GEOFF BENNETT: America's judicial# system is undergoing one of its## most consequential stress tests in# decades, as the president pushes the## limits of executive power and strains the# nation's system of checks and balances.

Over the past year, the courts have# moved to the center of the country's## most significant political fights, while# the Trump administration has increasingly## challenged the authority of judges, whose# rulings have stalled key parts of its agenda.

As we mark a year into President Trump's# second term, we're returning this week## to guests from our On Democracy series,# which explores the laws, institutions,## and norms that have shaped this country and# the different pressures they face today.

We're joined now by Steve Vladeck,## a constitutional law professor# at Georgetown University.

Welcome back to the program.

STEVE VLADECK, Georgetown Universi.. GEOFF BENNETT: I want to start with# immigration enforcement be.. raising the most immediate# constitutional questions.

As you well know, there is this# newly revealed internal ICE memo## that authorizes federal agents to forcibly# enter homes with an administrative warrant,## instead of a warrant from a judge.

And# the whistle-blowers who presented this## memo to Congress says this goes not just# against their training, but also the law.

How do you assess the constitutional# legitimacy of this policy?

STEVE VLADECK: Yes, it's not legitimate.# I mean, the whistle-blower is right.

So the Supreme Court, even as it has poked# holes in the Fourth Amendment over the last 35,## 40 years, the one thing it has kept# coming back to is that an American's## home is their castle.

And so there# are exigent circumstances in which## law enforcement officers are allowed# to enter a home without a warrant.

We just had a case about that a couple of weeks## ago.

There are circumstances where a law# enforcement officer might have probab.. cause to believe that there's a# crime being under way in a home.

But this notion that an ICE officer can simply# sign a piece of paper called an administrative## warrant and use that as a basis for entering# someone's home without any probable cause, without## any exigency, without a federal judge signing# off has no precedent in our jurisprudence and is,## frankly, flatly inconsistent with everything the# Supreme Court has said about the Fourth Amendment.

GEOFF BENNETT: Our team reached out# to DHS and received a statement,## part of which reads this way.

"The officers issuing these administrative# warrants also have found probable cause.## For decades, the Supreme Court# and Congress have recognized the## propriety of administrative warrants# in cases of immigration enforcement."

Is that the case?

STEVE VLADECK: No.

So, administrative warrants, when there# is a b.. crime under way or when there's a basis for# believing that you're definitely going to## find someone who's immediately arrestable and# subject to mandatory detention, that's closer.

But, Geoff, you can't put the cart# before the horse.

You can't say,## we went into the house without a judicially# signed warrant and then found someone who## we could arrest on an immigration# violation.

That's bootstrapping.

The reality is that the government's not supposed# to be able to go door to door without warrants,## barging into American's homes.

I mean, just to go# way back, this was one of the grievances against## King George III that we list specifically in# the Declaration of Independence.

There's a## reason why we have a Fourth Amendment.# There's a reason why it applies even## to folks who are suspected of and may well be# out of status from an immigration perspective.

GEOFF BENNETT: If immigration enforcement in# particular is pushing the limits of executive## power, where does the president's constitutional# authority begin and where does it end?

STEVE VLADECK: So, I mean, at least historically,## we have viewed immigration enforcement inside# the country not as part .. exclusive Article II powers, but as a shared# authority between the president and Congress.

Maybe, Geoff, it's different at the border,# because the president could have an argument## at the border that now I'm engaged in my Article# II self-defense function.

But once we're talking## about law enforcement on a house-by-house# basis in American cities, that's where## it has historically been up to the president# to carry out what Congress has provided for.

Congress hasn't provided for this.

And this# dovetails with this broader push by the Trump## administration, also dating back to last summer,# to treat anyone who's in the country who was never## lawfully admitted, even if they have been here# 30 or 40 years, as if they were stopped at the## border, so that the government can then try to# deny them a bond hearing if they're arrested.

It really is a categorical wholesale rethinking of# immigration law that, Geoff, so far federal courts## have been blocking overwhelmingly judges from# across the geographical and ideological spectrum.

GEOFF BENNETT: When we spoke almost# a year ago about this very topic,## whether the courts could meaningfully# act as a check on executive power,## we didn't really know much because# it was so early into the second term.

But looking back over that year, what has# stood out?

What has surprised you the most?

STEVE VLADECK: I think a couple of# the points that stand out, one is,## the federal courts, I think, have# done a really remarkable job of at## least serving as a speed break on many of this# administration's more aggressive tendencies.

The Alien Enemies Act, for example, was# never successfully deployed because of## the federal courts.

President Trump's# birthright citizenship executive order## still hasn't gotten into effect because of# the courts.

But the courts can't do it alone.

And some of that's because we have had all# these interventions from the U.S.

Supreme## Court that have allowed the administration# to carry out a bunch of these policies while## these cases are going forward.

But even in# the cases where there hasn't been Supreme## Court intervention, the courts are more# of a rearguard action here, Geoff, right?

And you really need multiple institutions# holding each other accountable.

GEOFF BENNETT: Are we in the# midst of a constitutional crisis?

STEVE VLADECK: That question, I think, is --# sort of has different meanings to everybody.

I don't know what the -- where the line# is, where you cross the line and say,## hey, now it's a crisis.

I think we're in# the middle of an institutional crisis,## and we have been for the better# part of a year.

And it's a crisis## caused largely by the fact that we have an# ambitious executive, we have a, I think,## fairly well-functioning judiciary, and we# have a completely sort of indolent Congress.

And the founders set up our constitutional# structure so that the branches would work the## best and our rights would be best protected# when the branches were all pushing against## each other.

With an ambitious executive# and ambitious courts and no Congress,## I think we're seeing the problem, which# is everything comes down to injunctions,## temporary restraining orders, and whether# the executive branch is going to comply.

I don't know that it's a constitutional crisis,# but also I'm not sure that that's the relevant## question.

Our institutions are under pressure in# ways that they really haven't been in American## history.

And although I think the courts have done# a very good job of holding the line to this point,## you know, there's going to come a# point where they need some help.

And whether that's going to be from# Congress perhaps on the far side of## this year's midterm elections or from some# other actors, I think that's going to be## the critical question as we look toward# the next 12 months of this presidency.

GEOFF BENNETT: Steve Vladeck,# always a pleasure to speak with you.

STEVE VLADECK: Likewise, Geoff.

Thank you.