From the day Trump first declared for the presidency, Democrats have tried to stop him with every conceivable strategy. We lived through the Mueller investigation, impeachment, the Russia hoax, weaponization of the criminal justice system, and outright assassination. All attempts failed.
Now they have a new tactic which, at least in the short run, seems to be working. District court judges are overreaching their power by issuing nationwide injunctions that block the president’s legal executive orders, even when the case only involves parties in a specific district. “We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d’etat,” said Missouri Rep. Bob Onder.
“Since Trump took office,” said Texas Rep. August Pfluger, “activist judges in district courts have aggressively blocked his executive actions. Their rulings have had serious consequences for national security—including Judge Boasberg’s attempt to delay the deportation of dangerous gang members. The fact that an unelected lower court judge can micromanage the commander-in-chief should trouble every single American.”
Here are a few examples. A U.S. District Court for Maryland judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking parts of Trump’s executive order banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government. A judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia placed an injunction on Trump's attempts to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York halted the deportation of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested for his role in pro-Palestinian protests. A judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire was the third judge who attempted to block Trump's order ending birthright citizenship.
We are waiting for the Supreme Court to intervene. Sadly, SCOTUS has supported district judges in at least one case, where the court rejected a Trump administration request to lift an order by a federal district judge requiring the government to make close to $2 billion in foreign aid payments.
A recent event has dampened the chances for SCOTUS to do the right thing. Justice Sonya Sotomayor has decided to ignore the role of judges in our government. Sotomayor told the America Bar Association last week that lawyers across America should “fight this fight," obviously meaning against President Donald Trump and his administration. Sitting justices can’t be anti-Trump attack dogs. We should not tolerate this kind of behavior on the Court.
“Apparently,” said Mike Miller at RedState, “Sotomayor—along with the various federal district judges who aggressively (and unconstitutionally) attempted to derail Trump's agenda—missed the ‘justice is blind’ thingy in law school.”
The House passed legislation last week that limits the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders. California Rep. Darrell Issa, who sponsored the bill, hopes it will deter “forum shopping” by groups that seek out a sympathetic district court judge most likely to block the president’s actions. The bill limits the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court. But the bill is unlikely to make it through the Senate, where at least some Democratic support would be needed.
The only hope is that a majority on SCOTUS will stand for the Constitution in spite of Justice Sotomayor. Otherwise the federal government will be run by the political preferences of local judges, and the results of a presidential election will be nullified.
Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator and author of ten books including two No. 1 Amazon Best Sellers, AMERICA ON ITS KNEES: The Cost of Replacing Trump with Biden, and THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member