Are Trump's threats to revoke funding to universities that allow protests legal? We asked an expert.

MCCARTHY Intro: On Tuesday, President Donald Trump threatened on Truth Social to remove all federal funding for colleges and universities, that allow what he calls illegal protests on campus. The statement says protesters could be arrested, students expelled, and international students deported. That didn’t stop protestors from gathering outside Columbia University and Barnard College today.

I spoke with Martin Redish. He’s a professor of law at Northwestern University. And I asked him whether or not Trump’s promise to arrest students would be legal.

Martin Redish: So under traditional constitutional principles, he doesn't have that power. We may be in a brave new world of constitutional law, however, uh, there are things happening in my long career I've never seen. And I don't know where this court's going to come out on these things.

Caroline McCarthy: I think this kind of, it becomes debatable whether, withholding of funds in this case constitutes kind of viewpoint based discrimination. What is, like you were saying, what is an illegal protest? It frankly 

Martin Redish: isn't all that hard. Most First Amendment law would be consistent with, that the, protests that disrupt normal university activities are prohibited, is not viewpoint based.

The First Amendment does not protect coercive or threatening, expression.

It does not protect disruptive expression.

Caroline McCarthy: I'm wondering. The subjectivity of the word allow [00:01:00] because Columbia, for example, have updated security measures. And yet these protests still happen. So is that allowing a protest?

Martin Redish: fair question. By the president's terms, he would be the one that gets the final say on the meaning of that. Even if they can't stop the demonstrations, if the, if no significant punishment, to those who participate is handed out. I suppose that could be considered quote unquote allowed.

Caroline McCarthy: Can you explain to our listeners what it would take, under, I'll say, normal standards for him to get the support of Congress on this, what process would that need to go through?

Martin Redish: So what would normally happen is the order would come from the court and the president at the risk of contempt would obey it. We're running into some questions about whether the president's going to obey [00:02:00] those, orders. And the only time in our history, I remember that being a serious problem was during the Civil War when President Lincoln ignored, a habeas corpus petition, signed by Chief Justice Roger Tawney.

If the president says, I am not bound by court orders, enforcing the constitution, by definition, we no longer have constitutional government. 

Caroline McCarthy: One more thing I wanna look at from this tweet. Agitators will be imprisoned and or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. What he's saying is, any international student who would take place in this protest would be at risk of deportation.

Right. Is that your understanding of that as well? 

Martin Redish: Uh, at, at the very least, that's what it sounds like.

The president has substantial discretion in this area.

If he were to say, uh, I will ship back anybody who participates in a pro-Palestinian or a pro anything demonstration, regardless of how peaceful and un it is, there might be First Amendment implications. Even for non-citizens. But again, if he's talking about you're involved in an illegal action, I seriously doubt there would be a constitutional problem with the president having authority to ship back anybody who committed a criminal act and these would be criminal acts.

Caroline McCarthy: 

That was Martin Redish a law professor at Northwestern University. Also quick note, Columbia University oversees Uptown Radio, but our newsroom operates independently.