of "crisis". A "crisis" is characterized by its contemporary chaos, not posterior damage. I propose to replace 2) and 3) with: causes chaos and general confusion about the political system. EdLeMa (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I continue to feel like setting criteria is none of our business. We should refer to something as a constitutional crisis if reliable sources say that it is one. AJD (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is correct, and the only real interpretation per policy. No, this is not a crisis unless it's widely and unambiguously referred to as so in RSs. Just10A (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Grist for the mill, from Edward Luce in The Financial Times:

"At around noon on 14 April, 2025, America ceased to have a law-abiding government. Some would argue that had already happened on 20 January, when Donald Trump was inaugurated. On Monday, however, Trump chose to ignore a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling to repatgriate an illegally deported man. He even claimed the judges ruled in his favour. The US president's middle finger to the court was echoed by his attorney-general, secretary of state, vice-president and El Salvador's vigilante president Nayib Bukele. The latter is playing host to what resembles an embryonic US gulag."

source: Trump is halfway to making America a police state

I would strongly encourage any American contemplating this subject to think about it this way: how would you describe what is currently happening in the United States if you saw it happening in another country? NME Frigate (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not an American, but is not a police state what the Republican Party demanded? Dimadick (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's an op-ed and not an independent analysis. GN22 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there ever going to be an "independent analysis" that finds the U.S. entered a constitutional crisis in 2025? Is there actually any such analysis for any of the entries in this article's list of crises? NME Frigate (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What there can be is reliable sources that say that several experts have described the current situation as a constitutional crisis. AJD (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

And who, according to you, would be the experts? Anyone can read the Constitution and see that he has violated it on his first day in office with his avalanche of illegal executive orders. ~2026-51681-7 (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Here you go: WP: RS. It's maybe the single most fundamental aspect of wikipedia! ~2026-10803-31 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Added a paragraph that says, "Some politicians and commentators have argued that actions taken by the administration of President Donald Trump in early 2025 have created a constitutional crisis, including attempts to shut down agencies, such as USAID, without congressional authorization, to refuse to spend money in ways appropriated by Congress, and to defy court orders." GN22 (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna revert to the older version before all this. This seems to be wildly undue. This talk page has done a pretty good job setting it out, don't let 1 or 2 new editors edit warring it in lose your nerve. Sources are sparse and even explicitly contradict each other. We shouldn't have "some say" cases on the list anyway. Just10A (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Also noting here that the Supreme Court did not set a deadline for when Trump must "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return or be prepared to report on steps taken toward that outcome. Trump could facilitate his return two years from now and not be in violation of the order. GN22 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

That's absurd. No reasonable person would interpret the court order in such a way. SerialDesignationV (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

We don’t interpret it, that would be WP:OR. Just10A (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible not to interpret. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." NME Frigate (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

That's just policy I'm afraid. We go off of what a consensus of the RS/scholars on the issue say. Right now we just have a handful of mostly (if not all) non-WP:BESTSOURCES that float the idea of a CC, usually attributing it to critics. On top of that, we have sources that contradict the other ones. That just doesn't meet the bar I'm afraid, the only way we'd get there at the moment is via WP:OR, which is not appropriate for article space. Just10A (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is incorrect. Using your brain is not WP:OR. SerialDesignationV (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Put it back. SerialDesignationV (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm putting it back. This is ridiculous. I can't possibly assume good faith here. SerialDesignationV (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring it in is not the answer. If you have an issue, we have multiple routes for dispute resolution. Currently however, there clearly isn't consensus for inclusion on this (and nor should there be imo). Just10A (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

NME Frigate (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, posted a blank post accidentally. I meant to point to this exchange between Donald Trump and a reporter today as pertains to a different but related immigration case (that of the Venezuelan men who were detained and flown to a concentration camp in El Salvador, despite a judge's order prohibiting that):

Reporter: "Judge Boasberg, in a case against your administration, said the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders. Do you agree with that statement?"

Trump: "Well, you're gonna have to speak to the lawyers. We have great lawyers."

He then went on to say that the U.S. is removing "criminals," specifically "murderers and drug dealers". Mind you, reporting has shown that almost none of the men that Trump sent to the El Salvadoran concentration camp to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives had criminal records. But more to the point for this article, the President of the United States refused to affirm the very uncontroversial statement that "the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders."

That comment may end up being quoted in a reliable source. But it probably won't matter. My impression is that nothing would satisfy the skeptics on this issue. I almost feel like they'd be pointing to "Sweet Home Alabama" in July 1974 to argue that that there was no constitutional crisis surrounding the Watergate affair. And look, maybe that's fair. Maybe a constitutional crisis is only something that you can identify after it happens. If you survive it. NME Frigate (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the Trump administration is bringing Ábrego Garcia back (to face criminal charges, but they brought him back nonetheless) after all, which is more than facilitating his return.^[2] GN22 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware this was put in until now. TMK it never really got full consensus, so now that the situation has somewhat changed I'm not sure what the best course is. We can modify it if need be (I'm still not sure it's due at all, since there seems to conflicts in sources anyway), but we can play it by ear. Just10A (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of CC from published scholarship, offered to solely inform improvement of this article's explanation of what is a CC, and with no regard whatsoever for the list of examples.

Levinson & Balkin, "Constitutional Crises"

1. State of exception: Leaders intentionally suspend constitutional provisions to meet a present danger.
2. Excessive fidelity: Political actors agree on and uphold their constitutional duties to the exclusion of responding to an existential danger.
3. Extraordinary power struggles: Political actors disagree about what constitutional provisions require in a situation, and exchange demonstrations of force until one side prevails.

The term is overused. Conflict of state institutions, by itself, is not a crisis because such conflicts are constant.

Balkin, writing alone, distinguishes "constitutional rot", the chronic disregard of norms of political competition to entrench one's self and ideological allies.

Medushevsky, Russian Constitutionalism

"conditions under which the Basic Law loses its legitimacy (a gap between legitimacy and legality appears); or conflicting social forces fail to agree on certain constitutional norms; or constitutional provisions clash with political reality"

Whittington, "A Typology of Constitutional Crises"

1. Crisis of operation: "Important political disputes cannot be resolved within the existing framework"; "the constitutional government is rendered incapable of rendering the political decisions or taking the effective political actions that are widely regarded as necessary at a given moment."
2. Crisis of fidelity: "Important political actors threaten to become no longer willing to abide by existing constitutional arrangements or willing to systematically contradict constitutional proscriptions."
3. Crisis of bad faith: "Political actors refrain from repudiating the inherited constitutional system but nonetheless subvert it by only giving lip service to constitutional requirements."

Posner, "A Constitutional Crisis in the United States?"

"For decades, maybe longer, alleged constitutional crises have popped up every year or so."

1. Crisis-as-disruption: "Government ceases to function, or is significantly hampered, because of profound disagreement about what the constitution requires." Contests of force ensue.
2. Crisis-as-dissatisfaction: "A substantial portion of the public expresses dissatisfaction with the constitutional order, or opposing political forces appear deadlocked and unable to implement policy that is broadly needed." He acknowledges that dissatisfaction is subjective, but proposes that deadlock against effective policy-making is less so.

Mark Tushnet

"When the institutions in place are unable to ensure that the outcome of persistent conflicts will remain within broadly democratic lines." Persistent conflicts are not per se constitutional crises. This definition does not necessarily allow identification of a crisis in the moment. He distinguishes "constitutional hardball" that adheres to laws but disregards customs.

Gerhardt, "Crisis and Constitutionalism"

"when contending authorities find or acknowledge that the Constitution provides no answer to the controversy at hand"; "a special circumstance in which political leaders recognize that the Constitution provides no guidance and no adequate process for resolving the political crisis at hand."

When do you think will Trump's second presidency be aknowleged on Wikipedia as one big constitutional crisis? He has tried to violate multiple amendments on his first day in office and continues to ignore and defy court orders and bi-partisan laws enacted by the Congress. At this point the unitary executive theory isn't a theory anymore, it's the horrific reality. ~2026-51681-7 (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)