Trump Is Itching For a Fight With Governors Over Lockdown Orders

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

Bloomberg dryly reports on this morning’s presidential tweets:

President Donald Trump declared Monday that he has the power to “open up” states and relax social-distancing practices adopted to combat the coronavirus outbreak, not governors. He didn’t elaborate on how he reached his conclusion….“It is the decision of the president, for many good reasons,” Trump said in a subsequent tweet. He didn’t list any.

Hmmm. Short of martial law, I suppose Trump would have to invoke the commerce clause. Would that work? It might! Shutting down all the nonessential businesses in a state arguably affects interstate commerce, after all. The irony is that liberals like me believe the commerce clause is fairly broad—broad enough, for example, to allow the federal government to mandate that everyone buy health insurance. So I might support Trump’s authority here. Conservatives, by contrast, believe in a narrow reading of the commerce clause—no individual mandate for them! So they would presumably oppose Trump’s power grab.

In any case, Trump has a couple of problems here. First, the states with lockdowns in place would go to court immediately and almost certainly find someone to stay Trump’s order. Then we’d have to wait for the Supreme Court to eventually rule, which would take more than a few months. By then it would be moot.

Second, even if the Supreme Court issued a fast emergency ruling, who’s going to enforce it? What happens if the states ignore Trump? Is he going to send in the National Guard? Something tells me that a city full of guards toting M16s is not going to be open for business no matter what the president says.


UPDATE: A reader points out an obvious flaw in my reasoning (and Trump’s, assuming he has any reasoning to begin with):

Quite so. Martial law it is, then.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate