Share and Follow
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump and Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, stand on stage at a campaign rally at North Carolina Aviation Museum, Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2024, in Asheboro, N.C. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson).
Vice President JD Vance took to X on Sunday and suggested that President Donald Trump has “legitimate power” to ignore judges when carrying out executive orders, claiming courts “aren’t allowed” to overrule the new POTUS.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance wrote in an X post. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Earlier on Sunday morning, Vance shared a post from Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule, who claimed: “Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers.”
On Sunday evening, Vance shared a post from columnist and trial lawyer Kurt Schlichter, which said: “What if the judicial decision is lawless? A key component of the constitutional framework is judicial modesty, which is backed up by the fact that the judiciary has nothing to compel obedience, except its credibility.”
Vance’s signaling came after tech billionaire and DOGE leader Elon Musk voiced his disapproval of being blocked, along with the Department of Government Efficiency, by a federal judge from accessing sensitive information provided by the Treasury Department.
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.
Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025
Resharing a post from an account called “Insurrection Barbie” on X, Musk suggested that Trump could step in and do something if judges continued to go against him in court.
“I don’t like the precedent it sets when you defy a judicial ruling, but I’m just wondering what other options are these judges leaving us,” the post said.
Vance, Musk and others who have floated the possibility of Trump ignoring federal rulings have gotten serious pushback and criticism online, with lawmakers and experts calling them out on social media.
“It’s called the ‘rule of law’ @jdvance,” wrote Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), lead counsel for Trump’s first impeachment, on X. “Our constitution created three co-equal branches of government to provide checks and balances on each other (‘separation of powers’). The judiciary makes sure that the executive follows the law. If you do, then you won’t have problems.”
Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck wrote, “Just to say the quiet part out loud, the point of having unelected judges in a democracy is so that *whether* acts of state are ‘legitimate’ can be decided by someone other than the people who are undertaking them.”
Former Rep. Liz Cheney said, “If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.”
Just to say the quiet part out loud, the point of having unelected judges in a democracy is so that *whether* acts of state are “legitimate” can be decided by someone other than the people who are undertaking them.
Vermeule knows this, of course. So does Vance. pic.twitter.com/Hu4fAljPxt
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 9, 2025
Since Trump took office and began issuing executive orders, judges have been stepping up to stop or delay his actions in multiple districts across the country.
A federal judge in Rhode Island, for instance, has barred the Trump administration from enforcing its murky and controversial federal spending freeze by issuing a temporary restraining order late last month. In Washington state, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order in mid-January halting Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship in the United States.
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” said U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, during a hearing last month.
More from Law&Crime: ‘Unfair competition’: Trump now wants $20 billion from CBS over Kamala Harris ’60 Minutes’ interview as he amends lawsuit to add new claims and a co-plaintiff
New York Attorney General Letitia James was celebrating a victory against the Trump administration on Friday as she and a 19-state coalition secured a temporary restraining order that was granted blocking DOGE’s access to the sensitive treasury info.
“From the moment Elon Musk and his DOGE employees gained unprecedented access to our personal private data, state bank account details, and other sensitive information, Americans across the country have been horrified,” James said in a statement. “We knew the Trump administration’s choice to give this access to unauthorized individuals was illegal, and this morning, a federal court agreed.”
The White House has not responded to media requests for comment on Vance’s post or whether Trump plans to fight any of the judges’ rulings. He has yet to say whether he will do so.
