Can Trump Reopen the States Against Governors' Choices?

The ongoing discussion about reopening the country has brought to the forefront the tension between federal and state authority. Many wonder if President Trump has the constitutional authority to reopen states. This article explores the legal and practical limitations and how states can defend their authority.

The Constitutional Framework and States' Rights

Critics argue that Trump’s attempts to assert authority over state reopening policies are both unconstitutional and contradictory to the principles of states' rights espoused by the Republican Party. Certainly, the Republican Party, especially the conservative wing, emphasizes state sovereignty. However, when it is convenient, the focus seems to shift. Understanding the constitutional framework is crucial.

Federal vs. State Authority: A Legal Analysis

Under the U.S. Constitution, there is a clear delineation of powers between federal and state governments. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress specific powers, including the ability to establish uniform rules for naturalization, bankruptcies, and to regulate interstate commerce. The 10th Amendment explicitly states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This is known as the Tenth Amendment, which asserts the principle of states' rights, a doctrine central to the Republican Party's platform.

State governors can legally refuse to comply with federal mandates or directives, especially when these directives overstep constitutional boundaries. Governors have the authority to impose public health measures and restrictions based on their states' constitutions and the public safety of their citizens. In the context of the pandemic, states' rights to implement stay-at-home orders and close non-essential businesses have been widely accepted and respected.

Why Trump Lacks the Constitutional Authority

President Trump's claim of authority to reopen states undercuts the very idea of federalism, a principle essential to the American system of governance. The federal government cannot order governors to lift stay-at-home orders or require them to allow non-essential businesses to open. Such actions would be an unconstitutional overreach, as the federal government does not have the authority to enforce state-level public health measures.

Furthermore, the White House faces significant legal challenges in attempting to bypass states. Legal scholars argue that the President’s role is to enforce, not create, laws. His attempts to dictate state policies would be an endangerment to a clear separation of powers and the balance of authority inherent in the U.S. Constitution.

If Trump persists in his attempts to reopen states, he will face significant resistance. States can ignore his directives. For instance, if a state has not met the criteria for reopening as outlined by the federal government, it faces the potential for sanctions from the administration or even legal action from the courts. Businesses can sue if reopening orders are not followed, leading to further constraints on Trump’s authority.

Moreover, courts play a crucial role in upholding the balance of power. Legal challenges to federal overreach can and will be addressed by the judiciary, ensuring that the states retain their rights and responsibilities.

State governors are best positioned to make decisions regarding their states' reopening strategies. They can decline to lift stay-at-home orders or require non-essential businesses to open until conditions are safe. For example, if a governor deems it unsafe to reopen, they can maintain restrictions despite federal pressure. This approach not only protects public health but also upholds the legal and constitutional rights of state governments.

As states follow the criteria set by the federal government before moving to the next phase of reopening, they maintain their autonomy. This multi-phase approach ensures a gradual and controlled reopening, reducing the risk of a resurgence of the virus.

Conclusion: The authority to reopen states resides with state governments, as they have the constitutional backing to implement and maintain public health measures. President Trump’s claims to the contrary are legally and constitutionally untenable. States will continue to assert their rights and fight any unconstitutional overreach, ensuring a balanced and fair implementation of reopening strategies.