Trump IMPEACHMENT Near as Supreme Court Ruling CUTS Term!!

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]While President Trump marks his first 100 days in office, a Michigan Democrat has filed the first articles of impeachment of the administration. Arla Roas Castillo spoke with the congressman to learn more about the move.

[00:00:13]>> We do not have kings, we have president.

[00:00:16]And there is a reason why.

[00:00:17]>> On Monday, 13th district representative Shri Tanadar announced that he filed seven articles of impeachment against President Trump. The activities of uh this president uh um are unconstitutional. Uh the activities of this president, he has no regard for democracy.

[00:00:36]>> The move marks the first time this year that a House Democrat has officially tried to impeach the president or a member of his administration. In his filing, Tanidar accuses the president of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, violation of power, bribery, and corruption.

[00:00:50]>> I am Dr. William here. Welcome everyone.

[00:00:53]What just happened is significant. Trump has openly declared he will not comply with a direct Supreme Court order, claiming the judiciary lacks authority to constrain him.

[00:01:03]>> Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to start the impeachment of Donald Trump.

[00:01:07]What the hell did I do? Here we go again. They want to impeach me.

[00:01:11]This this lunatic. That defiance has triggered immediate impeachment resolutions with Representative Shri Thanadar leading the charge and calling Supreme Court defiance an impeachable offense. The constitutional process is moving into motion and it is moving quickly.

[00:01:29]>> What did you think when you heard that?

[00:01:31]>> Well, look uh he did not respond uh why these articles are incorrect. Instead, he chose to name calling calling me lunatic and crazy. Uh so I don't get into name calling. All I'm doing is doing my job. All I'm doing is following our constitution and the oath of office that I took to protect and defend this constitution. So did Donald Trump. But uh he chooses to just name calling.

[00:02:02]>> Why did you think now is the time?

[00:02:05]Well uh you know last 100 days we have seen this president issue orders that are in violation of our constitution.

[00:02:18]He has just two weeks ago uh he Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision 90.

[00:02:26]House resolution 353 has been formally introduced laying out the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee which is where the process of investigation, testimony, and deliberation will commence. This is not a hypothetical discussion about what might happen if a president were to cross certain lines. This is an active impeachment proceeding that has already begun its journey through the legislative branch. And the momentum behind it is building because the conduct it addresses is not subject to partisan interpretation or factual dispute. Trump received a lawful order from the Supreme Court and he has publicly refused to obey it. That is the essence of the case against him.

[00:03:10]stripped of complexity and reduced to a simple proposition that anyone can understand >> uh to asking him to bring back uh Mr. Garcia from El Salvador because he was deported illegally. Uh he was not given the due process and Mr. Trump said he is able to bring him back but he will not.

[00:03:32]So he defied Supreme Court orders.

[00:03:36]Uh, so that became the final straw for me to bring these impeachment articles.

[00:03:42]>> The Supreme Court's ruling emerged from months of sustained litigation over Trump's immigration enforcement policies and other executive actions that exceeded the boundaries of presidential authority. Courts at multiple levels had already determined that Trump was violating federal law, that his policies went far beyond what Congress had authorized. Now, he also told me that he made the move because his constituents at his town halls kept asking him why he wasn't holding the president accountable. Now, I also spoke to Republican state senator Jim Runstead about Donald Trump referencing the articles of impeachment at his rally last night.

[00:04:17]>> Yeah, when Donald Trump addressed this, it was the comical nature of this that the Democrats are trying to replay the same playbook from the four years when he was the president. uh the impeachment uh the Russian collusion hoax and now even though their numbers are collapsing imploding in the Democrat party they are replaying the same playbook. He thought it was comical but for Sheree Tranadar the congressman is gold for him to try to uh uh treat those divisions so he can save off his opponents in the primary.

[00:04:52]And finally, I wanted to check in with Dave Dulio, professor of political science at Oakland University, about his reaction to the articles of impeachment and if he thinks it could go anywhere, and that he needed to cease his unlawful conduct and restore the legal protections that his administration had eliminated. Trump appealed each adverse ruling, exhausting every procedural avenue available to him until the cases finally reached the Supreme Court for definitive resolution. And when the Supreme Court ruled, it ruled against him with unmistakable clarity.

[00:05:24]>> Much a do about nothing. Uh simply because Donald Trump is not going to be impeached at this time. The uh votes are simply not there with Republicans in a uh majority in the House of Representatives. Uh but at the same time I think Congressman Tannidar is uh uh trying to reflect where much of the Democratic base is at the moment. Right?

[00:05:49]They want somebody who is going to in their eyes stand up to Donald Trump, fight against Donald Trump and his administration. and and this is one way for for the congressman to to demonstrate that >> the court ordered Trump to comply with the law, to reinstate the policies he had illegally terminated, and to take steps to return individuals who had been removed from the country in violation of court orders. This was not a suggestion.

[00:06:20]This was not a recommendation for further consideration. This was a direct and binding order from the institution that serves as the ultimate authority on constitutional meaning.

[00:06:32]>> So it sounds like these articles of impeachment are pretty much dead on arrival as they currently exist as long as Republicans control Congress. But we'll see if it's enough to make Democrats feel like their representatives are doing something.

[00:06:43]>> Interesting to hear Professor Julio's perspective and two very different sides depending on how you look at this.

[00:06:48]Thanks Mike. We have a closer look at the articles of impeachment Congressman Tannidar introduced against President Trump right now at wxyz.com.

[00:06:56]Glenda, Trump's response to this order represents something that has not occurred previously in American history in this direct a manner. The norm of compliance has been so fundamental to the operation of American government that it was simply assumed as part of the unwritten constitution that everyone understood, even if it was never codified in statutory language.

[00:07:19]Presidents have criticized court rulings. Presidents have sought legislative remedies to overturn decisions they disagreed with.

[00:07:26]Presidents have, even in the most extreme cases, expressed frustration with judicial constraints on their authority. But no president has looked at a Supreme Court order and openly stated he will not comply with what the court is directing. That step, that crossing of the line from criticism to defiance, transforms a political dispute into a constitutional crisis of a serious order. Representative Thanodar's statement carries particular weight because it comes from a member of the legislative body that possesses the exclusive constitutional authority to initiate impeachment proceedings.

[00:08:02]Congress is not a passive observer of presidential conduct. Congress is the institution the founders designated as the check on executive overreach, the body empowered to remove a president who abuses his office or violates his constitutional obligations. Thanodar is articulating what the Constitution already provides that when a president refuses to follow the law, when he openly defies another co-equal branch of government, when he undermines the foundational structure of separated powers, Congress has both the authority and the duty to act. Impeachment is not merely an option in such circumstances.

[00:08:41]It is the specific remedy the constitutional design contemplates for precisely this kind of situation. The Democrats who are drafting articles of impeachment, building the evidentiary record, and rallying support among their colleagues understand the stakes clearly. Every day that Trump persists in his defiance is another day of constitutional violation. Another day in which the president demonstrates that he considers himself above the law. Another day in which the separation of powers that protects American liberty is weakened by the example being set. They are moving with deliberate speed because delay itself would constitute a form of acceptance, a signal that Congress is willing to tolerate what the Constitution forbids. The preparations are advancing through multiple channels simultaneously. The legal framework is being constructed. The political support is being organized and the public case is being articulated in terms designed to reach beyond the Democratic base to independents and even Republicans who may be troubled by what they are witnessing. This will represent the third impeachment of Donald Trump, a fact that by itself illustrates the extraordinary nature of his presidency.

[00:09:54]During his first term, the House of Representatives impeached him on two separate occasions. The first impeachment addressed abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals. The second impeachment addressed incitement of insurrection following the attack on the capital. In both instances, the House voted to impeach, but the Senate failed to reach the twothirds threshold required for conviction and removal.

[00:10:22]Trump has consistently treated those impeachments as vindication rather than condemnation, arguing that the failure to convict prove the entire process was nothing more than a politically motivated effort. But the circumstances surrounding this third impeachment are fundamentally different in ways that may alter the political calculus that protected him in the previous proceedings. The previous impeachments involved contested facts and disputed interpretations that provided cover for Republicans who wished to defend the president. Whether Trump's call with the Ukrainian president constituted a quidd proquo, whether his speech to the crowd constituted incitement. These were questions about which arguments could be constructed on both sides, even if the weight of evidence pointed strongly in one direction. But the defiance of a Supreme Court order is not subject to interpretation. The court issued a ruling. The ruling directed specific actions. Trump has publicly stated he will not comply. There is no factual dispute to litigate, no ambiguity to rely upon, no reasonable interpretation under which the president's conduct can be reconciled with his constitutional obligations. The clarity of the violation makes defending it extraordinarily difficult. and that difficulty may translate into Republican votes for impeachment that were not available in the previous proceedings.

[00:11:45]The constitutional challenge that Trump's defiance has created goes to the heart of how American government is supposed to function. The structure established by the founders distributes power among three branches, each with its own prerogatives and each with the capacity to check the others. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enforces them and the judicial branch interprets them and resolves disputes about their meaning.

[00:12:12]This arrangement depends entirely on mutual respect among the branches, on the understanding that each will acknowledge the others constitutional roles and will comply with the decisions those other branches make within their respective spheres. When a president declares that he will not comply with a Supreme Court ruling, he is not merely disagreeing with a particular decision.

[00:12:34]He is rejecting the premise that the judicial branch possesses any authority over him at all. He is asserting that his power is limited only by his own judgment about what is appropriate and that assertion is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance. The enforcement challenge that courts face makes this situation particularly significant because it reveals the ultimate dependence of judicial authority on the willingness of other actors to respect it. Courts can issue rulings and orders, but they have no independent mechanism for compelling obedience. They cannot deploy armed forces to seize control of executive branch operations. They cannot physically force a president to sign documents or issue directives. The power of the judiciary depends entirely on the willingness of the other branches to comply voluntarily on the shared understanding that the rule of law requires submission to judicial resolutions of legal disputes. When a president breaks that understanding, when he demonstrates that he will not comply voluntarily, the only remaining enforcement mechanism is the one the constitution provides, Congress must step in and use its impeachment power to address the situation. That is the constitutional mechanism that activates when the normal processes of compliance break down. The specifics of what the Supreme Court ordered are essential to understanding both the gravity of Trump's defiance and the human consequences of his refusal to comply.

[00:14:05]The litigation that produced the court's ruling centered on immigration policies that Trump had implemented in ways courts found inconsistent with statutory limits on executive authority. His administration had engaged in mass deportations without providing the hearings that federal law requires. They had detained individuals without the procedural protections that Congress had established. They had denied asylum claims without conducting the evaluations that due process demands.

[00:14:35]Multiple federal courts examined these practices and concluded that they violated immigration law and constitutional due process guarantees.

[00:14:44]The courts ordered the administration to stop certain enforcement actions, to reinstate the protections that had been eliminated, and to work toward returning individuals who had been deported in violation of their legal rights. Trump exhausted his appeals, taking the case through every level of the federal judiciary until it reached the Supreme Court. And when the Supreme Court ruled, it affirmed what the lower courts had found. The court ordered him to comply with the lower court rulings that had been upheld. Specifically, the court ordered him to reinstate policies that provided legal protections for asylum seekers to cease deporting individuals without providing them the hearings to which they were entitled, and to make meaningful efforts to locate and return individuals who had been deported in violation of court orders. These were people who had valid legal claims to remain in the United States. People who should have received hearings before being removed. People whose due process rights had been violated when the administration removed them before their cases could be adjudicated. Trump's stated reasons for refusing to comply do not withstand close scrutiny. He claims that immigration enforcement falls within the inherent authority of the executive branch, that the president possesses broad discretion over how to enforce immigration laws, and that courts lack the power to direct the president in how to exercise that discretion. There is a recognized legal principle within this argument. The executive branch does possess prosecutorial discretion, the authority to decide which cases to prioritize and how to allocate limited enforcement resources. But prosecutorial discretion is not a license to ignore the law entirely. It does not permit the president to violate statutes that Congress has passed or to disregard court orders that have been issued pursuant to those statutes. When Congress establishes immigration procedures and protections, the president must follow them. When courts determine that the president is violating those procedures and protections, the president must comply with the judicial determination. The claim that executive discretion overrides these constraints is not a recognized legal argument in any serious constitutional sense. It is a claim of authority that goes far beyond what the Constitution provides. The deportations that the Supreme Court specifically addressed represent cases where the harm to individuals is both severe and potentially irreversible. These are human beings who possessed valid legal claims to remain in the United States.

[00:17:12]asylum seekers who feared persecution in their countries of origin. Individuals who should have received hearings before any removal action was taken. The Trump administration deported them before their claims could be evaluated, sending them back to countries where they faced the very dangers they were attempting to escape. The courts determined that these deportations were illegal, that they violated both statutory law and constitutional due process, and that the government had an obligation to attempt to locate these individuals and bring them back so their cases could be heard properly. But executing that obligation is extraordinarily difficult. People who have been deported to dangerous countries often go into hiding. Some may have been harmed upon their return. Some may be impossible to locate through any reasonable effort. The harm caused by the illegal deportations may be irreparable, and Trump's refusal to even attempt compliance compounds that harm.

[00:18:10]The constitutional basis for impeachment in these circumstances is clearly established. Article two, section four of the Constitution provides that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has been the subject of extensive scholarly debate since the founding era, but there is broad consensus that it encompasses serious abuses of power that threaten the constitutional order. Defying a Supreme Court order falls within this category.

[00:18:45]It is an assertion that the president is not bound by the law, that judicial determinations can be ignored at the president's discretion, and that the separation of powers is optional rather than mandatory. The founders were explicitly concerned about the possibility of a president who would refuse to respect the other branches, who would accumulate power by disregarding constitutional constraints, who would behave more like a monarch than a constrained executive. They placed the impeachment power in the constitution specifically to address that risk. And the circumstances they contemplated are precisely the circumstances that have now materialized. House resolution 353, the impeachment resolution that has been formally introduced, constructs its case with careful attention to constitutional standards. It details Trump's defiance of the Supreme Court order, documents his public statements refusing compliance, traces the pattern of conduct that demonstrates he is acting deliberately rather than inadvertently, and argues that this conduct constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant removal from office. The resolution has entered the committee process where the House Judiciary Committee will conduct hearings, gather testimony, investigate the underlying facts, and ultimately vote on whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House. If the committee votes to recommend impeachment, and if the Democratic majority remains unified, impeachment will pass the House on a simple majority vote. That is the threshold that was met in both of Trump's previous impeachments, and there is little reason to doubt it will be met again. The Senate presents the real challenge, as it did in the previous proceedings. Conviction and removal require a 2/3 vote of the Senate, which means that at least some Republicans would need to join all Democrats to reach the necessary supermajority. In Trump's first two impeachments, Republican unity held. No Republican senator was willing to break ranks and vote to convict, and Trump was acquitted both times. But the political dynamic surrounding this impeachment differs in ways that could affect that unity.

[00:20:53]Defending Trump against charges involving disputed facts or ambiguous legal standards was uncomfortable but manageable for Republicans who wanted to remain loyal. Defending a president who is openly refusing to follow a Supreme Court order is a fundamentally different task. The conduct is not disputed. The legal obligation is not ambiguous. The threat to constitutional governance is not theoretical. Republicans who vote to acquit will be voting to endorse the proposition that presidents can ignore court rulings they dislike. And that proposition is unpopular with the American public, including with significant portions of the Republican base. The political calculation that Republican senators will need to make is genuinely difficult. Voting to convict Trump would invite the strong reaction of his most devoted supporters and could trigger primary challenges. Voting to acquit Trump would provide Democrats with significant material for general election campaigns and could alienate moderate and independent voters who decide competitive races. Each senator will need to weigh these competing considerations and determine which course of action offers the better political outcome. For some, particularly those in competitive states where the political environment has shifted, the calculus may favor conviction. For others, particularly those in states where Trump's support remains strong, the calculus may favor a quiddle, regardless of the constitutional principles at stake. The historical parallels to previous presidential tensions with the judiciary are instructive, but also demonstrate how far beyond established norms Trump has traveled. The most commonly cited example involves Andrew Jackson's response to the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester versus Georgia, which held that Georgia could not enforce its laws on Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson allegedly remarked that Chief Justice John Marshall had made his decision and could now enforce it himself, and Jackson proceeded to disregard the court's ruling. The consequences were severe, leading directly to the Trail of Tears and the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands.

[00:22:55]Jackson's defiance has been assessed by historians as one of the most troubling episodes in presidential history, an example of executive disregard for judicial authority producing a humanitarian catastrophe. Trump is now in similar territory, refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling he opposes.

[00:23:14]and the consequences for the individuals whose rights are being violated are similarly serious. The differences that the impeachment mechanism has developed since Jackson's era and Congress has both the constitutional authority and the institutional capacity to hold Trump accountable in ways that Jackson never faced. The enforcement challenge that courts confront when dealing with a defiant president reveals the ultimate dependence of judicial authority on the willingness of other institutions to respect it. The Supreme Court can issue rulings and orders, but it cannot independently compel obedience. It cannot dispatch law enforcement to take control of executive agencies. It cannot physically force the president to comply with its directives. The court's authority rests entirely on the expectation of voluntary compliance, on the shared understanding among all branches of government that judicial decisions must be respected even when they are unwelcome. When a president demonstrates that he will not comply voluntarily, the only remaining enforcement mechanism is the one the Constitution provides, Congress must step in and use its impeachment power to address a president who refuses to accept the constraints that the law imposes. That is the constitutional mechanism the founders built in for precisely the situation where normal processes of compliance break down. The Democrats who are advancing this impeachment understand that they are answering a responsibility that the constitutional structure places on the legislative branch. The court has ruled.

[00:24:45]The president has declined to comply.

[00:24:48]The judiciary has done everything within its institutional capacity. Now the obligation shifts to Congress and the question is whether Congress will fulfill its constitutional responsibility or allow the defiance to stand. The answer to that question will define what kind of government the United States actually has, whether the Constitution means what it says about separated powers and presidential accountability, or whether those provisions impose no real constraints on executive behavior. The timing of this impeachment process intersects with the broader political calendar in ways that amplify its significance and its potential consequences. The midterm elections are approaching and every member of Congress will need to face the voters and explain their decisions. A vote to acquit Trump will be presented by Democratic challengers as a vote to endorse presidential disregard for the law. A vote to place loyalty to one man above loyalty to the Constitution. That message will be particularly effective in competitive districts where voters may understand the simple proposition that presidents should follow court orders. Republican members who are already facing difficult re-election campaigns may conclude that voting to acquit is too politically risky, that the cost of defending Trump's defiance is higher than the cost of breaking with him. The possibility of actual conviction and removal while still requiring 17 Republican senators to join all Democrats is more plausible in these circumstances than it was in either of the previous impeachments. The clarity of the violation changes the political calculus. In the previous cases, Republican senators could tell themselves and their constituents that the charges were politically motivated, that the evidence was contested, that the constitutional standard for removal had not been met. Those arguments are not available here. The charges based on conduct that Trump has publicly acknowledged and continues to defend.

[00:26:42]Voting to acquit means accepting the principle that presidents may ignore Supreme Court orders. And that is a principle that even conservative legal thinkers, even those committed to judicial authority and limited executive power, cannot easily endorse. The intellectual and legal foundations of modern conservatism include respect for judicial authority and skepticism of unchecked executive power. Convicting Trump for defying the Supreme Court would be consistent with those principles, while acquitting him would require setting them aside. The broader implications of this situation extend far beyond the fate of any individual president. If Trump defies the Supreme Court and faces no consequences if Congress declines to impeach or the Senate declines to convict, the president that would be established could fundamentally alter the nature of American government. Future presidents observing that the ultimate check on executive conduct had not been applied would face incentives to follow a similar approach. Judicial rulings could become effectively advisory rather than binding. The Supreme Court's authority to resolve constitutional disputes would become contingent on presidential willingness to comply. The separation of powers would become a matter of convenience rather than a structural requirement. the United States would have taken a significant step toward the kind of executive dominance that is inconsistent with constitutional democratic governance. Conversely, if Congress does impeach and the Senate does convict, the constitutional structure would be reinforced and demonstrate that the checks and balances designed by the founders remain functional. Future presidents would understand that ignoring Supreme Court orders carries the ultimate political consequence of removal from office and that the constitutional order is not merely aspirational language but an enforcable framework that applies to everyone including the President