To qualify, the crisis should be listed here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis
If Wikipedia becomes unreliable, defunct, or does not list a crisis but there's a broad consensus that there has been one, then I'm open to resolving according to a different source.
Update 2025-02-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Broad Consensus Clarification
If Wikipedia lists a constitutional crisis but there is a broad consensus that it has not occurred, the resolution may be based on a different, less biased source.
A broad consensus requires more than strong disagreement (for example, stark differences between left and right perspectives); in such a case, Wikipedia remains the guiding source.
Ongoing events mentioned on Wikipedia do not yet qualify as a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
Update 2025-04-26 (PST): - Factual descriptions required: The Wikipedia entry must directly state that the event is a constitutional crisis. Phrases like "some have argued" do not qualify as a listing for resolution purposes. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000People are also trading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#North_America
"Some politicians and commentators have argued that actions taken by the administration of President Donald Trump in early 2025 have created a constitutional crisis, including attempts to shut down agencies, such as USAID, without congressional authorization, to refuse to spend money in ways appropriated by Congress, and to defy court orders.[b]"
Wikipedia now says the events of the early Trump Administration are "argued ... to have created a constitutional crisis". Not quite sure if this is enough yet for this to resolve yes since the wording is still a little ambiguous with the word "argued" in there.
@lemon10 No, it's not enough yet. The statement of fact is "some have argued", instead of a straightforward description of the crisis itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/us/trump-deportations-venezuelans-el-salvador.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
"The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court."
Direct order from the supreme court that they can't ship out any more migrants for now. Seems like it would be a clear constitutional crisis if they do it anyways.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/10/supreme-court-trump-kilmar-abrego-garcia.html
"Bondi also repeated numerous claims about Abrego Garcia’s ties to MS-13 that his family has denied and for which there is a conflicting court record.
“He is not coming back to our country. President Bukele said he was not sending him back. That’s the end of the story,” she told reporters at a press conference Wednesday, referring to the Salvadorian leader. “If he wanted to send him back, we would give him a plane ride back. There was no situation ever where he was going to stay in this country. None, none.”"
The Trump white house is refusing to try to get Abrego Garcia back from the prison they sent him to in El Salvador despite being ordered to get him back by the supreme court.
El Salvador is refusing to just send him back as well, presumably cause the Trump white house doesn't want them to and so trump can pretend that its out of their hands.
@Shai I do however think it's plausible that the executive branch will use elon musk as a proxy to break the law, and then trump will pardon him. Then they will use terrorism laws to defend musk against people who try and push back against that.
@Shai I would argue that it looks like they are setting the stage up for precisely that sequence of events.
