Staff Reports
Federal judges in Washington D.C. have stepped up to the plate to throw a wrench in President Trump’s plans to clean house within his administration. Despite the obvious desire from the Trump camp to streamline executive branch leadership, these judges seem determined to hit the brakes with all their might. It appears Trump is ready to rumble in the Supreme Court arena to reclaim the power rightfully bestowed upon him by the Constitution.
In a rather predictable twist, Trump’s Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has signaled to the Democrats that the administration is gearing up to challenge a nearly 90-year-old legal precedent. This precedent, coming from the 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., serves to limit a president’s power to remove heads from “independent” agencies unless there’s cause. So much for the old adage that “change is good,” right?
This is what fascism looks like, folks.#ProveMeWrong
Trump Uses Supreme Court Immunity Ruling to Claim "Unrestricted Power" – The New Republic https://t.co/au8VflaKY1
— dtf1947 (@dtf1947) February 18, 2025
It’s no surprise that several officials Trump has fired recently—those who are no doubt clutching their hefty government salaries—have decided to throw tantrums in the courts. With the backing of Democrat-appointed district judges, they are attempting to block and reverse these terminations. Thanks to their sympathetic judge-shopping strategies, these legal battles have been landing squarely in the hands of judges who have an affinity for the status quo. Such behavior clearly shows the lengths to which the left will go to protect their turf.
Political experts are keenly observing this spectacle, with Hillsdale College’s Ronald Pestritto suggesting that the Trump administration is not just poking the bear, but kicking it in the shins. By taking deliberate actions likely to evoke lower court objections, he notes the administration seems keen on escalating the issue to the Supreme Court, where the real showdown can take place. The expectation is that the current justices may be more aligned with the constitutional interpretation that favors presidential authority under Article II.
A developing case involving Hampton Dellinger, the now-dethroned head of the Office of Special Counsel, has the potential to escalate quickly. After an Obama-appointed judge ruled in his favor, Trump’s Justice Department sprung into action, declaring that lower courts should not dictate the length of time an agency head can stay in their position if the President wants them gone. Ironically, while this legal tussle may not directly dismantle the Humphrey’s Executor decision in this round, it sets the stage for future bouts that could steadily chip away at presidential limitations.
The Supreme Court’s recent indication of interest in Trump’s appeal suggests that the justices may not be keen on dilly-dallying. Although the Court didn’t give Trump the immediate relief he sought, they offered Dellinger a deadline to respond to the situation. This quick turnaround means that the legal showdown could be unfolding sooner than the D.C. establishment might have hoped. The outcome could lead to a reevaluation of laid-back bureaucratic constraints that have kept presidents in check for nearly a century. Pack the popcorn; this could get entertaining.
