Congress Must Stop The Judicial Sabotage Of Trump’s Agenda  

A small group of Democrat activists, with the help of activist judges, are disrupting the court system because they didn’t win the election, and there is no other way for them to assert their power. The majority of Americans want President Donald Trump’s agenda implemented. If an activist court is going to stonewall it, the other branches, ideally Congress, should intervene.  

The U.S. government’s authority is intentionally separated into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so no single branch becomes too powerful. Our nation was not designed for a president to put forth ideas and ask the court’s permission. Yet that is what is happening. Certain, cherry-picked judges are taking over the rule of the country, mishandling the numerous legal challenges to nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called it “sabotage” in a social media post that calls for Congress to step in with legislation to rein in judicial resistance.  

As DeSantis said, Congress has the authority to “strip” jurisdiction from the courts. The framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the federal courts by defining each court’s jurisdiction and the kinds of cases they can review. For example, you wouldn’t want a murder trial to be heard in a small claims court that typically handles landlord-tenant issues. That judge would not have expertise in the laws relevant to the case.

Congress has the power to remove, or “strip” the authority of federal courts to preside over specific types of cases.

The Federalist asked Speaker of the House Rep. Mike Johnson’s office and Senate Majority Leader John Thune if they have plans to address the runaway court.  

A spokesman from Johnson’s office provided this short email statement:

“Activist judges with political agendas pose a significant threat to the rule of law, equal justice, and the separation of powers. The Speaker looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter.”

Thune’s office did not respond. It is troubling that Republican leaders cannot fully articulate a specific plan by now.

The Resistance Goes To Court

The cases brought in resistance to Trump’s agenda have national implications, but they have been heard by accommodating, unelected, district judges making decisions for the country. Normally courts move slowly, but for cases challenging Trump’s agenda — handled mostly by activist or Democrat-appointed judges with a history of opposing Trump — plaintiffs have been treated to an “ask and you shall receive” climate, with essentially immediate, consistently favorable answers obstructing the president’s executive authority.   

Need to block the Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget’s temporary spending freeze to assess federal funding of programs related to DEI, woke gender ideology, and the Green New Deal? D.C. District Judge Loren AliKhan granted a temporary restraining order.  

Want to defy Trump’s order seeking to prevent biological men from housing with female prisoners? You got it, says Judge Royce Lamberth, another Washington, D.C. district court judge deciding policy for the entire United States.

Hope to stop a plane load of illegal aliens and suspected violent terrorists being removed from the U.S.? Washington, D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary injunction on Saturday, within hours of the request — albeit too late to actually stop the planes.  

Can you go to court as a plaintiff and, with the help of a friendly judge, end up setting policy for the entire U.S. military? Yes, according to an incredible Tuesday ruling by D.C. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, who slapped a preliminary injunction on Trump’s order to “establish high standards for troop readiness” and demanded the military continue to carve out special privileges for trans-identifying individuals.

The TROs against the Trump administration cannot be appealed, and the executive role of the president is being targeted; Congress asserting its authority is the remedy.

The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent, Margot Cleveland, has prepared guides to the many cases chipping away at the implementation of the Trump agenda most Americans voted for.

The problem is bigger than federal court. The entire court system is affected by even the perception of bias, and anyone who has waited for a life-altering decision from the court knows judges are mishandling this wave of legal challenges.

For every parent and child in knots for weeks while a judge mulls over a custody decision; for every business owner waiting to see if a court will end their project and leave them in financial ruin; for every convicted criminal awaiting sentencing; for the thousands of people trapped in court with their lives in the hands of a judge — it is distressing to see unchecked judicial activism.

If Republicans are behind Trump, as they say they are, they need to prove it now. The public understands what is happening, and will soon lose hope if the Republican strategy continues to be: do nothing. Wise Democrats should also oppose activist judges. Congress has the authority to intervene. Does it have the will?

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.