Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - For more than a decade, the US Supreme Court has been on a tear to impose the Unitary Executive (aka military dictatorship) on the United States. However, it lacked a pawn until the advent of Donald Trump. It had Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission 588 U.S. 50 (2010) which gave corporations the right to buy politicians and hopefully the government.
Then, the High Court had success with Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is 591 U.S. 197 (2020) which gave the President the power to override and alter the operations of independent agencies so that they no long carry out the Congressional mandate which had created them.
Under our constitutional Republic, however, the Presidency lacks legislative power. Thus, when Congress passes a law and creates an agency for the law’s administration, the President lacks the power (to) change the agency’s functions, just as the LAPD may not change the Penal Code so that it’s OK for thugs to mug seniors as they walk the streets. In addition, Congress also provides the agencies it creates with the power to make administrative rules for running the agency. Any and all statutes which Congress enacts, however, are subject to judicial review as to their constitutionality.
The Separation of Powers Doctrine is designed to keep one branch of government from unduly infringing upon the rights and duties of the two other branches’ rights and duties. The Supreme Court, however, can void a statute or presidential act as unconstitutional. The Presidency, as the Executive Branch, often has the duty to administer the agencies which Congress establishes, but sometimes the agencies are self-contained entities isolated from any Presidential interference such as the Federal Reserve System established in 1913.
On the other hand, there are areas where the Presidency has great power to establish the rules. For example, States are excluded from making laws on immigration which conflict with Federal statutes and regulations. Under The Naturalization Clause (US Cont. Art. I, § 8), Congress establishes a "uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Under INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987), the Feds and not states make asylum laws which the Executive Branch implements.
What happens, however, when the Executive’s administration of immigration, as a exclusively federal matter, violates Congressional mandates and the US Constitution? Prior to The Supreme Court’s efforts to create the Unitary Executive, such excesses were illegal. Marbury v. Madison (1803) settled this issue; the courts have the final say on Constitutionality of Congress acts, and thus, on the President’s actions implementing federal legislation.
The Feds have exclusive control of immigration, but the President’s power is restricted by the parameters of the Congressional delegation and by judicial review.
The Danger of Calling America a “Democracy”
Those, who dislike the constitutional Republic with its checks and balances, especially on Presidential power, prefer that America were a democracy where the President can claim a superseding mandate due to the “Will of the People, by the People and for the People,” which overrides both existing statutes and the US Constitution. Laboring under the false belief that we are a democracy; voters clamor that the President carry out whatever policy the voters allegedly approved. Authoritarians such as MAGA and Wokers who wish to create a Unitary Executive always favor the legal fiction that voters give Presidents mandates which become the law of the land.
Donald Trump embraces the Unitary Executive Theory that by winning the 2024 election, he gained mandates from the voters. Democracy’s claim of mandates is absurd on its face, since almost all elections are won by a few percentage points and voters make their decisions on a variety of factors. Thus, election results cannot give President a legally binding consensus of opinion (mandate) to abrogate existing laws and the Constitution.
The area of the law where President Trump has vigorously advanced, or is being used to advance the Executive Theory, is immigration. During the election President, as he (is) wont to do, engaged in unending racist rants against immigrants. While MAGA believed him about absolute evils of immigrants just as they believed that the Epstein, the Deep State, and Dems ran a covert ring of pedophiles committed to childhood sexual slavery, the large majority of Americans believed that illegal aliens who had committed serious felonies should be removed. Trump used the phrase “Worst of the Worst.” ICE head Homan often used the phrase.
At the beginning of the Trump Administration, it would have been wise for both Dems in sanctuary cities and the Trump Administration to enter into a compromise. Sanctuary jurisdictions like California and Los Angeles would cooperate with ICE to apprehend and deport criminal aliens. As Homan pointed out, when the city police allow ICE into the jails and prisons to take custody of criminal aliens, there was less danger to ICE agents. The alternative was for ICE to go out on the streets to find and chase down illegals who may be armed murderers. Without an agreement, ICE would be barred from apprehending criminals who were in custody, until after they had been released. A compromise of Sanctuary Laws would also protect civilians from being harmed as there would no roving bands of ICE agents attacking anyone who looked Mexican.
Furthermore, the LAPD would cooperate in helping ICE find non-incarcerated criminal illegals. For example, MS13 was formed in Los Angeles, but its membership is overwhelmingly El Salvadoran. Also, the police such as LAPD and LA Sheriff know which gang members are likely to be illegal, even though neither gathers such data. Crucial to LA’s modifying its Sanctuary rules to help ICE focus on bona fide illegal criminals would be ICE’s agreement to stay away from the hard working, law abiding “indigenous illegals,” i.e., those who have been here for years, have steady jobs and are integrated into Los Angeles’s economic and civil life. In addition, ICE would not treat illegal entry as a crime in order to classify someone as a criminal illegal. Such cooperation between ICE and sanctuary cities would benefit both Trump, the LA in general, and its “indigenous Mexican illegals.”
Why Was No Such Deal Struck?
(1) An informal understanding may have been struck. Since America is polarized, both Dem and GOP are fearful of being seen as openly cooperating with the other;
(2) The racist Stephen Miller -- Whether or not such an informal or unspoken agreement had been reached, the extreme blowback did not start until Trump’s own Joseph Goebbels, Stephen Miller, started demanding more and more ICE arrests. There are reports, which seem reliable, of Miller screaming at DHS officials demanding more arrests, up to 3,000 per day.
Historic Parallel Trump Should Heed
Americans ask why Germans allowed the Nazis to take control, but that question ends our inquiry. In retrospect after WW II, the horrors of genocide against Jews and others obliterated analysis of pre-WW II Nazism. While history does not replicate itself, certain patterns emerge. Hitler and his henchman such as Joseph Goebbels were extreme racists and at certain key points during WW II Hitler’s and Goebbels’ racism overrode Germany’s military necessities in order to murder more Jews. Similarly, Trump is allowing the racist Stephen Miller to ruin Trump’s domestic policies in order to attack LA’s Mexican community, which ironically otherwise would probably have been Pro Trump in 2026.
Why Illegal Entry Should Not Be Classified as a Crime like Rape and Murder?
After all, the Nazis had passed anti-Jew laws, and the US had made illegal entry a crime. The laws were racist, and neither should have been enacted. Allegedly Miller recently gathered ICE agents together in Washington, D.C., in effect screaming and hollering at them – troll the streets and pick up any Mexican you see. If anyone questions you, arrest them for putting hands on an ICE agent.” Ice and other HSI leaders who had been following Trump’s and Homan’s public statements about getting “criminals, the worst of the worst,” were demoted or fired. In demanding 3,000 arrests per day, Miller knew that ICE would have to target Los Angeles “indigenous” Mexican community. Racists in 1930 Germany thought the same as Miller; just as all Jews had to be eradicated, all of Los Angeles Mexicans must be removed. See Miller’s Agenda Not only has Miller made ICE into a pariah, he compels it to engage in racist, unconstitutional behavior. There is no other way to satisfy Miller’s Goebbels-style rantings and ravings.
As a result of Miller’s demands, the Supreme Court will soon have another opportunity to consider the unitary Executive Theory when Karen Bass’s lawsuit, Perdomo v Noem , 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, reaches the US Supreme Court. As we saw with Trump vs Casa, 606 U.S. ___ (2025) That can happen within a matter of weeks. See Trump v Casa
The District Court’s Order granting Bass’s requested injunctions is fifty-two pages and in contrast to the US Supreme Court decision in Trump vs Casa, Perdomo is very well written. The US Supreme Court decision in Perdomo will tell us whether the US Supreme Court will further advance or retreat from the Unitary Executive Theory.
The strength the Perdomo injunctions is that Bass’s case is based on documented facts, many of which we have been on TV. Next, it carefully elaborates why each preliminary injunction will preserve the status quo. In some cases: Do you want to be arrested and sent to a detention center in Adelanto, allowed no legal counsel, or the right to tell your family what happened to you while being deprived of your blood pressure and/or diabetic medication while ICE ignores that you are a US citizen? Similar to how Goebbels urged Hitler to ramp up his Final Solution of the Jewish Question, Miller’s anti-Mexican racism is turning Trump’s most liked policy into Trump’s most hated policy. As of June 2025, 79% of Americans say that immigration is good for America. 64% of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship.
NOTE: "On July 13, 2025, Defendants in Perdomo v Noem filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The notice does not state their basis."
A Notice does not require a longer brief setting for the basis for the appeal at this time. Defendants should follow up within a couple days with a long brief, as the Administration probably wants to get to the US Supreme Court as fast as possible.
(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. You may email him at [email protected])
