In an extraordinary and constitutionally baseless demand, the President of the United States has ordered the state of Colorado to “Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW.” He has threatened to take “harsh measures” against the state if it does not comply with his command to free the former county clerk, who was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies for breaching voting equipment.

This is not just another political broadside in defense of a controversial ally. It is a direct and flagrant assault on the core principles of American federalism and the separation of powers. The President’s directive is a profound test of our constitutional order and the sovereignty of the states.

A Collision with the 10th Amendment

To understand the gravity of this moment, we must begin with a foundational principle of our government: federalism. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Among the most fundamental of these reserved powers is the “police power” – the authority to enforce state laws and administer a state criminal justice system.

Tina Peters was a Mesa County, Colorado clerk who was tried, convicted by a jury, and sentenced in a Colorado state court for violating Colorado state laws. Her case is a matter that lies exclusively within the sovereign authority of the state of Colorado. The President’s demand for her release is a profound overreach that ignores the clear lines of power drawn by the Constitution.

A President’s Pardon Power Does Not Extend Here

The President’s post implies he has the authority to intervene on behalf of a citizen he deems a “brave and innocent Patriot.” However, the President’s most direct power in the justice system – the pardon power – is explicitly limited by the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 grants the President the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” This means the power applies only to federal crimes. The President has no more legal authority to order the release of a prisoner in a Colorado state prison than the Governor of Colorado has to order the release of a prisoner from a federal penitentiary. That power rests solely with the Governor of Colorado.

The Threat of “Harsh Measures”: A Test of Coercion

The President’s threat to take “harsh measures” is likely a reference to withholding federal funds from the state of Colorado. This, too, faces a high constitutional bar. While the federal government can use its spending power to incentivize states, the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot use that power in a “coercive” way that commandeers the core functions of a state government.

Threatening to cut off, for example, all federal transportation or disaster relief funding unless a state releases a specific prisoner from its custody would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional coercion by the courts. It would be a direct attempt to use federal dollars to dismantle a state’s independent justice system.

The President’s demand is more than just a defense of a political ally. It is a dangerous declaration that he believes his authority as President transcends the constitutional boundaries that separate the federal government from the states. This is a critical moment for the rule of law. It tests whether a state’s independent judiciary and its sovereign authority can withstand a direct and unconstitutional threat from the most powerful person on Earth. The foundation of our republic rests on the principle that it can.