More than 100 federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration in a significant number of lawsuits. These cases allege actions ranging from challenges posed by states and unions to nonprofit organizations and individuals. While some of these decisions are rooted in legal principles, there are indications that many judges are influenced by personal grievances against the administration. A Politico analysis highlights that 87 out of 114 judges who ruled against Trump were appointed by Democrats, while 27 were appointed by Republicans. This disparity raises questions about the motivations behind these judicial decisions.
Many lawsuits against the Trump administration are filed in select districts, often led by judges perceived to be activist. The strategy often involves plaintiffs choosing districts with judges they believe will be more sympathetic to progressive causes. Initial case assignments are random, yet repeat activists in these courts tend to draw related cases, which can stack the deck against the administration.
Judicial philosophies often diverge sharply. Conservative judges focus on strict interpretations of the law, seeking to avoid the entanglement of politics in their rulings. In contrast, many liberal judges view their role as defenders of progressive values, applying the law through an ideological lens. After decades of liberal dominance in the judiciary, the Supreme Court and more conservative appellate courts demand that district courts adhere closely to the Constitution.
To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions that hindered the Trump administration’s initiatives, while appellate courts have overturned an additional dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has asserted control over cases, imposing an administrative stay on a lower court’s order regarding food stamp payments. Such actions signify a clear divide, as many federal judges opposing Trump’s policies seem to disregard the Supreme Court’s authority.
Recent disputes illustrate this disconnect. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg attempted to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for what he perceived as violations of a prior order. In May, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho criticized those on his bench who seemed lenient towards district judges dilly-dallying on administration requests. Further complicating this situation, Judge Allison Burroughs from Boston attacked the expectation that district courts treat emergency orders from higher courts as binding. The dissent from lower court judges is worrisome; many believe that their roles are being undermined, suggesting this tension may be detrimental to the judicial system.
While the Supreme Court reasserts its authority, those who oppose this direction often persist in ideologically motivated rulings, focusing on identity politics and issues regarding immigrants, women, and workers. It appears that these judges are unbothered by the possibility of their decisions being reversed; they may be more concerned with creating headlines that will energize their supporters.
The prospects for removing these judges remain grim. Any serious action would require majority approval in the House, along with a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Given the support these judges receive from Democrats, any move against them is unlikely.
Several notable examples of politicized decisions illustrate this problem. In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, halted layoffs at the Education Department, embedding his ruling in a narrative praising anti-discrimination efforts. Despite the Supreme Court’s stay on his injunction, the trend of overstepping judicial authority continues. In San Francisco, Judge Susan Illston issued a nationwide injunction against the administration, citing concerns about worker welfare. Such decisions disregard settled principles of law, reflecting a pattern of activist judges prioritizing political agendas over their legal obligations.
Moreover, Boston Federal Judge Indira Talwani expressed her concerns about potential funding cuts to Planned Parenthood, overlooking constitutional requirements for federal spending. The motivations of these judges seem clear—they act on their political beliefs, knowing that by the time their decisions are overturned, the relevant statutes will have reached their expiry dates.
Judicial rulings in these contexts often reflect personal biases. A judge interviewed recently remarked that “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue,” acknowledging that some judges may let their feelings towards the president cloud their legal judgment. While there are instances where the Trump administration exceeds its authority, activist judges frequently draw sweeping conclusions based on ideological grounds, contradicting the foundational intent of the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court’s interpretations.
As the judicial landscape shifts, the ongoing struggle between activist courts and constitutional adherence promises to shape the nation’s legal future. The judicial branch must remain committed to its role under the Constitution, even against significant ideological pressures.
"*" indicates required fields
