Judicial Challenges and Executive Authority
There seems to be a notion among federal judges that by attempting to prevent the president from sending the National Guard to secure federal agents, they are asserting a significant change in judicial power. However, the administration still operates under the belief that the Supreme Court may intervene on its behalf. This belief is misguided. It’s clear that escaping judicial overreach isn’t feasible—there’s no sidestepping it or depending on the High Court for protection. In fact, there are calls for a total ban on judicial interference.
Congress clearly enacted a law that prohibits the China-owned TikTok in the U.S. Yet, President Trump chose to disregard this, instructing Attorney General Pam Bondy to keep the app accessible. It’s rather astonishing that this went unnoticed in Washington. Despite a legally established 90-day restriction, the president has opted to extend TikTok’s availability, even while its ownership has dipped below 20%. Meanwhile, officials in D.C. maintain that judges can mandate presidential actions concerning immigration, national security, and even the National Guard—as if these orders are carved in stone.
An ideal approach isn’t to take the matter to the Supreme Court; rather, it should involve outright dismissal of such rulings.
Recently, U.S. District Judge Karin Imargat, appointed by Trump, ruled that he lacked the authority to deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland for the protection of ICE facilities. It’s curious that this same judiciary, which caused chaos on January 6, 2021, has dismissed months of unrest and targeted actions against ICE agents as merely “rebellious protests.”
The following day, Immergut broadened her injunction to include all National Guard units across states, including Texas, effectively authorizing the governor to challenge Trump’s actions.
The validity of her decision isn’t the main focus. The systemic issue lies in how the federal courts are interpreting their roles regarding national security matters, which should fall under the authority of elected officials. Jurisdiction was never intended to function this way.
If an individual is harmed, they can seek legal remedy in court. However, judges shouldn’t determine political disputes as though they’re resolving civil matters between corporations. The correct response is to simply disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling.
If the judiciary claims ultimate control over every political or constitutional matter, it disrupts the foundational checks and balances. When only judges define their sphere of power and that of the other branches, we risk turning into a republic dominated by unelected officials. As Abraham Lincoln noted, citing Thomas Jefferson, that freedom is forfeited when the public fully submits to government authority.
When one branch steps outside the Constitution, it’s imperative for another branch—and the people—to recalibrate that. The founders, despite their insulation from elections, never intended for any one branch to wield final authority. The president has oscillated between stances, while judges have been void of voter accountability for many years.
I personally find it troubling that Trump has unilaterally determined tariff rates and exemptions via executive orders, or granted NATO protections to Qatar without Senate consent. These decisions should face political pushback, not judicial overturns. National policy should be in the hands of voters and legislators, not courts searching for theoretical litigants.
Immergut challenged the claims made by Oregon and Portland regarding Trump’s acknowledgment of “violent domestic riots,” noting that there had only been a mere four confrontations with federal officers over the past month. Even if the statistics hold true, judges don’t have the jurisdiction to determine the legitimacy of executive decisions relating to uprisings. Governments can’t rely on each other to navigate political realities. We either uphold our Constitutional Republic or descend into a dictatorship.
The founders were well aware of this; James Madison once asserted that the Supreme Court should share the “Amendment Council” function with the President for legislative denial. The Constitution established an independent executive with its own veto power, and it’s baffling that anyone would imagine adding judicial influence to this framework. In 1789, Madison clarified that while courts are responsible for interpreting laws within certain contexts, no branch should be able to claim more authority from the Constitution than another.
When branches of government clash, each should use its distinct authority to sway the public. Madison pointed out that the distinction between lawmakers and enforcers shouldn’t be thoroughly avoided, as friction represents the “simultaneous right to explain the constitution.” In simpler terms, disagreement isn’t a disaster; it’s what a republican government embodies.
Today’s judicial dominance replaces this necessary balance with a draconian submission to unaccountable power. What comes next? Will judges start drafting the federal budget while the president and Senate squabble?
Waiting around for the Supreme Court to overturn dubious judicial decisions is, frankly, a waste of time. As Judge Samuel Alito warned in Trump vs. Casa, class action suits and nationwide injunctions turn these limitations into a farce. Even if the High Court eventually intervenes, the administration risks squandering vital time and resources—precedents like the ruling on birthright citizenship remain unchallenged.
How much longer must this judicial overreach endure before the executive branch reclaims its power? Until the presidency and Congress collectively reject this judicial dominance, the United States will remain ensnared in a system unsuitable for a free people.
