California is suing Trump’s executive orders in his first 100 days

From Nickel duraCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

During its first hundred days, through a series of enforcement orders, the Trump administration rethought this country’s social contract with its citizens.

The administration promises more opportunities and less guarantees, less forgiveness and more consequences. This 139 executive orders Issued on January 20, it formed an outline of American life, as represented by its most conservative inhabitants, concentrating power to a single CEO who may need to change as transformative as the new deal.

The flow means California, usually the country that is to progress a progressive agenda, is now fighting in court to keep the status quo – to play protection, not insult. Instead of arguing for higher standards for vehicle emissions or expanding the water road definition, the state has filed or joined to 16 lawsuits Against the Trump administration of January 20, on issues ranging from the preservation of first -born citizenship to the restoration of billions of dollars in healthcare and medical subsidies.

This effort continued on Tuesday with challenging The extensive redundancies of the Trump administration to Americans.

“We have had many cases of California that have to play defense, returning to the Reagan administration,” says Erwin Chemerinski, Dean of the UC Berkeley Legal School. “I think what is different from the first term is of quality, how much neglect they have for the constitution and the law.”

Prosecutor General Rob Bont, who took office in 2021, said the difference between Trump’s first and second administrations was the speed and the pure number of executive orders submitted at the beginning of his term.

“Comparison with Trump 1.0 indicates that this is a high volumetric, high speed (this time),” Bont said. “We brought a case more than once a week in the first hundred days, and during Trump 1.0 There were about 120 lawsuits in four years.

“We’ll hit about 100 at this speed in two years, so it’s almost double the pace.”

The countries and organizations that challenge Trump in their first term won close to 70% of their legal battlesAlthough a number of them were abandoned when Trump left the post in 2021, covering 123 court cases in four years, at a price of about $ 10 million a year. This time around, state legislators Set out $ 50 million to cover the legal bills of the state.

Bont said it was expecting the pace of court cases to continue.

“At any time and every time the Trump administration has violated the law, we will bring them to court,” Bont said. “It is not very normal and it is also not acceptable that we have an administration that so brazenly, brazenly, often and consistently violates the law.”

The verbs used in the executive orders Dominion over the ocean. The goals of an order “Obama-Bide’s war against showers.” But the largest executive orders are those in terms of California, including tariffs, birth citizenship and voting right.

Those in conservative legal theory are the executive orders for revenge of textile, original, read the constitution and termination of the “administrative state”, in which regulators and bureaucrats are politically and legally isolated from the decisions they make.

Conservatives celebrate Trump’s strategy

One of the most defense of the legal strategy of the Trump administration was provided by the professor of law at the Catholic University of America J. Joel Aliseya at the Conservative Heritage Foundation Edwin Maise III lecture on original lecture In March.

“In the last three months, we have seen President Trump directly challenged the delegation of the Congress of Administrative Agencies and the isolation of Presidential Supervision Power,” Alisea said. “Contrary to the depiction of such actions from the press, they are reliable developments for the rule of law.”

The bets are high, Alisea said, and the possibility of constitutional originalists is now after more than a century of progressiveness.

“This required two progressive presidents of exceptional determination and political skills – Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt – to create the administrative state and impose a progressive constitutional and political theory of our government structure,” Alisea said. “It is presented that this will require another president of exceptional determination and political skills to cancel what his predecessors have achieved.”

The California Presidential Administration is not the one that the state’s lawyers first encountered in 2017. This time, the Trump administration was better prepared, working more quickly and had a more common vision for a legal framework, Chemerinsky said.

“I think they were so well prepared,” Chemerinski said. “And they really had a flood mentality.”

The difference between the legal strategy of the administration of the first and second Trump administration is the contempt of the 2025 version of the proper process and the rule of the law, Chemerinski said.

“He did not try to terminate the citizenship on the firstborn road during his first term,” Cheesherinski said. “He did not try to put people in prison in El Salvador in his first term, he does not claim the ability to refuse to spend money assigned by the federal statute in his first term, he does not claim that he can fire anyone into the executive branch, even if there is a statute that restricts him.

“He accepts the executive branch so far than the first term than any president ever.”

Where will we draw the US Supreme Court?

In their court case against the Trump administration regarding its order, the voters provide evidence of citizenship, California’s lawyers claim that the enforcement order prevents the state’s right from managing himself and usurping the powers of congress from legislative.

“It is emphasized: the President has no right to do anything,” the lawsuit said. “Neither the Constitution nor the Congress allowed the President to impose documentary evidence on the requirements for citizenship or to change the procedures of the state postal bubble.”

Much of the fight for this order and the others, challenged by California, will be held under the shade of the US Supreme Court, which constantly votes 6-3 to maintain Trump’s agenda.

“I think (the Supreme Court) will eventually rule in favor of Trump’s ability to fire the agencies,” Cheesherinski said. “I think there are others that Trump has done, such as the citizenship of the ultimate law, to put people in the prison in El Salvador, where I do not think he is likely to succeed.”

Cheesherinski said he was not sure where the Supreme Court could draw a line in the sand.

“I would think that the line will take people away by putting them in Salvador and claiming that no court can provide a release,” Cheesherinsky said. “I still think this will be the red line, but I don’t think it will be unanimous.”

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.