Over 100 federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration in various lawsuits brought forward by states, unions, nonprofits, and individuals. It’s interesting, really. While many of these decisions are grounded in the Constitution and federal law, quite a few seem to stem from judges’ personal frustrations with the administration. There’s a certain intensity, a speed, to how swiftly they’ve responded.
You know, Trump tends to push the boundaries of his authority, though some might argue that these “activist judges” take this notion to an extreme. There’s a bit of conflict when it comes to interpretations of the Constitution, with the Supreme Court often taking a different stance.
Recent analyses show that among the 114 judges who ruled against the administration, 87 were appointed by Democratic presidents and 27 by Republicans. It’s notable that most lawsuits are clustered in specific districts, where judges often lean progressive.
Interestingly, lawsuits against the government can start in Washington, D.C., or other districts. Initially, these cases are randomly assigned, but plaintiffs are increasingly choosing districts known for their progressive judges. This means related cases typically end up before the same judge, creating a sort of environment that favors activists and their causes.
On the whole, conservative judges usually try to play it safe, focusing on legal interpretations rather than political outcomes. On the flip side, many liberal judges see themselves as the protectors of their values. After decades of liberal influence, it’s as if there’s a pushback from conservative judges and the Supreme Court, urging more adherence to the Constitution and questioning left-leaning jurisprudence.
So far, the Supreme Court has overturned or put on hold about 30 lower court injunctions that previously blocked the administration’s actions. Even Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson got in on the action by issuing a stay on a district court’s decision related to SNAP payments.
There are judges who openly oppose Trump’s policies, like Chief Judge James Boasberg from D.C., who has called for contempt charges against officials for not following court orders. Similarly, Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit has voiced criticism regarding how quickly lower courts are expected to respond to administrative requests. Judge Alison Burrows in Boston even challenged the higher court’s expectations regarding emergency orders.
According to a report from NBC News, a good number of federal judges think the Supreme Court has mishandled emergency procedures, labeling the order as both “demoralizing” and a “slap in the face” to local courts.
Of course, higher court judges have pointed fingers at district court judges for ignoring their decisions and, at times, overreaching. Yet, it seems the lower courts continue to focus on progressive issues and identity politics, possibly hoping for wins on appeal. In the meantime, they’re creating room for activists to mobilize their supporters.
Addressing these judges is tricky, as removing them requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which isn’t realistically possible with Democratic support.
These politicized decisions are just a glimpse of the ongoing situation. For instance, in May, a Biden appointee in Boston ordered budget cuts to the Department of Education, which the Supreme Court later stayed. Then there’s Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, who issued a nationwide injunction that ignored established laws, arguing about the stress workers have faced since Trump took office.
Even Boston Federal Judge Indira Talwani expressed worries about the implications of defunding family planning services, neglecting the Constitutional requirement for Congressional approval of federal spending. She enacted a suspension of funding for major abortion providers, predicting the shutdown would end before any reversal could take place.
Additionally, three judges on the 9th Circuit blocked Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, despite earlier rulings supporting the president’s decisions in military matters. Afterward, Judge Karin Immergut in Oregon went ahead and blocked a deployment to Portland based on her own assessment of the situation.
In a recent interview, a judge appointed by Obama remarked on “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” suggesting that some judges might get so wrapped up in their grievances against him that they forget their judicial roles.
If you think about it, Trump, at times, does overreach. Yet, it’s striking how some progressive judges are keen to alter the narrative from “sometimes” to “often.” In many ways, this all seems to clash with the principles set forth in the Constitution and what the Supreme Court believes.
