Conservative Jurist Speaks on Trump’s Second Term

On Thursday, students gathered in Paino Lecture Hall for Judge J. Michael Luttig’s “Trump v. The Rule of Law” talk, sponsored by the law, jurisprudence, and social thought (LJST) department. A conservative jurist on the Court of Appeals from 1991 to 2006 and an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump since his first term, Luttig discussed how Trump’s new administration contributed to “the end of the rule of law.” 

The talk started with Luttig offering his general thoughts on Trump, followed by a question-and-answer section moderated by James J. Grosfield Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought, Lawrence Douglas. Luttig expressed his concerns about the start of Trump’s second term, particularly in regards to the initiatives passed during his first 100 days in office. “I actually did the constitutional analysis [for] these 12 or 15 initiatives ... every single one [of them] was flagrantly unconstitutional, or otherwise in violation of the laws of the United States,” he said. 

Luttig noted that “Trump and MAGA are not conservative, and [no matter what Trump] says whatsoever, they’re the opposite.” Instead, he termed them as “radical[s].” He pointed to the Jan. 6 insurrection as a key example where Trump sought, in his words, a “revolution against the United States government.” 

Luttig said that, “it is likely that Donald Trump would run for a third [term] in office, notwithstanding the Constitution. He [doesn’t] care about that.” He also criticized the “idea that we the people are going to save the republic from Donald Trump. [We need] to confront the fact that he won a plurality of the vote, 70 some odd million votes. He was among the most transparent candidates around, [and he] told us what he was going to do. So my question is, can we save the republic from the people themselves?”

The Supreme Court has enabled Trump to carry out many of his controversial policies, according to Luttig. “All of Trump’s initiatives have been struck down by the lower courts. As soon as they’ve been struck down, Trump goes to the Court and claims, ‘You need to hear this case on an emergency basis.’” This refers to the Court’s emergency docket, which consists of emergency applications that are filed when immediate action is deemed necessary. Luttig added that the Court has rarely listened to presidential complaints before. Additionally, he argued that by actively enforcing Trump’s policies instead of writing an opinion, the Court is “acting illegitimately.”

Luttig also highlighted the Court’s response to the Jan. 6 insurrection. “When the counsel tried to bring the Court back to the issue of whether Trump was disqualified from the presidency under Section 30, repeatedly, the justices, one after the other, would say, ‘Counsel, I’m not really interested in that.’”  

“[The] Supreme Court didn’t want to decide whether Trump was disqualified, but that’s their job,” he said. “[If] you’re not going to decide the biggest cases in the land, [you] shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court.” 

Luttig also critiqued how Trump seemed to interpret the Constitution in ways that favored his agenda. For instance, he noted that Trump used a statute giving the president the authority in an emergency situation to level tariffs. Luttig added that he had ignored past precedents by hosting a rally at the Department of Justice and threatening to prosecute his enemies. “That’s not the rule of law in America. That’s the antithesis of the rule of law,” he said. 

Luttig thought that there were few remaining ways of opposing Trump. “Trump has cut the American people off from every other means of challenging him and his language.” He proposed that people should “rise up” in ways like Saturday’s No Kings Day Protests. “That is the only thing that stands a chance,” Luttig said.

Students in attendance had mostly positive responses to Luttig’s take on Trump’s second term. “I think it’s interesting how he was talking about how there’s nothing wrong with the Constitution, and the problem is with the people who are executing or claiming to execute the Constitution,” said Sofie Robinson ’28. 

Caroline Pulask ’29 appreciated Luttig’s viewpoint. “It was interesting to get the perspective of someone who existed within the [judiciary], conservative side of things, sort of reflecting on how twisted it’s become.”

Audren Hedges Duroy ’28 considered Luttig’s ideas a grim outlook. He appreciated that Luttig spoke to the erosion of the Court's power. “I think that's probably what's most important right now, given that the legislative branch is doing nothing and can't do anything.”

“I think we’re so caught up in the political rhetoric these days, and then we just apply conservative and liberal or Republican and Democrat labels ... It’s nice [because] this is a conservative person who is still criticizing what broader society is labeling as conservative, because, I mean, what we’re looking at is a constitutional issue, and [maybe] that shouldn’t be [a] political division,” Hedges Duroy added.