Erwin Chemerinsky on the Constitutional Guardrails That Still Hold
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from August 19, 2026 | The Supreme Court’s Landmark October 2025 Term: What it Means for America. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, explored the continuing struggle over presidential authority, federalism and the constitutional limits on government power. Despite expressing serious concerns about the expansion of executive power and recent Supreme Court decisions, Chemerinsky also identified an important counterpoint: courts, states and local governments continue to provide meaningful checks within the American constitutional system.
Testing Presidential Power
Chemerinsky described an administration repeatedly testing powers that previous presidents rarely or never attempted to exercise. One example involved President Trump’s effort to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan immigrants.
The law had previously been used only during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. In this instance, however, courts blocked the administration’s effort.
That example illustrates a broader theme in Chemerinsky’s analysis: presidents can test the boundaries of their authority, but other institutions retain the ability to push back.
States and Local Governments Push Back
One of those counterweights is federalism. Chemerinsky noted that while “states’ rights” historically has often been associated with resistance to civil rights, the constitutional authority of states can also serve as a check on federal power.
A particularly important protection is the principle that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state and local governments by forcing them to administer federal mandates.
Chemerinsky connected that principle directly to immigration enforcement. The federal government, he explained, cannot simply require local police departments, school districts or public hospitals to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
New Battles Over Abortion and Elections
Federalism is also central to emerging disputes over abortion. States restricting abortion are attempting to prosecute or impose liability on doctors in other states who prescribe abortion medication through telemedicine, while states such as New York have adopted laws intended to shield those providers.
Chemerinsky expects questions involving extradition and enforcement of judgments across state lines to ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
Elections provide another important example of decentralized authority. Asked whether a president could cancel an election, Chemerinsky was unequivocal: the president has no such power. State and local administration of elections, he explained, is itself an important safeguard because the federal government has relatively limited authority over how elections are administered.
Courts Remain an Important Guardrail
Despite his criticism of many Supreme Court decisions, Chemerinsky ended on a hopeful note. He praised federal district court judges who have enforced constitutional and statutory limits despite intense political pressure, threats and calls for impeachment.
“The courts overall have been a tremendous guardrail protecting our democracy,” Chemerinsky said.
For Chemerinsky, that guardrail is not dependent on a single judge or institution. It rests on courts continuing to review executive action, states exercising their constitutional authority and public officials respecting the rule of law—even amid profound political disagreement.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.