In a recent analysis, conservative legal commentator Sarah Isgur argues that former President Donald Trump would face significant constraints in defying the Supreme Court, particularly regarding his potential challenge to birthright citizenship.
Isgur, speaking on the "Interesting Times" program, suggests that Trump is likely to lose a Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship if he attempts to alter it through executive order. She emphasizes that the judicial system has historically maintained its independence even when confronting powerful presidents.
"The court has really been defined over the course of our entire American experiment by being at odds with powerful presidents," Isgur noted. "My argument would be, this has actually built its legitimacy as an independent branch."
Addressing concerns about potential defiance similar to President Andrew Jackson's historical resistance to court rulings, Isgur contends that modern legal frameworks leave little room for such actions. She points out that the Supreme Court's longevity—with only 17 chief justices compared to approximately 50 presidents—reinforces its institutional stability.
Regarding recent Supreme Court decisions on executive immunity, Isgur cautions against overinterpreting their implications. She suggests that prudent legal advice would encourage presidents to act as if such immunity doesn't exist, given the numerous unanswered questions about its scope.
"If one were giving a president good legal advice, they would say that immunity decision should have no bearing on how you act," Isgur explained. "You should act as if it never happened, because we do not know what immunity this actually gives you."
Isgur also doubts that executive branch officials would risk legal consequences by following potentially unlawful orders, even if accompanied by promises of presidential pardons.
"Those people are going to go to jail and then they can argue about it," she stated. "And I just don't think there's going to be a lot of executive branch officials that are going to enjoy playing roll the dice with President Trump."
The analysis highlights the enduring tension between presidential authority and judicial oversight in American governance, suggesting that even controversial presidents face institutional checks when challenging established legal interpretations.