In case you’ve missed the 1 million New York Times headlines announcing a “constitutional crisis,” here are a few typically calm, laid-back notices from that straight-down-the-middle newspaper:

Trump Dares the Courts to Stop Him

With Deportations, Trump Steps Closer to Showdown With Judicial Branch

The president is challenging the constitutional order

The Radical Legal Theories That Could Fuel a Constitutional Crisis

The easily excitable Harvard University political scientist Steven Levitsky told the Times that Trump’s “intensifying conflict with the federal courts is unusually aggressive,” adding that the administration’s “increasingly open, authoritarian behavior is unlike almost anything I’ve seen.” (As the co-author of “How Democracies Die” and “Competitive Authoritarianism,” we know he’s not given to overreaction.)

The casus belli is that Trump is sending bloodthirsty, murderous, face-tattooed terrorists from your neighborhood, out of the country, to prisons in El Salvador. Hey! One of those guys was only a rapist!

Liberals were cool with President Biden defying federal immigration law to import thousands of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members to rape and murder American girls, engage in human trafficking, seize apartment complexes in Colorado and murder police officers. (By contrast, Islamic terrorists haven’t killed anyone in the U.S. since 2017.)

Only when Trump kicked them out did liberals start wailing about a “constitutional crisis,” which is currently defined as anything that raises Levitsky’s systolic blood pressure more than 10 points.

District Court Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order from the bench insanely demanding that the planes carrying the gang members be turned around and rerouted to the U.S. — no doubt, pursuant to the judge’s authority as commander in chief. The killers were deprived of their “due process”! (To add insult to injury, the in-flight movie was Disney’s new remake of “Snow White.”) Where was the public’s “due process” when Biden was letting these gangsters into the country?

But Trump just keeps sending Democrats’ favorite immigrants to Salvadoran prisons. (Not that I think it would have made a difference to the hero of this story, DJT, but Boasberg’s written order said nothing about turning the planes back.)

This, liberals tell us, is a “constitutional crisis” because Trump is allegedly defying a court order. And God knows, liberals would never defy a court order. Unless they didn’t like it.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the president has near-exclusive control over immigration as part of his management of international affairs. That’s why Arizona couldn’t pass a law abiding by federal immigration laws when President Obama decided to ignore those laws. That’s why, under President Clinton, an 8-year-old boy had to be captured at gunpoint and sent back to a brutal communist dictatorship. That’s also why the court upheld Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”

But Democratic states and cities across the country brag about their refusal to obey these consistent rulings from the Supreme Court — not from some dinky little district court judge, I note. They proudly call themselves “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states.” (Because a “I’m pro-rapist mass-murdering drug traffickers, and I vote” sticker wouldn’t fit on the bumper of their Subaru.)

No “constitutional crisis” there!

In June 2023, the Supreme Court issued a blindingly clear opinion ordering Harvard and the University of North Carolina, specifically, and all universities by implication, to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

You might remember it. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard produced no end of wailing from the roughly 2 million DEI wastes of plasma.

In response to the court’s ruling, the Biden administration helpfully sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter, coaching universities on ways to defy the court’s ruling — principally by recycling the exact same arguments already advanced by Harvard and rejected by the court.

Harvard’s leading hysteric, Levitsky, retweeted a video statement from college president and noted plagiarist Claudine Gay, claiming to abide by the decision — while simultaneously using all the buzzwords for not abiding by the decision: “diversity is critical,” “our resolve to continue opening doors” and — my favorite — "we will be working to understand the decision.“ It wasn’t that complicated: Stop discriminating. (Next you’ll be telling me Dr. Gay refused to condemn antisemitism on campus, ha ha!)

The results are now in and oh my gosh are universities defying the Supreme Court.

Harvard admissions one year before SFFA v. Harvard:

Black: 15.5%
Latino: 13.3%
Asian: 27.8%

Harvard admissions one year after SFFA v. Harvard:

Black: 14%
Latino: 16%
Asian: 37%

The numbers are similarly unchanged at Yale, Dartmouth, Northwestern, the University of Virginia, Wesleyan, Williams, Bowdoin, Princeton, Duke, etc. etc. In fact, the percentages of black and Hispanic admissions actually went up at most of these schools.

The colleges’ own sworn statements prove that they are brazenly ignoring the ruling. Harvard’s expert told the court that, without giving racial preferences to America’s Brahim class, black people, admissions would drop from 14% black to 6% black. Other universities claimed that the percentage of blacks would fall to about 2% — slightly higher during March Madness.

Just last week, we got a clearer picture of academia’s dogged refusal to stop discriminating when New York University’s webpage was hacked and replaced with the SAT scores for different racial groups admitted in 2024. The average Asian SAT score was 1,485, the average white score was 1,428, the average Hispanic score was 1,355 and the average black score was 1,289 — or two standard deviations from the Asian score.

I can’t help but notice that the Constitution gives Harvard and the University of North Carolina no role whatsoever in our federal government. It’s bad enough to have courts assuming the powers of the presidency, but we have colleges and universities assuming the role of a super-Supreme Court.

Liberals don’t care about respect for the courts. They just like discriminating, and they love face-tattooed, savage Venezuelan gangs.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER