Legal experts are warning that the Trump administration is pushing the boundaries of executive power in ways not even the most tyrannical monarchs would have dared. Yale Law School professors Harold Hongju Koh and Fred Halbhuber, alongside J.D. candidate Inbar Pe’er, have raised alarms over the Trump Department of Justice’s recent claims in court. They argue that the president’s powers now extend to issuing bills of attainder—actions that punish individuals or groups without trial—something that the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits.
During a recent court hearing on Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms associated with his political adversaries, Judge Beryl Howell questioned whether these orders might be considered unconstitutional bills of attainder. Rather than dismissing this possibility, the Trump DOJ defended their position by claiming that the constitutional ban on such actions only applies to Congress, not the president.
This startling argument takes the legal debate to a whole new level, as experts highlight how this assertion of power surpasses even the authority once held by English monarchs. “Even under the most despotic kings, none would dare to claim such sweeping unilateral authority,” Koh, Halbhuber, and Pe’er write. They delve into the history of bills of attainder, revealing how, even in the days of notorious monarchs like Henry VIII, such decisions were never left solely to the king.
Henry VIII, notorious for his authoritarian rule, still adhered to the principle that bills of attainder required parliamentary approval. In fact, during his reign, he had to concede when Parliament refused to pass a bill targeting a list of alleged traitors, a move that demonstrates the checks even the most powerful rulers faced.
In stark contrast, the Trump administration’s defense of its ability to issue such punitive orders unilaterally represents an alarming departure from historical legal norms. Legal scholars warn that this could pave the way for future abuses of power, arguing that the Framers of the Constitution, who experienced firsthand the dangers of such unchecked authority, never envisioned a president wielding this kind of power.
This analysis raises an essential question: Could this be the beginning of a new era where the executive branch operates without the traditional safeguards designed to protect Americans from arbitrary punishment? Only time will tell.
