Staff Reports
The Biden administration could perhaps take a few tips from the whirlwind of activity that characterized Donald Trump’s first one hundred days in office, a period that has been met with unprecedented pushback from the so-called “men in black” – a brigade of activist federal judges. These judges appear to have appointed themselves as the self-styled guardians of their political ideologies, issuing fluff pieces disguised as rulings that ironically stand in contradiction to democratic principles.
In a mere two months of the Trump administration, lower federal courts swiftly issued injunctions blocking 15 of his executive orders. To put that in perspective, during a full eight years in the White House, George W. Bush faced just six injunctions, Barack Obama had 12, and Joe Biden could only muster 14 during his truncated tenure. Who knew judges could be so politically motivated? It’s almost as if they relish the chance to challenge a president attempting to broaden the reach of his executive powers.
The strategy driving this judicial resistance, often referred to as “forum shopping,” allows lawyers to sidestep inconvenient judges by strategically selecting the federal district courts most likely to deliver a favorable ruling. Capitalizing on the 94 federal districts, both sides of the political aisle have become experts at playing this game; if one domestic court doesn’t lean left enough for their liking, they simply hop over to one that does, which may explain why certain rulings feel more like the plot of a political drama than a straightforward interpretation of the law.
Can everyone say, "impeachment time", and get rid of this refuse, disguised as justice. https://t.co/Ck4VSsHmVg
— Lincoln Florell (@LFlorell1024) March 27, 2025
While the Supreme Court attempted to rein in this issue, the problem remains systemic. Liberal justices, such as Elena Kagan, acknowledge the growing trend of judges taking on roles that should otherwise be reserved for elected officials. A striking reminder of this misalignment came in the early Trump years when activist judges flocked to the Northern District of California to impose their values on the rest of the country. Fast forward to the Biden years, and one can already feel the climate shift to the judicial hotspots in Texas.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a former attorney himself, recounted his run-ins with judges who seem to think their opinions supersede the very Constitution they swore to uphold. Inability to accurately interpret the law has become a commonality, with some judges apparently believing that personal biases ought to triumph over the legal framework meant to serve as their guide.
The providing of a national injunction by a single federal judge is akin to allowing a teenager to control the family car keys. A ruling that can affect an entire country based on the whims of one person throws the principles of checks and balances out the window and effectively renders one branch of government supreme over others. With the Supreme Court only able to tackle roughly 100 cases a year, many judicial decisions handed down at the district level can stand for ages, locking in misguided policies until the eventual appeal is finally addressed.
The looming question remains: what to do about judges whose decisions appear to prioritize political allegiance over sound jurisprudence? Their role is meant to reflect the law, not yield to partisan desires or muddled emotional states. The current trend of rulings feels more like arms being twisted for political gain than upholding the truth, a worrying precedent that threatens the very fabric of the American judicial system.
