Panelists discuss the ramifications of Trump’s executive orders during the inaugural event of the Beyond the Headlines series. (Anna Calvo | Staff photographer)

Five WashU Law professors participated in a panel that explored the implications and potential constitutional violations of the Trump administration’s recent plethora of executive orders. The event, hosted by the law school, was titled “Beyond the Headlines: Executive Orders and Presidential Power” and was held on Feb. 19.

The panel, which was attended by around 100 law students, faculty, and community members, is the first in a Beyond Headlines series which platforms legal scholars and allows them to provide their analysis of current legal happenings. The event was also a part of WashU’s Civic Action Week, which highlights civic engagement opportunities throughout WashU.   

The next event planned in the Beyond the Headlines slate is a conversation with former Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the United States, Jonathan Kanter, and will be held in the courtroom on Feb. 24 at 12 p.m.

Panelist Travis Crum, Professor of Law specializing in Constitutional Law and Birthright Citizenship, explained the impetus behind the panelist event.  

“We’re holding the event to address the litany of executive orders issued by President Trump in his first month in office,” Crum wrote in an email to Student Life. “Our students are obviously very interested in these legal developments, and our panel plans to explain what the executive orders purportedly accomplish, what the legal challenges to them are, and how courts are likely to rule.”

The moderator of the panel, Charles Nagel Professor of Public Interest Law & Policy Karen Tokarz said that the unprecedented number and breadth of the executive orders in the past month warrants closer examination.

“According to the Federal Register, as of today, Trump has issued over 65 executive orders in this first period, ranging from the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, employment, transgender rights, USAID, citizenship, asylum, deportations, personal data release and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion],” Tokarz said.  

Katie Herbert Meyer, another panelist and a Professor of Practice and Director of the Immigration Law Clinic, hoped that the conversation would shed light on some of the lesser-covered recent executive orders.

“My remarks will focus on some of the recent actions … to change immigration policy, end refugee programs, and remove access to the asylum system for many otherwise-qualified migrants,” Meyer wrote in an email comment. “These changes number in the 100s already, and seem designed to provoke fear, uncertainty, and confusion.”

Meyer mentioned how she is concerned about the lack of coverage of the Trump administration’s deportation of migrants — who came to the United States seeking asylum — to Panama and Costa Rica for detainment.

“[The migrants] are being locked in hotels, and they have no access to lawyers. We lawyers do not know under what authority the U.S. claims to have sent them out of the U.S.,” she said. “We don’t know if it’s 212(f), we don’t know if it’s expedited removal, and they have no access to counsel, and now that they’re off U.S. soil, arguably, the U.S. has no responsibility over them and their treatment.”

Panelist Pauline Kim, the Daniel Noyes Kirby Professor of Law and expert in antidiscrimination law and DEI, added that the executive orders surrounding DEI are meant to sow fear.

“These executive orders are clearly intended to send a message to private entities that they should bow to the Trump administration’s understanding of all DEI programs as being unlawful,” Kim said. “Many universities, private organizations, researchers, and companies are already sort of backing off of these programs, not because they’re unlawful, [but] because they’re afraid of being investigated.”

Crum spoke about the birthright citizenship executive order, revoking the automatic granting of citizenship to children of undocumented parents, and mentioned that he does not believe that the executive order will be upheld because of historical precedent. He added that he thinks that current news coverage of the order doesn’t fully cover all of its potential implications.   

“A lot of the news reporting about this executive order has focused on the so-called undocumented, but it would also apply to people here on student visas or tourist visas or on a visa waiver program,” Crum said.

Aside from the myriad of potential impacts generated by the executive orders, the panelists also discussed whether they constitute an overreach of presidential power.   

Andrea Katz, an Associate Professor of Law specializing in Constitutional Law and Presidential Power, explained what a constitutional crisis means.

“A crisis is when the Constitution stops performing its function, which is to keep political disagreement taking place within the channels of politics and law,” Katz said. “By this test, this hasn’t happened yet, but I think we should be really concerned about all the rhetoric [contained in the executive orders].”

In the time for audience questions following the event, an audience member spoke up and said that he disagreed with Katz’s and other panelists’ assessments that the unprecedented executive orders did not constitute a constitutional crisis.  

 “I think you’re too restrained. What Trump is doing reminds me of communism in the Cold War in Europe,” the audience member said. “I think what Trump has done is very insidious…I mean, the idea that if you don’t do what Trump does, you lose your job.” 

In response to an audience question about what can be done in the wake of these executive orders, Meyer referred people to the University’s mental health resources, and added that if they have the capacity, they should get involved. 

“I think, at the local level, see if you can volunteer, see if you can donate. I’m happy to share resources,” Meyer said. “They are very imperfect, but there are some legal tools. That’s why all these lawsuits [against the executive orders] have been filed.”     

Katz said that the executive orders and possible constitutional crisis illustrate a need to overcome political differences.

“I think one check that the Trump administration does demonstrably respond to is public opinion. So I think we all have an obligation to start having more conversations about this, especially across the aisle,” Katz said. “We need to separate politics from defense of the rule of law.”