Washington - It was a day when the law took a breath. While in the East, the venerable buildings of Harvard gleamed in the early summer light, in the West, heavily armored vehicles rumbled through the streets of Los Angeles. Two places, two stories - and yet both bound by the same question: how much power should a president have? In Cambridge, Massachusetts, Judge Allison Burroughs stepped in. She issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration\u2019s attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. A move that - according to Burroughs - would have caused \u201cirreparable harm.\u201d Trump\u2019s Department of Homeland Security had threatened to revoke the Ivy League institution\u2019s status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. Allegedly for procedural reasons. In truth, it was retaliation - for Harvard\u2019s vocal criticism of the administration\u2019s stance, for refusing to yield to political pressure over Middle East policy, for defending freedom of expression and international diversity. The judge made it clear: Harvard may continue to admit international students while the courts examine the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, 2,500 miles away, Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco left no doubt about how seriously he takes the situation in California. While district and appellate courts continue a legal tug-of-war over jurisdiction, Breyer raised a question that strikes at the very foundation of the American rule of law: does Trump\u2019s military deployment in Los Angeles violate the Posse Comitatus Act? This law prohibits the military from performing law enforcement functions on U.S. soil - a bulwark against domestic military displays of power. Yet that very bulwark appears to be crumbling: for days now, National Guard troops and Marines have been patrolling outside the Wilshire Federal Building, stationed there by direct order of Trump, officially to \u201censure order\u201d - in fact to intimidate the \u201cNo Kings\u201d protests. Judge Breyer has now requested detailed briefs from both sides. His questions are direct: who has the authority to rule on the deployment - he as a district judge or the appellate court? And more importantly: what remains of the separation of powers if a president places himself above the law?<\/p>\n\n\n\n