The constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive orders was the topic of a recent debate in a CNN panel. Abby Phillip hosted the segment, and members of the panel included Republican strategist Scott Jennings and CNN’s Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig, among others.
Throughout the episode, the panelists argued whether the United States really was headed toward a “constitutional calamity” due to President Donald Trump’s series of executive orders.
Elie Honig kicked off emphasizing that it is “not a constitutional crisis for a new president to come in and issue a spate of executive orders, even if liberals hate those executive orders.” He further added that it is “also not a constitutional crisis for scores of federal judges to block some or all of those. That is the way our system is supposed to work”
Honig also noted that there is no clarity on what’s to happen next, saying “We don’t have an answer to that. We are not at that point yet.” The legal analyst also remarked that the Donald Trump Administration had received “a slew of really bad rulings” and that it is “making a lot of noise” about disregarding them.
Host Abby Phillip then pointed out that a Rhode Island District Judge had ruled that the White House “has been violating his order to resume funding federal grants.”
She mentioned that the report of Judge John James McConnell Jr.’s ruling was made by Politico, and asked Honig whether this particular move by the Trump administration could amount to an outright disregard of the rulings.
View this post on Instagram
Elie Honig answered by saying that McConnell Jr.’s ruling and the administration’s response to it could be considered “technical disputes” which are “not uncommon in cases.” However, Honig also brought up a recent tweet by JD Vance, in which the Vice President proclaimed that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
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
Abby Phillip noted that the use of the word “legitimate” in the tweet was “doing a lot of work here.” Scott Jennings sided with Vance’s tweet, claiming that the real “constitutional crisis” was actually “caused by” federal judges.
Jennings further opined, “Correct political control is between the executive and the Congress, not some federal judge.” He also wanted to “let the Supreme Court” decide on the constitutionality or the lack of it of Trump’s directives.
View this post on Instagram
Phillip seemed to be baffled by this remark, asking the panel, “Pray tell, how do we get to the Supreme Court? Can somebody tell me?” Jennings, as a rebuttal, brought up the time former President Joe Biden tussled with the Supreme Court over student debt relief.
“‘The Supreme Court tried to stop me but they never will, but they never will!’ Who said that? Biden!” remarked Jennings.
Elie Honig chimed in on the situation mentioned by Jennings, mentioning that while he “hated the student loan forgiveness policy,” finding it to be “ridiculous” and “unconstitutional,” ex-President Biden did not ignore the courts, noting that he “went and tried under a different law.”
However, Jennings wasn’t on board with Honig’s suggestion. “So he ignored it,” claimed the GOP strategist. This statement set the panel ablaze, kickstarting a back-and-forth.
Jennings didn’t do his bit to turn things down a notch, openly declaring that if a judge “tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, (the President) should absolutely defy it.”
Abby Phillip took issue with this, pointing out that the “generalities” made by Jennings were “broad” and “bizarre.”
“When the court says, ‘Congress appropriated this money, you must unfreeze it while we litigate this,’ why can’t Trump comply with that?” Phillip asked. This miffed Jennings, who exclaimed, “saying that a judge should decide how and when money is spent and not the president of the United States!”
“Let me explain it a little bit more slowly,” Phillip replied, to which Jennings shot back saying, ” You don’t have to talk to me like that. I have a position on this, you have an opinion, we can disagree.” “Listen to me on this, because you’re not listening, and you’re making claims that are not connected to the facts,” Phillip clapped back.
Jennings seemed to back down a little after this statement, seemingly ending the row by saying, maybe you are.”
