“When I became President, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The only assurance I can give you is that the Federal Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal means at my command” - telegram from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to Arkansas Governor Orval E. Faubus, September 5, 1957

In September 1957, nine Black children were to be enrolled at Central High School in Little Rock by order of a federal judge pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s 1954 school desegregation decision. The Justice Department, at the judge’s request, was collecting facts as to Faubus’s failure to comply with the court’s order. Faubus (Democrat) had complained to Eisenhower (Republican) about the federal action. In his telegrammed response, Eisenhower made clear that he expected Arkansas officials to “give full co-operation to the United States District Court”.

Faubus did no such thing. Instead, the governor ordered the Arkansas National Guard to block the students from entering Central High. So Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to ensure the safety of the “Little Rock Nine” and their enrolment in school. The rulings of the federal courts were upheld.

What choice did Eisenhower have? An order by a federal judge had been wilfully obstructed.

Still, the decision did not come easily for Eisenhower, a former five-star general and supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe in the Second World War. In response to a letter from Senator Richard B. Russell (Democrat) of Georgia, a prominent segregationist, that criticised the use of federal troops in Little Rock, Eisenhower wrote: “Few times in my life have I felt as saddened as when the obligations of my office required me to order the use of force within a state to carry out the decisions of a Federal Court.”

Eisenhower said he was, however, convinced that had Arkansas used the National Guard to support, and not frustrate, the federal court order, “open disrespect for the law and the Federal Judiciary would never have occurred”. The Little Rock Nine were being prevented from exercising their rights under the Constitution, as defined by the courts, Eisenhower said. “The oath of office of the President requires that he take action to give that protection.”

And there it was: presidential respect for the law and federal judiciary. So it was then in America. And in President Donald Trump’s White House today?

James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the US District for DC, barred the government from using a controversial wartime authority to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members while litigation over the matter proceeded.

Trump, in turn, posted on social media that Boasberg was a “Radical left lunatic of a judge.” “This judge” he wrote, “like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Instead of sticking up for the legal process, as the pre-eminent officer of the law in the land, Attorney-General Pam Bondi weighed in against the court, asking why Boasberg was “trying to protect terrorists”.

Lost in the fog of immigrant-bashing is the cherished and hard-fought-for American right to be treated fairly: the principle that government, with all its immense powers, cannot just take someone’s life, liberty or property - or deport someone under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 - without due process. That is where the courts come in. Judges have the responsibility to serve as neutral deciders, to ensure that people have their day in court - no matter their race, colour or tattoo markings.

Every good wish in today’s rancid climate.

The divide between respecters of law, courts and due process on one side and the “off with their heads” crowd on the other could not be greater.

Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s senior director for counterterrorism, said people who seek due process for Kilmar Abrego García, the immigrant mistakenly deported by the Trump administration and imprisoned in El Salvador, could be accused of a criminal act. “Are they technically aiding and abetting them? Because aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists is a crime in federal statute,” he said. Smirk not. Don’t put it past Trump to try to bring protesters to heel.

Gorka put it bluntly: “It’s not left and right. ... There’s one line that divides us: do you love America or do you hate America? It’s really quite that simple.” People who dissent against Trump’s possibly illegal immigration policies are, Gorka said, “on the side of the cartel members, on the side of the illegal aliens [or] on the side of terrorists”.

I return to Eisenhower’s Little Rock crisis. He, too, saw the line - the colour line - that divided us. The court saw it as well, along with its offence to the Constitution. And ordered the line eliminated. And it was, over Faubus’s objection.

Comes now Boasberg, who said he was launching proceedings to determine whether Trump administration officials had defied his order.

“The Constitution does not tolerate wilful disobedience of judicial orders - especially by officials of a co-ordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg wrote. Allowing political leaders to defy court judgments would make “a solemn mockery” of the Constitution itself, he said.

President Eisenhower thought as much, too. But Donald Trump is no Dwight D. Eisenhower.

• Colbert I. “Colby” King writes a column — sometimes about the District of Columbia, sometimes about politics — that runs in print on Saturdays. In 2003, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. King joined The Washington Post’s editorial board in 1990 and served as deputy editorial page editor from 2000 to 2007