Rule of Law

Trump’s current term cannot be extended by three years

“This is absolutely, 100 percent wrong. The Supreme Court cannot in any way, under any circumstances or for any reason, grant any president any sort of ‘extension’ of their term in office.” — CAC President Elizabeth Wydra

Facebook posts shared more than 4,000 times link to an article stating that President Donald Trump’s current term could be extended by three years, with some users apparently taking it as fact. The claim is false; the article is labeled satire, and legal experts say it cannot happen.

The article — linked to in posts here and here — is headlined: “Supreme Court Can Extend Trump’s Term By Up To 3 Years If He’s Acquitted In The Senate.”

“Is this possible?” one of the posts on a pro-Trump Facebook page says.

A screenshot taken on February 4, 2020

Comments on the post indicate that some readers believe it is in fact possible, though others identified the article as satire.

“Now this is great news!” wrote one person, while another commented: “Fabulous. I would be happy if he remained President indefinitely.”

A screenshot taken on February 4, 2020

The article says that if Trump is acquitted by the Senate — where he is currently on trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — his term could be extended until 2023 unless the top US court struck down a 1970s-era law allowing this to happen.

It was published on dailyworldupdate.us, a website whose banner says the site provides “Satire for Flat Earthers, Trumpsters, and Y’all Qaeda.”

A screenshot taken on February 4, 2020

Dailyworldupdate.us is part of the “America’s Last Line of Defense” network of websites, which was founded by Christopher Blair, a resident of the US state of Maine.

Articles on Blair’s sites make outrageous claims written as fact, albeit with clear indications they are not real.

The articles are nonetheless shared in droves by people who apparently believe they are true amid a hyper-partisan American political environment.

Legal experts also told AFP by email that Trump’s current term cannot be extended.

“This is absolutely, 100 percent wrong. The Supreme Court cannot in any way, under any circumstances or for any reason, grant any president any sort of ‘extension’ of their term in office,” said Elizabeth Wydra, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

It “is categorically untrue and there is no basis in the text or interpretive history of the Constitution to support that claim,” said Fernando Laguarda, Director of the Program on Law & Government at American University’s Washington College of Law.

The US president has repeatedly joked about remaining in office past the constitutionally-mandated two-term limit during campaign rallies and official speeches, as well as on Twitter.

A screenshot taken on February 4, 2020

Claims that Trump’s acquittal by the Senate would nullify his first term and allow him to serve two more have also circulated online in recent months, including here and here.

But legal experts said the only way Trump could stand for more than two terms would be through an amendment to the Constitution.

“The Constitution forbids any person to be elected more than twice to the office of president. Frankly, it’s deeply worrisome that some Trump supporters are even contemplating such an unconstitutional, anti-democratic, un-American idea,” Wydra said.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
September 8, 2024

Justice delayed is political: Trump’s election interference case must continue ahead of the election

Salon
The Supreme Court conservative majority’s opinion in Trump v. United States has rightly drawn considerable criticism.  Its...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Donald K. Sherman
Rule of Law
September 5, 2024

Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship

On my first day at the Constitutional Accountability Center, I worked on a brief about...
By: Jess Zalph
Rule of Law
September 2, 2024

Transgender rights, ghost guns, porn ID cases on Supreme Court docket; stakes high in next term

The Washington Times
The Supreme Court is still on its three-month summer recess but already has loaded its docket with...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Alex Swoyer
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Iowa v. SEC

In Iowa v. SEC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new climate-related disclosure requirements.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB

In Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s update to its Examination Manual clarifying that discrimination may...
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Lackey v. Stinnie

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court is considering when a civil rights plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case.