Professor Jonathan Turley: Federal Judges Are Trying to Micromanage Decisions by President Trump
“Well, the interesting thing about this case, Laura, is that this is actually the strongest card that the president has in his hand because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave.”
The overreach of judges concerning Trump is getting to the point of beyond parody. Every week, there is another ruling from some district judge somewhere, trying to prevent Trump from doing something. It’s undeniable that this is unique to Trump. Under Biden and Obama, these judges were nowhere to be found.
One of them has now decided that Trump must get the National Guard out of Washington, DC. Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University appeared on FOX News last night and suggested that these judges are trying to ‘micromanage’ the Trump presidency. That is a great way of putting it.
Breitbart News has details:
Thursday on FNC’s “The Ingraham Angle,” network contributor Jonathan Turley reacted to federal trial court judges using their authority to undermine the Trump administration.
Turley told host Laura Ingraham there was evidence that those judges were “micromanaging decisions” made by the Trump administration.
“Professor Turley, so this judge cites the limits on the president’s authority to exert total control of the guard in the city, and also the city’s right to, quote, ‘self-governance,’ along with a few other things,” Ingraham said. “Your reaction tonight.”
Turley said, “Well, the interesting thing about this case, Laura, is that this is actually the strongest card that the president has in his hand because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave. It is managed, technically, run by Congress. They gave those powers to the city council. But what you give it, you can take it away. But it remains a federal enclave.
And so, this is not the type of case where you have a complication with the governors refusing to give authority with the state National Guard. The president has enhanced authority in this jurisdiction. So, he has 21 days to appeal here, and this is really his strongest suit. You know, this judge gave very little deference to his decision that a deployment was necessary for the protection of this federal enclave.”
Watch the segment below:
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’d much prefer it if these judges want to play politics – which they clearly are doing – that they run for Congress.
It remains to be seen how we remedy these rogue leftist activists in black robes but whatever solution is found will have negative consequences for a properly functioning judiciary.
Why would they run for congress? As a judge they are paid better and have lifetime tenure and dont have to answer to anyone. Much, much better than a congressional gig.
Is that you, Nancy Pelosi? You can’t fool me, you little dickens.
“Hanging judges” is such an ambiguous term.
A hung jury is most likely to consist of 12 black men.
If the judges could they would rule on what Pres Trump has for breakfast
In this case the Judge should be ignored as previously another Judge made a similar ruling and it was thrown out by higher appeal. President Trump can operate the National Guard as he sees fit.
That is not the case. The president’s power to federalize the National Guard is defined by statute, and is judicially reviewable, though with enhanced deference.
This time: No. The law gives Mr. Trump the authority to run the National Guard in DC as he sees fit, other than in the Capitol Building. That is the only exception.
This is the line. The bishop of the judiciary has lost the plot.
No, it doesn’t give him that much authority. Nowhere does it say he can run it as he sees fit. His authority is defined by Title 49 of the DC Code, so the argument is whether the term “other duties” means whatever he likes, or it means only duties that are similar to the ones listed. Generally if you have a list of items and then a general “other items” it means other things that are like the ones listed; otherwise the list would serve no purpose.
I have no opinion on who’s right in this dispute, but it’s not as clear as you make it out to be.
In any case, we are discussing JG’s claim that there’s already been a decision in another jurisdiction that “President Trump can operate the National Guard as he sees fit”. That is simply not true. There has been no such decision, and even if there were it would only apply in that jurisdiction.
So you can do these things and other thing–but only so long as those other things are just like the listed things. In other words, not ‘other’ but’ more’ of what was listed.
Your lies lack coherence.
Where the he77 is the SC and Roberts
Still gotta get through the Circuit Appeal to get this case in front of SCOTUS before we can reasonably blast SCOTUS on this one.
There have been at least 50 such cases
Instead if making a decision on one case, make a blanket decision
Enough!
This one of a handful of cases about use of the NG. Each of which has separate circumstances and criteria because each deployment of NG by the Feds is unique. They involve different Units, different locations, potentially different missions.
Even if you meant make a simple order about the ability of POTUS to use the NG in the first place…even there it depends on which authority the POTUS is using to bring NG onto Federal status. There’s several different options.
This will end up at SCOTUS on an expedited basis no matter the result at Circuit. One positive is that each time one of these ‘theories’ embraced by the d/prog to thwart use of NG is swatted aside on appeal it basically prevents that same argument from working again. (Oversimplified)
No matter what anyone says a District Judge can choose to ignore precedent set and go Rogue which gums up the process, delays the admin. Eventually SCOTUS or their own Circuit can slap that District Judge down but they can’t prevent a Judge determined to misuse their authority.
They can’t make a “blanket decision”, because there is no blanket rule. The statute does not give the president an unreviewable power to federalize the Guard. It doesn’t say “when the president determines. that these facts exist”; it says “when these facts exist”, and that means the courts can review whether they do in fact exist. They must do so with enhanced deference for his decision, but the power is still in their hands.
In DC, the federal enclave, it does. He is the defacto governor. He makes the decision.
Maybe. The DC Code’s language isn’t that clear. But in any case we’re discussing gonzotx’s demand that SCOTUS make a “blanket decision”. It can’t. It may very well find that in this case Trump is right. That would not surprise me at all. But it wouldn’t affect any of the other cases. Nor is a decision in any one of the other cases likely to resolve all of them at once.
More leftist semantic games.
It doesn’t say “when the president determines. that these facts exist”; it says “when these facts exist”,
And how do you find out if the facts allow for the federalization of the NG?
You investigate. You ascertain. You DETERMINE.
And then you act.
We are in the Comassar process as in the Soviet Union a Comassar had to verify every order and decision of any officer.
They seem to be smacked down time and time again but without any repercussions from the Supreme Court or Congress it will never stop.
It grinds any Presidential order for weeks to months and that’s all sometimes is needed.
Want a real Constitution crisis? Just say to the judge you find troops to stop my troops.
Deference is certainly lacking, as if executive action and prerogative were a nuisance entitled to no consideration.
It must be hard for lawyers to see their profession destroyed. Doctors have to put up with incompetent DEI hires and government pressure. But they still practice a science. Law was made by man, and so it has been destroyed.
most physicians must now practice by a check-box protocol written by non-English-speaking bureaucrats with little to no medical training
Most doctors practice insurance now, not medicine.
Of course this is except for the shrinks on the coasts many of whom don’t take
any insurance and so don’t have to kowtow to the insurance companies.
Coasts? Maybe it’s because they don’t have the proper credentials?
Nope. Psychiatrists.
This brings to mind the notion that if the South had fought the Civil War in court, it likely would have won. If so, kiddies today would need passports to vacation in Fort Lauderdale.
The No Kings people are happy that one guy, unelected, answering to any old whim he happened to have that day, can overrule the Constitutional authority of a duly elected CEO and the Will of the People.
NO KINGS another rallying cry of the robotic Cult of Hate brainwashed zombies. Pfft
The authority in question here is not constitutional but statutory. And the courts decide what the statutes mean.
The main restraint of judicial authority is the fact that they can’t interfere in anything of their own accord. They must wait until someone with standing brings it before them. Even if they see something blatantly illegal happening, they have no power until a case is properly before them. Without that restraint they would indeed be dictators, as we see has happened in Israel.
Of course they are. That’s way easier than running for office
The issue is that between Sept 2024 and Jan 2025, when Rep gained control of the Senate, around 200 district court judges were confirmed. If I recall at the time Schumer even commented that this was their backup plan if they lost the House, Senate, and Presidency. They had the votes to confirm these judges without any Republican support and I would bet the main criteria is will you help us stop Donald Trump. Of course they cannot come out and say that but in private conversations they can. And I am not saying all these judges are going against the law, although several are, but Trump is operating in a lot of grey areas where a good argument can be made for either side so a judge could rule for or against and not be seen as out of line. Like I said there are exceptions, Boasberg for example, who seem to not care about the law.
Maybe Trump et. al. should learn to stay on the right side of the law rather than making every decision on the knife edge of legality. Frankly I don’t think he gives a shit about the law.