Is It Time for the Supreme Court to Stop the ‘Judicial Insurrection’?

John Roberts Official Photo

In a recent article, the parody website The Babylon Bee took aim at the wave of district court judges working to block President Donald Trump’s agenda. The piece, titled Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned to Space Station, began: “A district judge has issued a ruling saying Trump lacked the Constitutional authority to pick up two astronauts who have been stranded at the International Space Station for several months. SpaceX has been ordered to return the astronauts immediately.”

Amusing? Yes, but only because it’s not so far-fetched.

Shut out of the White House and in the minority in both chambers of Congress, the Democrats are leveraging an expanding group of far-left district court judges to block – or at least delay – Trump from exercising the authority granted to him by a majority of the electorate in a free and fair election.

How is it that local court judges have the power to obstruct the federal government, deliberately interfering with its operations?

Here’s what happened in just a single day this week:

The use of lawfare to stop, or at least slow, the pace of the administration’s efforts to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises reached a tipping point last Saturday when Judge Boasberg issued an oral order for the planes carrying hundreds of “alleged” gang members to an El Salvadoran prison to return to the U.S.

After Trump openly called for Boasberg’s impeachment in a Truth Social post (an unlikely outcome given that it would require a majority vote in the Senate), Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts responded with a highly unfortunate statement that only escalated tensions in an already politically charged debate.  He wrote: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Although impeaching any or all of the district court judges trying to exert control over the executive branch is not an ideal solution, Roberts’ comment only emboldened these activist judges, as well as the NGOs and special interest groups using them as tools to undermine Trump.

On the right, the remark was seen as an unjustified rebuke of Trump by an official who is perhaps the only person in America in a position to stop this abuse of judicial power. And a growing number of conservatives are now urging the Supreme Court to step in and put an end to the madness.

This would include our own Prof. William Jacobson, who had a message for Roberts:

Dear Chief Justice Roberts – Do Your Job – if you want the normal appellate process to work, you have to make it work. You have to do your job. The Supreme Court needs to do its job, and the appeals courts need to do their jobs.Yes, ideally we wouldn’t even be talking about impeachment. It’s a measure of last resort born of frustration that the appellate process has not been working.So don’t lecture to the public who’s concerned. You need to lecture and you need to take action as the Supreme Court to rein in the district courts who have stepped out of their separation of powers boundaries and who have created this crisis.

The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland, a law professor, helped put the “avalanche of unconstitutional court orders from single federal judges” into perspective in a Wednesday thread on X. In just two months, she notes, more temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions have been issued against the Trump administration than against Biden during his entire presidency.

Cleveland explained that the breadth of overreach and the interference with Trump’s Article II powers by these district courts cannot be overstated. She pointed out that “many of these injunctions will be overturned on appeal because [the] lower courts lack jurisdiction to decide employment and grants or army policy.”

Although “we are talking about clearly illegal orders that infringe on his executive power,” Trump has cooperated with the legal process so far.

The Supreme Court’s attempt at “prudence” in the related cases that have already come before them was actually “imprudent,” she wrote.

“By letting it play out in lower courts and not putting a halt to judges’ clearly illegal orders, judges have been emboldened.”

And Cleveland concluded, “Appellate courts & SCOTUS must step in now & forcefully because problem is one of judiciary’s making – not Trump’s. And Trump should be applauded for lengths he has gone to not create constitutional crisis by crafting plausible basis by which he obeyed illegal orders.”

In the video below, conservative columnist and senior counsel for the Article III Project Josh Hammer told Charlie Kirk that calling the actions by the district court judges “judicial activism” is being “charitable.”

“What we’re watching right now is nothing less than a judicial insurrection. Would-be black-robed tyrants are issuing lawless ‘nationwide’ injunctions left and right. They are the ones throwing us into a constitutional crisis.”

Is it hyperbole to call this a judicial insurrection?

I only wish it were.

Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.

Tags: Donald Trump, John Roberts, US Supreme Court

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY