What’s happening right now is that Democrats, having been thrown out of energy by British voters in a landslide win for Trump, have decided they’re going to build a widely-used technique from Trump’s first name to prevent the president’s agenda: apply the federal judiciary. Under the fake excuse that the federal court is a” coequal branch of government” with the professional, they’re aiming to shut down Trump’s reform work with a volley of primary rulings.
Difficulty lawsuits have been brought against the Trump presidency by Democrat Attorneys General and several left-wing organizations in recent days. These organizations have carefully chosen their locations to ensure that the claims are heard before virulently Trump advocate judges. But far, the strategy seems to be working. As of this past weekend, eight different decisions from the national couch have temporarily halted the government’s professional orders.
Federal courts in Democrat-majority districts have issued preliminary injunctions blocking Trump’s executive actions to finish heritage membership, reform and restructure the United States Agency for International Development, and provide buyouts to national bureaucrats. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Performance and all other social officials in the Trump administration, including the Treasury secretary and his deputies, were barred by a federal prosecutor from accessing pay info at the Treasury Department this past weekend.
A judge even issued a restraining order to stop a Trump order that would have required federal inmates to be housed according to biological sex, not transgender identity, and would have prevented tax dollars from being used to pay for “gender transitions” for federal inmates. ( Another judge, appointed by Obama, threatened to prosecute anyone who violates his order with criminal contempt by ordering the administration to pay back any unused or canceled federal funding. )  ,
What all this lawfare amounts to is a kind of judicial coup against the current president. Democrats have been able to stifle important aspects of Trump’s agenda by issuing injunctions that resemble USAID grants for LGBTQ awareness initiatives in Mali, at least temporarily. It’s a simple enough tactic. All Democrats have to do is shop for a venue to find the most activist, rabidly anti-Trump federal judges in the country, file their lawsuits, and wait for the injunctions to come raining down.
Democrats and their allies in the judiciary do this by effectively governing negatively through injunctions, making significant reform of the federal bureaucracy impossible. The federal judiciary is supporting the permanent bureaucracy in almost every case so far, preventing the Trump administration from attempting to reform it despite Trump’s campaign promise to do so.
The problem is, as my colleague Sean Davis , noted recently on X, federal judges have no actual authority to do this. They are unable to make their own decisions regarding the president’s access to data or who can talk to. They can’t bind the president at all. According to the U. S. Constitution they’re “inferior” courts and therefore don’t have any authority over the executive branch. The Supreme Court, not all the federal district courts dispersed across the nation, is the only component of the federal judiciary that is equal to the presidency, despite the fact that the three branches of government are coequal.
According to Davis,” John Roberts and the SCOTUS have two options: either they can prosecute these inferior malcontents, or they can get used to the President by completely absolving these inferior courts.” The Supreme Court wouldn’t have to deal with every federal case by itself because Congress created these inferior courts. However, Congress would be entitled to simply eliminate these rogue inferior judges if they routinely issue lawless decisions that the Supreme Court has to deal with in any case.
However, the situation might come to an end before Congress actually decides to abolish the federal courts. It might not go well for Democrats if the Supreme Court intervenes in just one of these cases where a federal judge has blocked a Trump lawful executive order. In the 2018 Supreme Court case , Trump v. Hawaii, which reversed a lower court’s decision to uphold a nationwide injunction on Trump’s travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas , called into question , the idea that a federal judge in Hawaii ( or anywhere else ) can simply issue an injunction against a presidential executive order and apply it to the entire country.  ,
” District courts, including the one here, have started imposing universal injunctions without taking into account their authority to grant such sweeping relief,” wrote Thomas. The federal court system is beginning to suffer as a result of these injunctions, which are encouraging forum shopping, making each case a national emergency for the courts and the Executive Branch, and preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts.
He continued, saying that he is “skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions,” that such injunctions didn’t come into force until a century and a half after the founding, and that they “appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limitations on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.” If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality”.
The popularity of injunctions is back with a vengeance just a few weeks into Trump’s second term, which means the Supreme Court might decide whether any federal district judge, anywhere in the country, can bind the White House’s actions by issuing nationwide injunctions.
It’s long past time to settle this. Trump was chosen by the American people overwhelmingly because they desired the implementation of his agenda. No one who voted for lower court federal judges has the authority to assert their will against the wishes of the American people. Democrats will no longer be fighting Trump’s agenda the sooner the Supreme Court takes this issue and settles the obvious issue. Democrats might then have to figure out how to compete at the ballot box, something they are obviously opposed to doing.
