Trump's Power Troubles: Legal Conflicts over Agency Control, Presidential Immunity, and Birthright Citizenship in light of the Constitutional Accountability Center's actions

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• President Trump’s return to the White House has sparked a wave of lawsuits challenging his executive actions on various fronts, from immigration to federal workforce control.
• Trump’s executive order demanding independent agencies like the SEC and FTC to seek White House approval for policy and budgets has raised constitutional concerns.
• CAC advocates for a progressive interpretation of the Constitution and has actively contested Trump’s policies, especially those that appear to push the boundaries of presidential power
• Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship is rooted in challenging the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
• Ongoing legal battles highlight the tension between executive power expansion and the constitutional framework designed to check it.

INTRODUCTION

Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, his administration's activities have been subjected to quick and rigorous judicial examination, fueling disputes over the nature of presidential power and constitutional restrictions. Several lawsuits have been filed contesting his policies and executive actions in a variety of fields.
Hampton Dellinger, a federal officer fired by President Trump earlier this month, is at the center of a major court struggle. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, hoping to accelerate judiciary rulings that might increase executive power. This case centers on the unitary executive theory, which advocates for wide presidential control over the executive branch. The Court's ruling may significantly alter the balance of power and procedural rules, suggesting its possible attitude on presidential authority.

In an effort to impose presidential control, President Trump signed an executive order forcing independent regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to submit new policy ideas and obtain budget approval from the White House. This decision, based on the unitary executive principle, has provoked legal challenges and arguments regarding the constitutionality of expanding presidential oversight over traditionally independent agencies.. 

The Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), a legal policy think tank that advocates for a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution, has emerged as a major actor in these judicial disputes. The CAC has filed amicus papers in crucial instances, questioning the administration's actions and interpretations of presidential authority. Their involvement emphasizes the active role of legal groups in shaping the debate over constitutional boundaries and presidential authority.

Overview of the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC)

CAC was introduced on June 3, 2008. Its predecessor was the Community Rights Counsel. Douglas Kendall created and currently leads both organizations. CAC's advisors have included Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, and Walter E. Dellinger III.

CAC’s Philosophy and Methodology

CAC is a proponent of "New Textualism," a school of thought that focuses on the text, structure, and history of the Constitution's language. The organization advances legal arguments based on constitutional language and history, with a focus on the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. CAC founder and president Douglas Kendall believes that a fresh attention on the Civil War Amendments will assist to portray the Constitution as a progressive constitution.

The CAC has been involved in a number of cases against Donald Trump, including those seeking publication of his tax returns and charges that he benefitted from foreign governments. These lawsuits raise serious concerns regarding presidential conflict of interest and financial transparency. The legal cases contend that Trump's refusal to provide his tax returns breaches constitutional norms and that his commercial transactions with foreign corporations may violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Trump’s Indictment for the 2020 Election Interference

In August 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith charged former President Donald Trump with violating federal law by using force and trickery to alter the 2020 election results. In response, Trump claimed, among other things, that he has broad protection from criminal prosecution for any conduct committed while his president, and that his acquittal in an impeachment hearing precludes further prosecution.

The D.C. District Court denied Trump's broad immunity claims, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the decision. Trump requested an emergency stay of the D.C. Circuit's mandate from the Supreme Court. CAC filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of constitutional law professors, urging the court to deny the stay application and pursue the federal criminal proceedings against Trump. The Court delayed the mandate and granted certiorari on the issue of whether a former president is exempt from criminal prosecution for alleged official acts done while in office. CAC filed a brief on behalf of constitutional law professors, urging the Court to reject Trump's immunity claims.

No President Is Above the Law of the State

First, the Constitution does not provide presidential immunity. Unlike legislators, the framers purposefully eliminated it, emphasizing that a president is nonetheless subject to the rule of law.

Second, the Supreme Court's precedent denies total immunity. Nixon v. Fitzgerald established civil immunity while distinguishing it from criminal prosecution, where responsibility is even more important.

Third, an impeachment acquittal does not exclude prosecution. The framers viewed impeachment as distinct from criminal law, affecting all federal officials, including the president. Hence, Trump's assertions of immunity lack a constitutional or legal basis and should be rejected.

Turning to the specific actions in the indictment against Trump, the majority provided a definitive ruling on only one: discussions between Trump and the Acting Attorney General at the time were, according to the Court's majority, "within his exclusive constitutional authority" and thus "absolutely immune from prosecution." The Court declined to rule whether other conduct in the charges were official and remitted those questions to the trial court.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson all dissented. Justice Sotomayor's dissent, supported by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that the ruling "reshapes the institution of the presidency." Citing our brief, Sotomayor further stated that the majority's position contradicts the language and history of the Constitution, which do not allow such extensive presidential immunity. According to Justice Sotomayor, the ruling means that "the President is now a king above the law," and she finished by stating that the majority's decision makes her "fearful for our democracy."

What is Birthright Citizenship?

Anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, as per the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was introduced to the US Constitution in 1868.

The amendment makes it clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 likewise defines citizens and uses similar terminology. 

After the American Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the US Constitution in 1868 to overturn the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied basic rights to African Americans. The previous ruling stated that enslaved people were not US citizens and thus could not receive protection from the federal government or courts. Additionally, the US Supreme Court confirmed that birthright citizenship applies to children of immigrants. 

The decision established that, regardless of color or parental immigration status, all children born in the United States were entitled to all of the rights that citizenship provided.

However, the Supreme Court has not considered whether the Citizenship Clause applies to children born in the United States who are illegally present.

Concerns regarding Trump's Attempts to Undercut Birthright Citizenship

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago, a familiar pattern has emerged: he announces a bold proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit, and a federal judge temporarily halts the plan.

It happened with Trump's attempts to suspend federal funds, weaken birthright citizenship, and fire government employees. The question now is whether the court rulings are merely a speed bump or an insurmountable hurdle for the Republican president, who is determined to increase his powers – sometimes by simply defying the law.
Trump vowed in his inauguration address that "all illegal entry will be halted" and that millions of "criminal aliens" would be deported.As part of his decisions, Trump declared a national emergency at the US-Mexico border and ordered the deployment of troops to improve border security.

He has continued the border wall construction that began during his first term in 2017 and revived the "Remain in Mexico" program, which compelled asylum claimants to stay in Mexico during their US immigration hearings.

Although the opening round of judicial pushback may have buoyed Democrats, the legal fights are far from over. Lawsuits filed in more liberal areas, such as Boston, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., may make their way to the United States Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has showed a readiness to reverse precedent.

"What's constitutional or not is only as good as the latest court decision," said Philip Joyce, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland. Approximately three dozen lawsuits have already been filed, including those by FBI agents who believe they are being purged for political purposes and families concerned about new healthcare restrictions for transgender youngsters.

According to Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, the courts have pushed back against Trump during his second term. However, he warned that judicial decisions must be enforced.

"The collapse of any congressional pushback, any congressional responsibility, I think is an ominous sign for what would happen if this administration starts openly defying court orders," Vladeck told the audience.

Historically, this would be a political non-starter, making a president vulnerable to impeachment. Despite two House impeachments during his first term, Trump was cleared by the Senate and reelected by American voters, leaving him with little fear of punishment. One frequently observed legal topic is the president's right to withhold funding granted by Congress, sometimes known as impoundment. 

Ongoing Lawsuits Over Plan to End Birthright Citizenship

A coalition of Democratic-leaning states and civil rights groups has sued US President Donald Trump over his proposal to remove birthright citizenship in the United States. Several distinct lawsuits were filed within hours of Trump taking office, and he immediately issued a slew of executive orders that he hopes will overhaul American immigration.

Two lawsuits have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, immigrant organizations, and an expectant mother following President Trump's executive order to eliminate citizenship for US-born children. The lawsuits are brought by 22 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco in federal courts in Boston and Seattle. The lawsuits claim that Trump's order overstepped his authority and violated the US Constitution.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell stated that Trump does not have the authority to take away constitutional rights, stating that over 150,000 children born annually in the US would be denied citizenship.

The Piling up of Legal Defeats

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued a preliminary injunction in favor of 18 Democratic state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco. The ruling temporarily suspends the executive order while the case is determined.

Judge Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, indicated that his ruling was based on a "straightforward application" of long-standing legal precedent. He stressed that this precedent has been "reiterated and reaffirmed in various ways for more than a century by all three branches of the federal government."

Sorokin, like the other judges, believes the plaintiffs will triumph in their claim. The judge stated that he was constrained by long-standing precedent regarding the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which is where birthright originated, beginning with a historic Supreme Court decision from 1898 that was enacted by Congress in a 1940 federal legislation.

"Simply put, the Amendment is the nation's consent to accept and protect as citizens those born here, subject to the few narrow exceptions recognized at the time of enactment, none of which are at issue here," Sorokin stated in the order he signed. Court rulings on birthright citizenship are among numerous legal setbacks for Trump since he issued a flurry of executive directives last month. Judges thwarted his efforts to cap federal spending and give entrepreneur Elon Musk's government efficiency team access to Treasury Department payment data. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the president's orders.

"We stood up for the Constitution and won," New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, who is leading the multi-state lawsuit challenging the birthright ruling, wrote on X. "Trump's attack on the rule of law isn't over, but we can and will fight back."

Sorokin dismissed various government claims, including Trump's claim that kids born on US territory to unauthorized immigrants lack the allegiance essential for citizenship. The judge stated that allegiance is a "fact of birth" that "does not depend on the status of a child's parents."

The Firing of National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox

Gwynne Wilcox, who is suing President Trump for her unexpected removal from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), said she was "stunned" to receive a letter from the White House on the evening of January 27 telling her of her dismissal.

Wilcox was appointed to the five-member board by President Joe Biden in 2021 and confirmed by the Senate in December for a second term that would last until 2028. However, in the letter announcing her termination, President Trump noted that she was not "operating in a manner consistent with the objectives of [his] administration."

Her dismissal has left the board—which is in charge of settling labor disputes and protecting workers' rights—without enough members to function. Her elimination is part of a larger pattern.

The White House has filed a lawsuit against former US President Donald Trump, alleging that he has the right to fire any executive branch employee he wishes to, a claim that is also being contested in other lawsuits. The plaintiff, a former board member, is seeking a judge to declare her removal unlawful and reinstate her as a board member. She acknowledges that Trump may use the litigation as a "test case" for the courts, suggesting that if her firing is upheld, it could set a precedent that would expand presidential power.

However, she also believes that if she doesn't take legal action, it would render the laws protecting the independence of agencies like hers meaningless. She believes her removal puts workers' rights at risk and takes away a resource to resolve labor disputes. The board has recently taken actions to protect workers at Amazon and SpaceX.

A Turning Point for the NLRB and Administrative Government?

Some observers were taken aback by the action because Wilcox, like every other Board member, was supposedly protected from removal by statute. A Board member may only be removed for "malfeasance" or "neglect of duty" in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act. Therefore, it appeared that the president's choice directly challenged the stipulations of the Act.

However, the ruling also called into doubt the standing of so-called "independent" federal agencies in a broader sense. Independent organizations like the Board were established during the Progressive era with the intention of delegating policymaking authority to impartial specialists.

However, this trust in knowledge has waned in recent years. Agencies have faced criticism for their inability to provide results as well as their lack of responsibility. Scholars, politicians, and even judges have advocated for a return to the elected official-led classical type of government. Wilcox's dismissal might represent a shift back toward electoral accountability and away from administrative governance.

The Board, like many independent bodies, has its roots in the political and policy ideologies of the Progressive era. Intellectuals and social reformers began to feel that the federal government was outdated around the turn of the century. The division of powers was the foundation of the government: Congress enacted laws, the president carried them out, and courts decided disagreements over their interpretation. In addition to distributing authority throughout the government, that structure ensured that those in charge were answerable to the people. 
However, things appeared to be shifting by the 1880s. Modern capitalism was born during the Industrial Revolution, which also brought up a number of intricate new social and financial issues. It appeared that technology, trade, and urbanization had altered society. The pace and complexity of the problems increased. What was needed was a more responsive government—one stocked with flexible, nonpartisan experts.

The Development of Independent Organizations and the Attempt to Keep Them Out of Politics
A surge of new administrative agencies resulted from that motivation. These agencies were intended to be knowledgeable policymakers from the start. Devoted civil servants with extensive backgrounds in economics and science were to work there. Compared to generalist lawmakers who could only take action by consensus and discussion, they would be more knowledgeable and adaptable. Independent agencies would be able to take precise, decisive action instead of debating every issue. They stood for a fresh and, in the eyes of progressives, superior approach to governance.

However, the danger of partisan infection was acknowledged even by progressives. A great deal of discretion has been granted to these new agencies. Furthermore, they might readily turn into the instruments of partisan operatives if they were subjected to political pressure. Therefore, progressives also made an effort to keep the agencies politically neutral. They safeguarded agency chiefs from termination without cause and granted them staggered terms of service. Because of these safeguards, agency leadership would not be replaced right away by every new presidential administration. Through sporadic nominations, the president would still have some influence over the agencies. However, agencies would be free to create policies based on their knowledge, not politics, in between appointments.

Legal Restrictions on Removing NLRB Board Members

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) general counsel can be removed by the president for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but not for other reasons. President Trump has promised to reduce the federal government, and a memo by the Office of Management and Budget aims to stop a large portion of federal grant programs. The 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor established limits on the president's power to remove officials performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, like NLRB board members.

The case of - Humphrey’s Executor v. United States of America

President Hoover had appointed Humphrey as a FTC commissioner, and in 1933, President Roosevelt asked for his resignation due to his conservative stance on New Deal policies. Humphrey refused, leading to his dismissal due to his policy positions. However, the FTC Act only allowed removal for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. Humphrey died shortly after being dismissed, and his executor sued to recover his lost salary.
The question that arose was whether section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interferes with the executive power of the President or not?

The Supreme Court consecutively ruled that the FTC Act is constitutional and unjustified Humphrey's dismissal on policy grounds. The Court argued that the Constitution does not grant "illimitable power of removal" to the president. Justice Sutherland dismissed the government's main defense, relying on the Myers v. United States (1926) decision, which upheld the president's right to remove officers from the executive department. The FTC, a body created by Congress, was different.

End of an Era for Worker-Focused Agencies under the President’s Regime?

President Trump has ordered federal workers to return to the office five days a week and weaken civil servant job protections, marking the first step in his campaign to overhaul the federal bureaucracy. This move would force many white-collar government employees to abandon remote working arrangements, a trend that began during the COVID-19 pandemic.

His stance has weakened job protections for civil servants, aiming to replace long-serving government workers with loyalists aligned with his agenda. The White House has directed department and agency heads to terminate remote work arrangements and require full-time in-person work. The administration has reinstated "Schedule F," reclassifying certain civil service positions, removing job protections and making it easier to hire and fire employees based on loyalty.

Trump's executive order to reinstate a 2020 administrative order, which Joe Biden rescinded, is likely to face pushback and litigation. The order is accompanied by a hiring freeze and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aimed at reducing federal government spending and eliminating some agencies. Experts argue that the combined effect of these orders could weaken job protections.

Exodus of Top Talent from the Scene

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has predicted that revoking the COVID-era privilege of telework would trigger a wave of voluntary terminations. Not all government workers would be covered by the return-to-office mandate, as a quarter of the federal workforce is unionized and many are covered by bargaining agreements that allow for remote work or hybrid arrangements. 

Russell Vought, Trump's nominee for Office of Management and Budget, has hinted at efforts to unwind these deals. Republicans have spent decades lampooning federal employees as lazy bureaucrats, and Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement has ratcheted the criticism to the next level. 

The executive order ordering workers to return to office was signed with sustained cheering, as work-from-home workers tend to be higher educated. Nicholas Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University, believes that the Trump administration's efforts to coerce the federal workforce would likely spark fights, dismissals, and resignations, ultimately leading to a lower quality of government service for Americans and potential failures of core safety and social security functions.

Eliminating Federal DEI Programs from the System

Executive orders are formal written pronouncements that outline the president's agenda for administering the federal government. These may include directions to federal agencies or requests for specific reports. Many orders are uncontroversial, such as giving federal employees the day following Christmas off, but they can also set substantial policy.

New presidents, as heads of the executive branch, have the authority to rescind orders issued by their predecessors. According to the American Bar Association, the president has the authority to issue executive orders under Article II of the United States Constitution.

The issuance of January 6 Capitol Attack Pardons 

Trump also issued a proclamation pardoning around 1,500 people convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, as well as closing federal prosecutions against the outgoing administration's political opponents.

"This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation," Trump said in a statement posted on the White House website. Trump's pardons cleared the slate for many of individuals convicted of the most serious offenses on January 6, including Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the far-right Proud Boys, who was sentenced to 22 years in jail for seditious conspiracy.

The pardons also cleared the criminal records of over 700 people convicted of misdemeanor offenses such as trespassing and halted hundreds of pending prosecutions. Separately, Trump instructed the end of federal cases against "political opponents" of the Biden administration, focusing on investigations against his allies.

Another key decision was an instruction to the federal government to recognize only two sexes: male and female. This is consistent with his diatribe against the "woke" culture. "As of today, it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female," Trump stated in his inaugural speech.

"Sex shall refer to an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female," according to the directive. The term "sex" is not synonymous with or includes the concept of "gender identity".

Mass Layoffs of IRS Workers amid Federal Workforce Reduction

According to three sources familiar with the agency's intentions, the Internal Revenue Service will start firing some 6,000 workers on Thursday as part of the Trump administration's effort to reduce the size of the federal workforce. According to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly, the terminations will target relatively recent recruits at the I.R.S., which the Biden administration had tried to reinvigorate with a rush of funds and new staff.

Probationary workers, who have less job security than their more senior counterparts, have been let go by the Trump administration throughout the federal government in recent days.

These layoffs occur throughout the tax filing season. Even though the layoffs are not expected to impact those considered "critical," Democrats and former I.R.S. officials have cautioned that losing so many workers might nevertheless make it difficult for millions of Americans to pay their taxes this year. Requests for comment were not immediately answered by Treasury Department and I.R.S. representatives. 

Republicans have long called for the I.R.S. to be slashed, claiming that the agency is acting politically against conservatives. According to several lawmakers, the tax collector should be abolished, including the person President Trump nominated to lead the agency. Mr. Trump chose Billy Long, a former Republican congressman, to lead the I.R.S., taking the unusual step of replacing the former commissioner, Daniel Werfel.

The Department of Homeland Security has requested I.R.S. agents to assist with immigration enforcement, and Mr. Trump has already targeted the agency for an extended hiring freeze. Additionally, a representative of Elon Musk's purported Department of Government Efficiency has requested extensive access to the tax agency's private taxpayer data.

The Agenda: Conservative Policies and Populist Trade

●    Immigration
The campaign slogan, "Build the wall!" has evolved into "the largest mass deportation program in history." Trump has advocated for the use of the National Guard and the strengthening of domestic law enforcement.
Trump has, however, provided no information on the program's structure and how he would guarantee that it solely targeted illegally in the United States.He has advocated terminating birthright citizenship and conducting "ideological screening" for potential applicants, both of which most likely call for a constitutional amendment. He has stated that he would severely restrict or forbid entry from several majority-Muslim countries, limit migrants on the basis of public health, and reinstate first-term policies like the "remain in Mexico" policy.

●    Abortion
Even as he claimed credit for the Supreme Court's decision to strip women of their federal right to end a pregnancy and return control of abortion to state governments, Trump downplayed abortion as a second-term issue. For the first time in decades, the GOP platform did not call for a nationwide ban on abortion at Trump's urging. At the federal level, Trump insists that repealing Roe v. Wade is sufficient.

Trump finally declared in October that he would veto a nationwide abortion ban if it came to his desk after he avoided taking a hard stance during his debate with Democratic contender Kamala Harris in September.

●    Taxes
In general, Trump's tax policies favor firms and Americans with higher incomes. His pledge to extend his 2017 tax reform, which included several noteworthy adjustments like reducing the corporate income tax rate from the current 21% to 15%, is mostly to blame for that.
This also entails eliminating the Inflation Reduction Act levies that fund energy projects meant to address climate change and reversing Democratic President Joe Biden's income tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans.Despite these programs, Trump has focused more on new plans that target middle-class and working-class Americans, such as removing earned tips, overtime salaries, and Social Security benefits from income taxes.
However, it's important to remember that his tip idea might provide top salary earners with a backdoor tax cut, depending on how Congress drafts it.

●    Business and taxes
Trump views global markets as detrimental to US interests, which is his stance on trade. He suggests 10% to 20% levies on imported items, and he has suggested much greater percentages in previous addresses.He pledges to reinstate an executive order from August 2020 mandating that the federal government only purchase "essential" pharmaceuticals from American manufacturers. He promises to prevent Chinese purchasers from purchasing "any vital infrastructure" in the United States.

●    Civil rights and LGBTQ
Trump has advocated for reversing the legal safeguards for LGBTQ persons and the focus society places on diversity. Using federal funds as leverage, he has also called for the termination of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in government agencies.Regarding transgender rights, Trump often pledges to stop "boys in girls' sports," a practice he claims is pervasive despite the lack of supporting data. However, his proposals go much beyond his rally speeches' typical applause lines.
Trump would, among other things, seek Congress to mandate that only two genders be recognized at birth and reverse the Biden administration's policy of granting transgender kids Title IX civil rights protections.

●    Presidential authority, federal bureaucracy, and regulation
Trump wants to lower restrictions in all areas of the economy and lessen the influence of government bureaucrats.

Conclusion

The ongoing conflict over the boundaries of presidential power and constitutional checks and balances is highlighted by the legal disputes involving President Trump's administration. The courts are now crucial in assessing the scope of presidential authority because of the numerous lawsuits contesting his executive measures. The separation of powers and the independence of federal agencies may be permanently impacted by the Supreme Court's upcoming rulings, especially those pertaining to the unitary executive doctrine. The results of these cases, which define the balance between executive dominance and institutional autonomy, will influence future U.S. governance as legal organizations such as the Constitutional Accountability Center resist more presidential control.

FAQs

1. What is the reason behind Trump's numerous lawsuits?
Legal challenges have been raised about the validity of his executive acts pertaining to presidential power, birthright citizenship, and government agencies.

2. The unitary executive theory: what is it?
It makes the case for extensive presidential authority over the executive branch, which Trump has invoked to defend agency supervision and terminations.

3. What is the birthright citizenship controversy?
 Trump's attempt to contest the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment has resulted in legal action, as courts have upheld its constitutional protection.

4. Is Trump exempt from legal action?
Trump's arguments that previous presidents are immune from criminal prosecution have been rejected by courts.

5. What possible effects might these cases have?
The decisions may change the constitutional restraints on executive power, agency independence, and presidential authority.