List of all constitutional violations by all US American presidents
Executive summary
A complete, definitive list of "all constitutional violations by all U.S. presidents" does not exist in the public record and cannot be compiled here because determining a constitutional violation often requires judicial or congressional adjudication and historical interpretation that the available reporting does not uniformly provide [1]. What follows is a focused, sourced account of prominent, alleged—or adjudicated—presidential constitutional transgressions that recur in scholarship and reporting, with an emphasis on where authorities have found, charged, or argued violations [2] [1].
1. Concrete findings and impeachments: cases where Congress or courts intervened
Some presidents have been formally accused or subjected to adjudication that frames actions as constitutional violations: Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House for alleged breaches of duty including violations of his oath [1], and modern reporting holds that Richard Nixon faced draft articles alleging violations of his oath and obstruction that prompted a constitutional crisis [3] [1].
2. Trump-era allegations and ongoing cataloging of violations
Multiple organizations and Congressional investigators have cataloged numerous alleged constitutional violations during Donald Trump’s presidency—ranging from accusations of aiding an insurrection related to Jan. 6, 2021, to claims of misusing executive orders, politicizing agencies, and potential emoluments clause breaches—matters widely reported and litigated or investigated by Congress and civil organizations [4] [5] [6] [7].
3. Executive orders and overreach: contested uses across presidencies
Scholars and watchdogs document recurring tensions over presidents using executive orders to act where critics say only Congress may legislate—examples span FDR-era New Deal debates through modern challenges to emergency powers and orders purported to alter immigration status or spending without appropriation, which courts and commentators have sometimes blocked or criticized as unconstitutional [8] [2] [9].
4. War, military action, and the War Powers question
Presidential uses of military force without explicit congressional declarations have long drawn constitutional critique; commentators argue that presidents have at times "declare[d] war" in practice or spent money not appropriated by Congress, creating disputes over the War Powers and congressional prerogatives [9] [2].
5. The emoluments and conflict-of-interest controversies
The Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits officeholders from accepting gifts or emoluments from foreign states without Congress’s consent; contemporary reporting has flagged alleged violations or ethical concerns tied to presidential acceptance of gifts or benefits and whether Congress’s consent was obtained or applicable [7].
6. The living-constitution problem: repeated transgressions as constitutional change
Academic commentary argues that repeated executive transgressions—whether spending without appropriation, treaty avoidance, or regulatory lawmaking by executive fiat—can effectively alter constitutional practice absent formal amendment, creating de facto violations that reshape the presidency over time [9] [10].
7. Limits of the record and what this survey does not claim
This account synthesizes reporting and legal commentary but does not claim to list every violation by every president; many alleged violations were never litigated to final judicial resolution, some are matters of scholarly dispute, and comprehensive adjudication for all administrations would require case-by-case judicial or congressional findings beyond the scope of available sources [1] [10].
8. How to move from allegation to adjudication
Where reporting highlights alleged violations—whether an executive order called “blatantly unconstitutional” by a federal judge or an impeachment article asserting oath-breaking—those are the incidents that have generated legal or political remedies; absent such findings, allegations remain contested and must be evaluated through courts, Congress, or rigorous historical scholarship [2] [1].