Tag Archive for: The Courts

Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling Sets Back the White-Collar Rainbow Revolution

In a 9-0 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, justices ruled that employers cannot discriminate against a heterosexual woman and unelected judges cannot insert intersectionality into the law. A unanimous Supreme Court opinion rarely brings good news, but justices recently issued a ruling that set back judicial activism, stopped the Left’s tactic of promoting the social revolution at your expense, and exposed the inner workings of the white-collar rainbow revolution.

The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, dedicated her life to eliminating the prison rape of minors. In 2004, she started working for the Ohio Department of Youth — which oversees the state’s incarcerated juvenile population — and in 2014, Ames got promoted to become administrator of PREA: the Prison Rape Elimination Act. “In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is gay,” noted the Sixth Circuit’s opinion. Trim’s December 2018 performance evaluation shows Ames met competencies in 10 categories and exceeded in one. But somehow, just four months later, qualified-to-overqualified no longer sufficed.

In April 2019, Ames applied to become Bureau Chief of Quality. After the interview, “Trim congratulated Ames on 30 years of public service, but also suggested that Ames retire,” noted the Sixth Circuit. Activists aim to remake their departments through attrition: Let the old lions emit a final, toothless roar into the sunset while replacing them with young social justice warriors who will bend the arc of history toward radicalism. The department hired “Alexander Stojsavljevic, a 25-year-old gay man, for the position of PREA Administrator. … Later, in December 2019, the Department chose Yolanda Frierson, a gay woman, as its Bureau Chief of Quality.” Frierson had not originally applied for the position and did not have a college degree; Stojsavljevic had only been on the job a few years.

They gave Ames the option of taking her old job as executive secretary, cutting her salary from $47.22 an hour to $28.40. Ames accepted the job. She sued but lost at the district and appellate level. The appeals court admitted, “Ames is right that the Department has offered different reasons for her demotion at different times,” settling on the story that “her position was at-will and that it could remove her at any time without cause.”

Although the facts seem squarely on Ames’s side, the court sided against her, because she did not fulfill the “background circumstances” rule: a legal standard the court invented stating that members of a “majority group” had to meet a higher standard to prove discrimination. Justices struck down that legal fiction. “The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs — those who are members of majority groups — to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs,” wrote Justice Jackson. The decision does not settle the underlying issue: In a return to the Roberts court’s narrow decisions, it merely remands the case with instructions to use the prima facie legal standard.

The welcome ruling reinstates the notion behind the deeply American principle of equal justice under law, itself drawn from the biblical injunction that judges ought not be a respecter of persons. This furthers President Donald Trump’s second-term commitment to undoing discrimination against the nation’s majority in the name of advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). To its credit, the Roberts court has shown leadership here, too.

As important as the facts of the case are its setting. Ohio, long the bellwether of American politics, rejects DEI. When the U.K.’s Guardian started a letter-writing campaign for Europeans to pressure Ohioans into voting for Democrat John Kerry over George W. Bush, values voters in rural, western Ohio turned out to support a state constitutional amendment barring the courts from redefining the institution of marriage (or so they thought).

Today, Ohio is a blood-red state. President Donald Trump, perhaps aided by native son Vice President J.D. Vance, won the state by 11 points in 2024; but he also won by eight points in 2020, snapping the state’s reputation for picking a winner in every presidential race. Every statewide office is held by a Republican; it has not voted for a Democrat for president since 2012. Other than the hapless administration of Ted Strickland, shortly after incumbent Republican Bob Taft entered a “no contest” plea to four misdemeanor ethics violations, no Democrat has won a governor’s race since 1986.

Yet those governors have not delivered. Mike DeWine — a former lieutenant governor, U.S. senator, state attorney general, and now governor — vetoed the state SAFE Act, protecting minors from potentially sterilizing transgender injections and surgeries. While he issued an executive order on the topic, he promptly watered down even those temporary provisions. The Republican-controlled state legislature promptly overrode his veto, codifying robust protections for children — just as Ames tried to do throughout her career.

Ohioans have expressed their will for three decades at the ballot box. Meanwhile, unelected bureaucrats advance their radicalism through the HR department by adopting a prescription offered by Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals:”

“From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues. He has nothing with which to confront anything. Until he has those means and power instruments, his ‘tactics’ are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor unions, comer gangs, or as individuals. The only issue is, how will this increase the strength of the organization. If by losing in a certain action he can get more members than by winning, then victory lies in losing and he will lose. Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together. Power is the reason for being of organizations.”

Alinksy even likened these left-wing fiefdoms to a church:

“When people agree on certain religious ideas and want the power to propagate their faith, they organize and call it a church. When people agree on certain political ideas and want the power to put them into practice, they organize and call it a political party. The same reason holds across the board. Power and organization are one and the same.”

One hears echoes of this in teachers union president Becky Pringle when she called on her delegates to “build our power” by enrolling everyone “in our righteous cause.” From teachers, to librarians, to HR departments, to district court judges handing down national injunctions, leftists see the workplace as a political battlefield — or, if you believe Alinsky, the mission field to spread a false religion. The Supreme Court decision comes as welcome relief.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Decade-Long Catholic Charities Tax Exemption Battle Culminates in Religious Liberty Win at SCOTUS

Christians React as Schools and Summer Camps Push LGBT Agenda in June

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

SCOTUS Slows Judicial Overreach in Environmental Cases as Ire Grows over Universal Injunctions

A recent decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court has curbed some judicial overreach and continued a thread previously taken up by the nation’s highest court regarding the relationship between judicial interpretations and the authority of government agencies. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, decided Thursday, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which had itself vacated a decision by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) that granted permission for construction of a railroad.

The case originated when Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the board for permission to build a railroad in 2020. STB compiled a staggering 3,600-page report on the possible environmental impacts of building the railroad and ultimately concluded “that the project’s transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts” and granting permission for the railroad to be constructed.

After lawsuits were filed, the circuit court vacated the STB’s decision, ruling that the board had not properly considered “the potential environmental effects of increased upstream oil drilling … and increased downstream refining of crude oil” in the area where the railroad was to be constructed, citing the provisions established in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, “The D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the” construction and operation of the railroad.

NEPA requires STB and similar agencies to consider the possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and suggest viable alternatives. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified, “Some federal courts reviewing NEPA cases have assumed an aggressive role in policing agency compliance with NEPA, and have not applied NEPA with the judicial deference demanded by the statutory text and the Court’s cases.” The ruling continued, “When, as here, a party argues that an agency action was arbitrary and capricious due to a deficiency in an EIS, the ‘only role for a court’ is to confirm that the agency has addressed environmental consequences and feasible alternatives as to the relevant project.”

The ruling, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by seven of his fellow justices, with Justice Neil Gorsuch recusing himself from the case, stipulated that legal questions are for courts to decide, while “factual determinations” are for the relevant agencies to decide. “Courts should defer to agencies’ discretionary decisions about where to draw the line when considering indirect environmental effects and whether to analyze effects from other projects separate in time or place,” the ruling affirmed.

Specifically, Kavanaugh cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, one of a pair of cases which the Supreme Court decided last summer, undoing what was known as the “Chevron doctrine.” In the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court instructed all courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute within the scope of its operation if that statute was considered “ambiguous.” The policy significantly bolstered the power of federal agencies to interpret statutes without judicial oversight. Last year, the Supreme Court determined that the Chevron doctrine was unconstitutional, conflicting with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the federal judiciary’s constitutional authority to interpret statutory texts and effectively permit executive agencies to usurp the role of the judiciary in interpreting statutes.

Citing Loper, the Supreme Court clarified that although NEPA requires environmental impact reports to be “detailed,” and “the meaning of ‘detailed’ is a legal question … what details need to be included in any given [report] is a factual determination for the agency.” Kavanaugh wrote, “NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand.” He added, “Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.”

The Supreme Court ruling comes as numerous federal courts have issued sweeping universal injunctions against President Donald Trump and his administration, highlighting calls for the highest court to curb judicial overreach. In comments to The Washington Stand, Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain stated, “The court’s decision Thursday was very obviously right — even the Democrats did not dissent. NEPA reviews do not have to be as onerous as the D.C. Circuit suggested.” He added, “The Supreme Court, however, needs to do more to curb the judicial sabotage by resentful lower court judges.”

Within his first 100 days back in the Oval Office, Trump and his administration were slapped with at least 25 universal injunctions by federal district courts, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs) have targeted many of the president’s actions, including carrying out mass deportations, withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities,” ending birthright citizenship, protecting children from harmful gender transition procedures, slashing wasteful agency spending, downsizing the federal workforce, bolstering election integrity, and reorganizing agencies like the Department of Education.

The Trump administration has repeatedly petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and curtail the lower courts’ use of nationwide injunctions. While the Supreme Court has handed the president mixed results — significant wins in some cases and temporary setbacks in others — it has not yet taken action against the increasing use of universal injunctions.

However, the Supreme Court did hear oral arguments in mid-May in a case in which the Trump administration has centered its attention on the rash of injunctions enjoining the president’s agenda. Some justices indicated during oral arguments an openness to curbing universal injunctions but appeared unsatisfied with the Trump administration’s suggestions on what measures to use in place of universal injunctions. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

5 More Stories in Ongoing Trump-Federal Court Saga

Conflict is escalating — not just between President Donald Trump and the federal judiciary but even among the courts themselves. As the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday in a case centered on birthright citizenship and the constant use of sweeping universal injunctions by inferior courts, federal judges across the country are continuing to halt the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, although at least one judge is bucking the trend and siding with the president. Here are the latest updates.

Trump Blocked from Deporting Hamas Propagandist

Biden-appointed Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered on Wednesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) release Indian national Badar Khan Suri from custody. Suri was an academic at Georgetown University when he was arrested in March after spreading propaganda supporting the terrorist organization Hamas, of which his father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef, is reportedly a senior officer. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reported at the time that Suri was involved in “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media” and “has close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas.” Therefore, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked Suri’s visa and “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).

Suri has subsequently filed a habeas corpus claim in a bid to stop his deportation. In the order she issued Wednesday, Giles demanded that Suri “be immediately released … during the pendency of his habeas proceedings…” She ordered that Suri is to remain in Virginia, attend court hearings in person, and cooperate with removal proceedings if necessary. The judge also barred law enforcement officers from using GPS tracking to monitor Suri’s whereabouts and ordered that law enforcement give both the court and Suri’s attorneys 48 hours’ notice if they intend to arrest him again.

ICE Barred from Deporting International Students

In another case, Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction barring ICE from deporting 18 noncitizens studying in the U.S. DHS canceled the students’ visas and allegedly removed their immigration information from a federal database, citing the fact that each of the students had been identified in the National Crime Information Center database. White determined that terminating the students’ immigration records was “unlawful,” even on the basis of visa revocation, and ordered that the records be restored, even though DHS agents had already pledged to do so.

Although White, appointed to the judiciary by George W. Bush, temporarily halted ICE from deporting the 18 students who had filed lawsuits, he stipulated that his is not a universal injunction but applies only to the 18 students involved in the lawsuits, while still reserving the right to expand the scope of the injunction at a later date to bar action taken against the supposed thousands of foreign students across the U.S. who may be impacted.

Judge Seizes Control of Rikers Island

In a shocking move, another federal judge has taken over the prison on Rikers Island in New York City. Clinton-appointed Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a sweeping order Tuesday placing the notorious prison complex under the command of an independent officer who will report directly to Swain, rather than to New York City officials. The judge also granted that officer the authority to change or adjust any New York City Department of Corrections policies deemed necessary.

The case originated in 2011, when complaints were lodged of abusive and excessively violent conditions being permitted by Rikers Island guards. In the years since, Swain has issued numerous court orders demanding various changes and reforms. While her latest order does not specifically allude to immigration or deportation policies, it comes shortly after New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) agreed to cooperate with ICE and allow agents into the prison for the first time in years to arrest and deport illegal immigrants detained there.

Trump Can Use 1798 Law to Deport Illegal Immigrants

One of the most controversial moves of the second Trump administration so far has been the use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to carry out the mass arrest and deportation of Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). While the president’s use of the AEA has been challenged in various ways and to varying degrees by different federal courts, Judge Stephanie Haines of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania published an opinion Tuesday determining that the president does have the authority to arrest and deport TdA members under the auspices of the AEA, since the actions of TdA in the U.S. constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”

Haines, who was appointed by Trump in his first term, defined a “predatory incursion” as: “a hostile entry into the United States by a cohesive group of individuals, such as a military detachment or a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, who are united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety — whether that be the safety of persons, property, or pecuniary interests — of those within the United States.”

She added, “The Court finds that that definition is faithful to the meaning of ‘predatory incursions’ in 1798, but it also accounts for new applications given ‘changes in the world.’”

While Haines ultimately determined that TdA’s actions constitute a “predatory incursion” and thus warrant the president’s use of the AEA, she further claimed that the Trump administration was not providing accused TdA members with enough notice prior to deportation. In order to afford Venezuelan nationals accused of being TdA members enough time to file habeas petitions and present their cases in court, Haines ordered that the Trump administration give detainees slated for deportation 21 days’ notice before actually deporting them.

Judge Claims Trump Administration Retaliated against American Bar Association

On Wednesday, Obama-appointed Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion in which he claimed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had engaged in “unlawful retaliation” against the American Bar Association (ABA). After the ABA joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration and openly criticized the president’s words and actions against federal judges, the DOJ canceled an estimated $3 million in grants to the ABA and further barred DOJ employees from using taxpayer dollars to travel to ABA events, attend ABA events while on the clock, and obtain DOJ approval before attending ABA events. Cooper argued that the DOJ’s actions regarding the ABA constituted retaliation against constitutionally protected free speech. “The First Amendment injury is concrete and ongoing. The ABA regularly engages in protected expressive activity, and DOJ’s termination of its grants directly punishes that activity,” he wrote.

Interestingly, the Trump administration did not directly contest the claim that it was acting in retaliation against the ABA. Instead, Trump administration attorneys argued that Cooper lacked jurisdiction, contending that the complaint was a contract matter and thus should have been brought in a court of claims, not in a district court.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Wisconsin Judge Criminally Charged for Obstructing Deportations. Who’s Next?

As Democrats fret over possible arrests for opposing deportations, a federal grand jury has handed down an indictment against a Wisconsin judge who hid an illegal immigrant from law enforcement. A grand jury on Tuesday indicted Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan on charges of “knowingly concealing” an illegal immigrant named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers showed up at the courthouse to arrest him and “corruptly endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law” by actively trying to prevent the Mexican national’s arrest. Dugan was accused in the indictment of knowingly lying to ICE officers and telling Flores-Ruiz to leave by a back door to avoid being arrested.

Dugan was arrested last month after confronting and obstructing ICE agents waiting outside her courtroom to arrest Flores-Ruiz, who was in court for allegedly assaulting his roommate. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reported that Flores-Ruiz “has a laundry list of violent criminal charges including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse.” The Mexican national has entered the U.S. illegally twice and was ordered deported in 2013. Dugan faces up to six years in prison if convicted of the charges.

In comments to The Washington Stand, Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, said, “Of course, this judge and other judges should be prosecuted for obstructing federal agents from enforcing the law. It is long past time for those obstructing law enforcement to face the consequences of their own actions.” In a Tuesday night interview, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he was “glad” Dugan had been indicted, referring to her actions as an “egregious case” of flouting U.S. law. He suggested that other local, state, and even federal officials should face prosecution for obstructing President Donald Trump’s deportation program. “Let every other judge and member of Congress out there take a lesson from this: you are not above the law,” the senator said.

The Trump administration certainly appears poised to initiate prosecutions against officials who obstruct ICE operations. Last week, a group of protestors — including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) and Reps. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez, Jr. (D-N.J.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) — tried to “break into” an ICE detention facility in New Jersey and reportedly shoved and threatened several federal law enforcement officers and facility guards. McLaughlin said in a statement at the time, “Members of Congress storming into a detention facility goes beyond a bizarre political stunt and puts the safety of our law enforcement agents and detainees at risk. Members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities.”

Department of Justice (DOJ) official Alina Habba confirmed that Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center” and was subsequently arrested. The former Trump defense lawyer added, “He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.”

The Trump DOJ is reportedly weighing criminal charges against McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman, eliciting fierce backlash from House Democrats. In a video posted to social media, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claimed that her congressional colleagues had done no wrong. “If anyone’s breaking the law in this situation, it’s not members of Congress, it’s the Department of Homeland Security,” the congresswoman said, specifically naming border czar Tom Homan and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who are in charge of ICE operations and deportations. “You lay a finger on someone, on Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman … or any of the representatives that were there, you lay a finger on them, we are going to have a problem,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She added, “Because the people who are breaking the law are the people not abiding by it.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) made similar comments in a Tuesday press conference. When asked what would happen if the Trump administration followed through on filing criminal charges against McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman, Jeffries repeatedly replied, “They’ll find out.” Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram asked, “What would you do?” Jeffries replied again, “They’ll find out.” The Democratic official said that arresting his congressional colleagues would be a “red line” for the Trump administration. “They know better than to go down that road. And it’s been made loudly and abundantly clear to the Trump administration. We’re not going to be intimidated by their tactics,” Jeffries said. He continued, “No one’s intimidated by this dude. No one. And so there are clear lines that they just dare not cross.”

However, some Republicans are seeking penalties for the New Jersey Democrats, whether prosecutions come or not. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) introduced a resolution Tuesday to strip McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman of all committee assignments. In a social media post touting the resolution, he commented, “The radical left has lost their minds — they would rather raid an ICE facility to defend criminal illegal immigrants than represent their own constituents.” He added, “The three Democratic members involved in this stunt do not deserve to sit on committees alongside serious lawmakers.”

Ries told The Washington Stand that consequences are necessary for the Democrats’ conduct. “It has been the absence of consequences in so many aspects of American society that has allowed illegal behavior and corruption to escalate,” she said. Ries continued, “The perpetrators have relied on non-action to continue their transgressions, as demonstrated by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries threatening yesterday, in essence, ‘Don’t you dare arrest Democrat lawmakers for bum-rushing an ICE detention facility and shoving federal agents.’”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberal Pollster Warns Lefty Activist Group to Focus on Hill GOP and Gov’t Corruption, Not Trump and Musk

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

FBI Confirms Tren de Aragua Linked to Venezuelan Government

A new report is confirming what President Donald Trump has stated for months: the Venezuelan government is weaponizing criminal gangs and sending foreign terrorists into the U.S. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assessment shared with Fox News, Venezuela’s socialist president Nicolás Maduro and his deputies are using criminals from the Tren de Aragua (TdA) transnational gang as “proxies” to “destabilize” foreign nations, including Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and the U.S. The FBI anticipates that TdA members the Venezuelan government has sent to the U.S. will, within the next six to 18 months, begin targeting and killing other Venezuelan nationals who have been opponents or critics of Maduro’s administration.

“These findings should shock Americans but not the law enforcement community,” an unnamed Trump administration official commented to Fox News. He added, “They reflect the sentiments of numerous other intelligence assessments across multiple agencies.” The official stated, “Nicholas [sic] Maduro is a Marxist dictator who hijacked a once-prosperous Venezuela and brought in nothing but total economic collapse and gang takeover. He crumbled Caracas, now overrun with drugs and violence, and wants to do the same across the United States by sending his most violent and dangerous criminals into our communities.” He continued, “The Trump administration will continue to use every authority in our power to make sure these TdA terrorists, who are some of the worst in the world, are kept out of our country.”

An official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) confirmed that the Venezuelan government is actively “aiding and abetting” TdA and offering the criminal organization “sanctuary.” TdA leadership, the ODNI official said, has often been “located” in Venezuela and has “broadly benefited from conditions in Venezuela created by the Venezuelan government.” Venezuela’s government has also “been eager to welcome violent TdA criminals back to Venezuela, providing further proof they see them as allies. Again, this mirrors the behavior of the Taliban in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern failed states like Syria and Libya that have welcomed terrorists with open arms,” the official said.

According to a report from the Associated Press, the contents of a National Intelligence Council assessment seemingly contradict the FBI’s and ODNI’s findings, claiming that there is no link between Maduro’s government and TdA. The unnamed ODNI official clarified that the FBI’s and ODNI’s recent assessments are more “robust and accurate given their focus on domestic security and crimes, versus limited intelligence assessments from other intelligence elements who by law focus solely on foreign intelligence collection and who, until President Trump took office, had very limited resources focused on TdA.” The official said that the Associated Press report was based on information from “illegal leakers” and said that “propaganda media conveniently did not include [more accurate intelligence] because it gets in the way of their biased narrative and attempt to deceive the American people.”

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard also criticized the Associated Press report, as well as the intelligence officers responsible for leaking classified information. “The weaponization of intelligence to undermine the President’s agenda is an assault on democracy. Those behind this illegal leak of classified intelligence, twisted and manipulated to convey the exact opposite finding, will be held accountable under the full force of the law,” Gabbard said in a social media post. She continued, “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence fully supports the assessment that the foreign terrorist organization, Tren De Aragua, is acting with the support of the Maduro Regime, and thus subject to arrest, detention and removal as alien enemies of the United States.”

In late February, the State Department formally classified TdA as a foreign terrorist organization. A few weeks later, the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to target Venezuelan nationals affiliated or associated with TdA for arrest and deportation. In his invocation, the president stated that TdA is “conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States” by “commit[ing] brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking.”

“TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus,” the president announced. He continued, “Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA. The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that nearly 30 TdA leaders and members had been charged with crimes under Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The 27 TdA members were charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking conspiracy, drug trafficking conspiracy, robbery, and firearms offenses. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a press release, “Tren de Aragua is not just a street gang — it is a highly structured terrorist organization that has destroyed American families with brutal violence, engaged in human trafficking, and spread deadly drugs through our communities.”

Most of the TdA members charged in the indictment have been operating in New York City, illegally trafficking women into the city from Venezuela and Peru and forcing them into prostitution, committing murders and armed robberies, and flooding the boroughs of Queens and the Bronx with a “pink powdery drug” called “tusi,” which contains ketamine. TdA gangsters in New York also relied on violence to combat rival gangs and hunt down and execute former TdA members, especially those who had joined splinter groups.

Shortly afterwards, the DOJ announced terrorist charges against a TdA leader for the first time. Jose Enrique Martinez Flores, alleged to be a high-ranking TdA officer, was charged with supporting and conspiring to support a foreign terrorist organization, largely through the sale of large quantities of cocaine. Bondi commented, “TdA is not a street gang — it is a highly structured terrorist organization that put down roots in our country during the prior administration.” FBI Director Kash Patel added, “TdA is a direct threat to our national security, to our communities, and to Americans.” He further pledged to “eliminate this violent terrorist organization from our streets.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: REPORT: Counter-Terror Officers Investigate Band For Hamas Support, Allegedly Calling For Death Of Political Figure

RELATED VIDEO: WATCH: Body cam footage of Kilmar Abrego Garcia caught human trafficking in 2022

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Do Politicians Really Care about Due Process?

President Trump’s most recent presidential campaign promised to secure America’s borders. He promised not only strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, but to deport those who had entered the country illegally under a lax Biden administration. Early in his term he has delivered on those promises aggressively. Some would say too aggressively.

In fact, his efforts to remove illegal immigrants have been the subject of virtually non-stop litigation. With Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, progressives have turned to the courts in hopes of frustrating President Trump’s agenda, and a record number of federal judges have been cooperative. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) recently noted on his podcast there have been more nationwide injunctions against Trump in the first two months of his presidency than there were in the entire 20th century, with many of them involving immigration.

One of the lawsuits against the administration include a class action challenging the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members. Trump designated eight transnational gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and believes this allows him to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members as enemy combatants, a quicker process than the typical deportation process.

The case receiving the most attention involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who does not dispute his illegal presence in the country but was deported through a process the Trump administration admits was not legal. Mr. Garcia has become something of a cult figure on the Left, especially for Democrats who insist we are millimeters away from dictatorship. Upon deportation, the government of El Salvador placed him in prison. Four congressional Democrats have traveled to El Salvador to facilitate his release from prison and return to the U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, from Oregon, has vowed not to leave El Salvador until Mr. Garcia is returned to the United States.

The outrage over the case seems more performative than substantive. When a federal judge determined Mr. Garcia’s deportation to have been done illegally, he ordered the U.S. government to facilitate his return. But that part of the order may have exceeded the judge’s authority, legally and practically. Can a judge require the U.S. government to force the government of El Salvador to do something? If El Salvador does not release Mr. Garcia, is President Trump required to send a SEAL team to kidnap him?

Even if the Trump administration persuaded the government of El Salvador to return Mr. Garcia to the U.S., they would simply deport him again legally. So why all the fuss? Politics of course.

Congressional Democrats don’t care more about due process now than they did when Joe Biden was canceling student loans in defiance of court rulings, but they do care about making Trump look bad. Of course, Republicans who were very concerned about Biden’s refusal to follow the law during his term are less outraged over Trump’s failures to abide.

It turns out, as political power changes hands, so do the talking points. When you’re in power, you talk about “results” and “the will of the people.” When you’re out of power, you’re gravely concerned about “due process” and the consolidation of power. As a result, due process concerns are generally raised when your political opponents are doing something you fear the public will like.

But the rest of us shouldn’t play that game. While politicians may be selective about their due process concerns, we should be eternally vigilant. Due process, which begins with the idea that the government must follow the law too, is what keeps us from being governed by someone’s mood. It means there is not only a right thing to do, but a right way to do it. It means you can’t just make allegations, you have to present evidence.

If you’re never concerned about due process when people you like are in power, you’re more partisan than “defender of democracy.” And if you can’t bring yourself to care that Kilmar Abrego Garcia has rights because you’ve heard he’s an illegal immigrant, gangbanging wife beater — and he may be — you can’t complain if someday you find yourself in a world where no one cares about your rights because someone said something bad about you.

Due process matters because our Founders recognized two Christian doctrines: sin and the image of God in each of us. The reality of sin often leads people with power to do bad things to people who have no power. The image of God in each of us means it’s our responsibility to prevent that from happening because our value and our rights come from God. So, even though politicians aren’t always sincere or consistent when they talk about due process, we should be.

AUTHOR

Joseph Backholm

Joseph Backholm is Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Confirms Tren de Aragua Linked to Venezuelan Government

More Judges Place Restrictions on Trump’s Agenda

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Unprecedented and Legally Questionable’: SCOTUS Issues Controversial Halt to Trump’s Deportations

Controversy over President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda is still ongoing, this time boiling over at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court. Early Saturday — at 1:00 a.m. EST, in fact — the Supreme Court issued an order temporarily halting the president’s deportation of Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the Tren de Aragua (TdA) foreign terrorist organization under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798. The unsigned order stated that the Trump administration “is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”

The case in question involves several Venezuelan nationals, identified by law enforcement as TdA members or affiliates, who previously filed an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking that their imminent deportations be halted. Judge James Boasberg quickly issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the Trump administration from carrying out deportations under the AEA. However, the Supreme Court vacated that TRO earlier this month, agreeing with the Trump administration that the proper venue for the detained Venezuelans’ complaint was a habeas corpus court in the district where they were detained, in Texas, not an APA complaint lodged in Washington, D.C.

Attorneys for the Venezuelans subsequently filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Wednesday, seeking writs of habeas corpus for all Venezuelans detained and slated for deportations under the AEA. Trump administration representatives assured the court that the TRO being sought on behalf of the Venezuelans was unnecessary as no deportation flights were scheduled imminently and all detainees would be given at least 24 hours’ notice prior to deportation, during which time habeas petitions could be filed. Judge James Wesley Hendrix, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, did not issue a TRO, nor did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, prompting the Venezuelans’ lawyers to seek an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s order was issued quickly, without providing the Trump administration a chance to respond or even allowing dissenting Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas time to draft a dissenting statement, although the Supreme Court did say that it would welcome a response from the administration and Alito did publish a scathing dissent on Sunday. In that dissent, Alito began by arguing that the Supreme Court likely lacked jurisdiction: the Supreme Court only had jurisdiction, he said, if the appellate court did, and the appellate court only had jurisdiction if the district court denied injunctive relief; however, both lower courts only failed to issue a TRO, not a preliminary injunction, and did not outright deny issuing a TRO. “The denial of a true TRO is not appealable, and here, it is not clear that the applicants’ TRO request was actually denied,” Alito wrote, concluding that the Supreme Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue its order.

“When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait,” Alito continued, noting that the Supreme Court’s own rules prohibit the judicial authority from issuing injunctive relief unless the petition for relief has made its way properly through the lower courts. Alito also observed, “The only papers before this Court were those submitted by the applicants. The Court had not ordered or received a response by the Government regarding either the applicants’ factual allegations or any of the legal issues presented by the application.” He added, “And the Court did not have the benefit of a Government response filed in any of the lower courts either.”

Alito further pointed out that the Supreme Court had issued a class-wide order, even though “the District Court never certified a class, and this Court has never held that class relief may be sought in a habeas proceeding.” The justice wrote that “literally in the middle of the night,” the Supreme Court “issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order.”

He continued, “I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.” Alito concluded by stating that both the executive and judicial branches of government “have an obligation to follow the law.” He stated that the Trump administration must abide by the Supreme Court’s previous order regarding deportations under the AEA and the Supreme Court “should follow established procedures.”

U.S. Solicitor General Dean John Sauer also wrote a response to the Supreme Court’s order, which he filed on Monday. He argued that the Supreme Court should not have issued its order, noting that it is “a court of review, not first view.” Sauer continued, “Yet the application insists on judicial review in reverse. It calls for this Court to be the first to resolve due-process challenges to the adequacy of notice that designated enemy aliens receive, on behalf of a putative class that no court below has certified, on a nonexistent record.”

Referring to how quickly the Venezuelans’ lawyers moved through the court system, rapidly appealing the mere failure to issue TROs within a narrow and arbitrary timeframe and not allowing for a record to be accumulated before any court, Sauer continued, “Under these highly irregular circumstances, applicants can hardly establish a clear and indisputable entitlement to the extraordinary relief they seek. The application should be denied on that basis alone.”

Furthermore, the argument proffered by the Venezuelans’ attorneys is weak, Sauer argued, specifically referring to the claim that detainees will be imminently deported without being given any notice or opportunity to file habeas claims. “But applicants ignore that the government has provided advance notice to AEA detainees (including the named petitioners) prior to commencing AEA removals. Detainees receiving such notices have had adequate time to file habeas claims — indeed, the putative class representatives and others have filed such claims,” Sauer wrote. He continued, “And the government has agreed not to remove pursuant the AEA those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims (including the putative class representatives).” He called on the Supreme Court to “dissolve its current administrative stay and allow the lower courts to address the relevant legal and factual questions in the first instance — including the development of a proper factual record.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Chris Gacek, an attorney and the senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, observed that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is involved in representing the detained Venezuelans, “threatened” to filed habeas petitions in every federal district court in the U.S. in order to “create some sort of massive disruption or something.”

Given that context, as well as the numerous TROs and nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration, Gacek commented that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts “cares a great deal about the integrity of the courts, within the framework of being an institutionalist. But Donald Trump is not the greatest threat to the courts, this is, this mayhem that these judges are creating — not necessarily the Supreme Court here, but all of these activist cases.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: FBI ARRESTS Democrat Milwaukee Judge For Helping Illegal Defendant Avoid Arrest

RELATED VIDEO: AG Pam Bondi: What really happened with Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan that led to her arrest by FBI

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

UK Supreme Court Defines ‘Man,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Sex’ as Biological

While President Donald Trump is combating the transgender agenda from the White House, across the pond, Britain’s highest court just issued a landmark ruling on the definition of “man” and “woman.” In 2018, Scottish legislators broadened the definition of “woman” as used in the Equality Act of 2010 (EA 2010) to include biological males who identify as women, even those who have not yet undergone gender transition procedures, provided that the males have gender recognition certificates (GRC) identifying their genders as female. The legislative redefinition was quickly challenged and, after a series of court battles, found its way to the U.K. Supreme Court.

The court unanimously ruled on Wednesday “that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’[,] and ‘sex’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex.” The court wrote, “As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.” The justices continued, “For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity … are based on the fact of pregnancy and giving birth to a child. As a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have a biological meaning…”

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” the justices explained. They continued, “The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct… The Court rejects the suggestion … that ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others.” The justices stipulated, “The meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ must be consistent throughout the EA 2010.” They concluded, “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’[,] and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate… Therefore, a person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’…”

Patrick Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the U.K. Supreme Court, clarified in court, “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” He continued, “We counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.” The Supreme Court justice explained that the EA 2010 does afford legal protections to those who identify as transgender, even if they do not possess a GRC, but that the definitions of “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the legislation are essentially biological.

Trina Budge, director of the For Women Scotland organization that challenged the redefinition “woman,” told reporters, “It’s absolutely a victory for women’s rights. This case was always about women, never about trans rights.” She added, “Now we have clarity over what a ‘woman’ means in law.” Budge continued, “We know for sure now that we are defined as a biological sex class of women and that when we see a women-only space, it means exactly that, just women, no men, not even if they have a gender recognition certificate.” She added, “Trans people never had these rights to access women-only spaces, trans men did not have that right. That was an overreach on their part.”

Reactions to the ruling from across the political and ideological spectrum have largely been positive. The author J.K. Rowling, who has emerged as a staunch opponent of transgenderism, hailed the court’s decision, saying, “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the U.K.’s Conservative Party, said in a social media post, “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.” Referring to the U.K.’s left-wing prime minister, she added, “The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!”

Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand, “When I first started working on the gender issue in 2015, there were few folks in the U.S. engaged on this issue. We found community online where I became acquainted with feminists from the U.K. who were fighting on this issue. This day has been a long time coming for all women in Britain, and I’m grateful for this ruling for them and for the world. Every time courts affirm that men are men and women are women, the world wins.”

Rupert Lowe, a sitting member of parliament (MP) and former member of the Reform U.K. Party, quipped, “Absolute madness that we’re even debating what a woman is — it’s a biological fact. No amount of woke howling will ever change that.” He added, “Now — let’s keep men out of women’s sports and spaces. We must prioritise safety over inclusivity, dignity over wokery, reality over ideology.”

Even Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist and progressive proponent, praised the court’s decision. “Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as … a woman. Congratulations,” he said in a social media post. Referring to the court’s definition of biological sex as “binary,” Dawkins added, “Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught up.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump and RFK Jr. Direct NIH to Study Detransitioning and Trans ‘Regret’

Silenced on the Sidelines: Judge Bars Parents from Protesting Trans Athletes with Wristbands

West Virginia Enacts Parents’ Bill of Rights into Law

The UK Knows What A Woman Is — When Will Democrats Figure It Out?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Overbearing Judges Get a Wake-Up Call from Congress

Americans didn’t vote for James Boasberg in last year’s presidential election, but that hasn’t stopped him from trying to commandeer Donald Trump’s job. Like almost 20 other district court judges, Boasberg became a household name when he decided to slam the door on the president’s deportation strategy, overruling the entire executive branch in a breathtaking display of judicial activism. After three months of this “judge-made law,” as John Fund calls it, Republicans have had enough.

Of course, the president is no stranger to abuse at the hands of the nation’s lower courts. “More than two-thirds of all universal injunctions issued over the past 25 years [have been] levied against the first Trump administration,” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) points out. Instead of pausing a policy for the parties involved in the lawsuit, more benches are taking a sweeping approach, applying their judgments nationwide — and handcuffing the president from carrying out his agenda in the process.

Just in the last several weeks, the White House has been on the receiving end of temporary restraining orders (TROs) on deportation, spending cuts, the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to records, taxpayer-funding of woke programs, radical transgenderism, birthright citizenship, buyouts for federal workers, the elimination of DEI, and more. As law professor Howard Wasserman warns, the difference between a narrow ruling and a national injunction can be massive. “Instead of allowing many judges to reach independent judgments, they resolve the question for all courts,” he explained. “The government has little choice but to appeal, sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court. … That’s no way to govern a country. Injunctions should provide relief to the parties who sue, not to people who don’t sue…”

And yet, Fund reminds people, “The effort to throw a judicial monkey wrench into every one of Trump’s administrative efforts has become a well-thought-out strategy on the [L]eft.” The problem, as so many legal experts — including recently, the Supreme Court’s own justices have pointed out — is that the idea is a dramatic overreach of lower court power.

“In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds,” Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) argued on the House floor Tuesday. “This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.” His solution is for Congress to use its constitutional powers to regulate the courts and change the scope of district court rulings. Under his No Rogue Rulings Act, judges like Boasberg would be forced to limit their injunctions only to parties involved in the case.

A single unelected judge, Issa insists, should not be able to block, stall, or overrule a duly-elected president from enacting his agenda. On Wednesday, 219 Republicans agreed, voting to send the legislation — which is a stinging rebuke of the country’s despotic district courts — to the Senate. And yet, in a telling sign of how desperately Democrats rely on activist judges, not a single member of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’s (D-N.Y.) party voted for it.

But, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins warned on Wednesday’s “Washington Watch,” this “cuts both ways.” “They are so consumed with trying to stop Donald Trump and the policies that he is advancing” that they don’t see how this could hurt them under the next liberal administration. Live by the courts, he implied, die by the courts.

That’s right, Josh Robbins argues in his piece on NRO, “Progressives shouldn’t care about separation of powers only when Trump is president.” Fund echoed that sentiment, warning, “If the Supreme Court doesn’t curb nationwide injunctions against executive action, Congress should step in. At a minimum, it must restrict the ability of aggrieved groups to forum-shop for a sympathetic judge. … Such a reform would preserve the ability of courts to check genuine abuses of executive power and, at the same time, discourage forum-shopping by which activist groups seek ideologically sympathetic judges to advance their partisan causes.”

And while the justices have beaten back these unlawful court orders in a handful of instances this month, it all raises a bigger question — one that Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris presented to the Supreme Court, “This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country — the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through TROs. The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice,” the Solicitor General insisted. She concluded, “A single district court cannot broadly disable the President from discharging his most fundamental duties…”

The president’s primary task is protecting Americans and advancing the country’s best interest. Yet now we’re watching activist courts do everything from curb the executive branch’s power to telling the commander in chief how to run the military — and without the barest form of accountability to the people who elected Donald Trump.

As Amy Coney Barrett replied to a question in her own confirmation hearing, “The danger of a court doing that [substituting its judgment for the executive or legislative branch] is to subvert the will of the people. … If judges… bend [statutes] to the judge’s idea of what would be good public policy, then it deprives the people of the chance to express the policies that they want through the democratic process.”

For now, the bill to rein in rogue judges heads to the Senate, where Republicans would need the support of seven Democrats to bring the legislation to the floor. Considering that not a single one voted for it in the House, it seems like a steep climb. Still, Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-Kan.) urged, “The basic policy of trying to rein in the overuse of nationwide injunctions was supported by Democrats before. It’s supported by Republicans now, and I’m hoping [this bill will] be supported by both.”

Like so many Americans, he believes it’s the president’s job to lead the country. It’s time for the nation’s courts to let him.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: PERKINS: Will America’s Divide End in Violence or Civility?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Restore the Constitutional Balance’: Trump Admin. Asks SCOTUS to Halt Unlawful Court Orders

Another day, another federal court halting President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda. On Tuesday, Judge Araceli Martinez Olguin of the U.S. District Court for Northern California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the president from ending federal funds going to immigration lawyers. In February, the Trump administration froze approximately $200 million in grants to the Acacia Center for Justice, a group of immigration lawyers providing free services to unaccompanied migrant children (UAC). The Acacia Center for Justice subsequently sued to unfreeze the funding.

In issuing her preliminary injunction unfreezing the funds, the Mexican-born, Biden-appointed Olguin reasoned that the funding freeze would do “irreparable harm” to the Acacia Center for Justice and “imped[e] their ability to provide the direct legal representation of unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings.” She wrote, “The Court additionally finds that the continued funding of legal representation for unaccompanied children promotes efficiency and fairness within the immigration system.”

According to a report from The Daily Signal, the number of UACs crossing the U.S. southern border has reached record lows under the Trump administration. U.S. Border Patrol encountered fewer than 650 UACs at the border last month, down 97% from the record monthly high of 18,716 UACs seen under the Biden administration. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin confirmed, “March was the lowest number of unaccompanied children arriving at our southern border in recorded history.” The news comes as the Trump administration broke its own record for lowest number of monthly illegal border crossings in U.S. history, down from 8,326 in February to 7,181 last month.

Olguin’s is simply the latest in a series of mostly district court-issued injunctions or temporary restraining orders (TROs) impeding the president’s agenda. One of the most controversial of these cases centers on the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to carry out mass arrests and deportations of Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia previously issued a sweeping TRO barring the president from invoking the AEA to deport TdA members. The Trump administration has contested Boasberg’s order and subsequent ruling, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Boasberg’s TRO last week, simply demanding that it be amended so that it does not enjoin the president himself, only his deputies and administration officials.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a request last week with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to vacate Boasberg’s order or, at the very least, issue an administrative stay, effectively restraining Boasberg’s TRO. “This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country — the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through TROs. The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice,” wrote Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris in petitioning the court to intervene. She recounted that Boasberg issued his sweeping TRO ex parte, without affording the Trump administration an opportunity to present arguments in defense of its actions. “That decision cries out for this Court’s intervention,” Harris wrote.

“Most fundamentally, respondents cannot obtain relief because they brought the wrong claims in the wrong court,” she added, arguing that the five deported Venezuelans who claimed to have no affiliation with TdA — despite the investigations and conclusions of law enforcement officers — should have filed a habeas corpus complaint in a federal court in Texas, instead of an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) complaint in a court in Washington, D.C. The acting solicitor general also addressed the appellate court’s refusal to grant a stay of Boasberg’s TRO, noting that appellate judges claimed that the Trump administration would “immediately resume” deportations if the TRO were stayed, without allowing the Venezuelans involved in the case a chance to file a habeas petition. “But respondents have already had almost two weeks in which to file habeas petitions in Texas. Having opted against the path the law provides, respondents cannot demand that their removal be enjoined until they pursue habeas anew,” Harris concluded.

The president himself, with Harris’s assistance, filed an additional argument before the Supreme Court regarding the same case, urging the justices — one-third of whom Trump appointed in his first term — to vacate Boasberg’s order and issue an administrative stay. The president’s counsel wrote, “This case is not about whether TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review; they obviously do. Rather … the pressing issues right now are ‘procedural issues’ about where and how detainees should challenge their designations as enemy aliens. Those issues call for this Court’s resolution now.” Harris continued, on behalf of the president, “Otherwise, the wrong court (D.D.C.) is deciding the wrong issues (APA claims, not habeas) through the wrong device (a grossly improper class action), while the wrong remedy remains in place (a nationwide, classwide injunction).”

“If allowed to stand, those basic defects will require vacating whatever merits determinations the district court ultimately makes about the Alien Enemies Act,” the president’s counsel added. The argument continued, “[B]y insisting on proceeding with APA claims in the District of Columbia — not individual habeas proceedings in the Southern District of Texas — respondents are depriving the proper forum of the chance to flesh out the scope of habeas review and to start resolving individual challenges in an orderly way.” Harris added, “By persisting with an unlawful class action, respondents also inflict accumulating harms on absent class members, who risk being estopped from pressing habeas claims by virtue of being part of this class action.”

The president’s argument concluded, “A single district court cannot broadly disable the President from discharging his most fundamental duties, regardless of the order’s label, and irrespective of its duration. This Court should vacate this TRO, halt the tide of injunctions, and restore the constitutional balance.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Top Maryland Dem Backs Green Energy Bill That Could Line His Own Company’s Pockets

RELATED VIDEO: Elon Musk: ‘I think the words Non Government Oorganization and money laundering are almost synonymous’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

New Bill Gives Trump the Legal Power to ‘Reform Our Government and Drain the Swamp’

Two congressional conservatives have introduced a bill that would give legal authorization for President Donald Trump to slash the federal workforce, stop harmful government programs, and even close entire executive departments without fear an activist judge will stop his money-saving reforms by judicial fiat.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) introduced the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025 in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1295), while Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the companion bill in the Senate (S.583). The bill would give the president a freer hand to shuffle, pare back, or eliminate tasks inside the federal bureaucracy until December 31, 2026.

“Americans elected [President Trump] to reform our government and drain the Swamp,” announced Lee Wednesday afternoon on X, retweeting a video of Comer’s appearance on “Washington Watch” originally posted by host Tony Perkins. “Our bill gives him even more tools to do so.”

The measure — which passed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s markup hearing on March 25 by a 23-20 party-line vote — further gives the president the authority to order “the elimination of operations determined to be unnecessary for the execution of constitutional duties.” The president may also act “to reduce the number of federal employees”; eliminate unnecessary and burdensome rules, regulations, and other requirements”; or close “executive departments” as necessary “to eliminate government operations that do not serve the public interest.”

“President Trump campaigned on reorganizing the federal government. We want to get rid of some agencies that have become obsolete. We want to return power and decision-making back to the states and local governments, especially with respect to education. And what my bill does will codify the law,” Comer told “Washington Watch” the day before the bill cleared committee. “It’s very important that this gets passed into law so that some judge doesn’t try to kick [President Trump’s plans] out — or the next administration, whoever that might be, doesn’t try to end the executive orders. We want this to be the law of the land. We believe that we have the votes in Congress to do that.”

The Trump administration’s foes have targeted the administration by filing lawsuits in liberal jurisdictions and then extracting national injunctions against the administration’s policies. The controversial tactic has led constitutionalists to call for the prudent use of judicial impeachments.

“We know that any member of Congress [who] would oppose this reorganization is opposing the mandate that President Trump received,” Comer assessed.

Presidents have a long history of receiving, or requesting, legislation to remake the federal workforce. “This type of presidential reorganization has been employed 16 different times between 1932 and 1981 and has been granted to nine presidents, including John F. KennedyRonald Reagan and Richard Nixon,” according to Deseret News, based in Lee’s home state of Utah. “Reagan was the last president granted the Congress-approved reorganization authority” in 1984, “and he used it to dismantle the Community Services Administration and change the U.S.

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama requested authorization to reorganize the government without success.

“Between 1932 and 1984, presidents submitted more than 100 plans under this authority,” reported GovExec.com.

If the bill passes, President Trump would have to submit his plan for government reorganization for congressional approval within 90 days. However, the Senate would not be able to filibuster the plan, allowing its cost-saving efficiencies to clear the closely divided chamber with a majority vote, rather than the 60 votes necessary for cloture.

However, Senate Democrats can filibuster the Reorganizing Government Act itself, preventing it from reaching the Oval Office for President Trump’s signature.

“This legislation allows the president to use his constitutional authority as chief executive to reorganize federal agencies, eliminate weaponization, and right-size the government to better serve the American people. Congress cannot afford to sit on its hands in this fight,” insisted Senator Lee. “Reauthorizing presidential reorganization authority is the most comprehensive tool that the president can use to restore good governance to Washington.”

“With a federal budget that has grown from $3.6 billion to $7.3 trillion and over 400 executive agencies, streamlining government operations is essential for cost savings and improved service delivery,” announced the House Oversight Committee.

Despite the passing of the COVID lockdowns, Congress has continued record-breaking COVID-era levels of federal spending. The national debt now tops $36 trillion, and the government paid an unprecedented $1.2 trillion in interest on the debt alone.

“I don’t think anyone with any common sense would think that we can continue to spend $2 trillion a year more than we take in. We have to reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending,” said Comer. “We can do that by reducing the unneeded bureaucracies in America. And I think that that that’s what [The Reorganizing Government Act] will do. And hopefully, this bill has the blessing of President Trump and his entire Cabinet. It’s something that needs to happen.”

His colleague, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), has proposed one of the most ambitious proposals: cutting $2.5 trillion from the federal budget over 10 years. Comer lamented, “The Democrats think that you solve every problem in America by creating another government agency.”

Comer predicted, in the end, every competent member of the federal workforce would line up behind his legislative initiative. “If I were a federal employee who actually went to work every day and worked hard on the front lines, I would be applauding these changes,” said Comer. “We’re going to restore some common sense into some of the federal government decision-making that happens on the front lines in America every day.”

“I hope in the next two or three weeks it will be on the House floor,” Comer anticipated.

“You’ll see: There won’t be a single Democrat vote for it,” he said.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Eyes Sanctions on Immigration Lawyers as Deportation ‘Due Process’ Conflict Escalates

President Donald Trump and his administration are continuing their crackdown against illegal immigration, despite the hurdles presented by left-wing activists and restrictive court rulings. Over the weekend, the president ordered U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to impose various sanctions against attorneys and law firms which use unethical means to manipulate immigration courts.

In his memo to Bondi and Noem, the president wrote, “Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.” Pointing to the pervasive corruption plaguing immigration courts, he continued:

“The immigration system — where rampant fraud and meritless claims have supplanted the constitutional and lawful bases upon which the President exercises core powers under Article II of the United States Constitution — is likewise replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms. For instance, the immigration bar, and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims, all in an attempt to circumvent immigration policies enacted to protect our national security and deceive the immigration authorities and courts into granting them undeserved relief. Gathering the necessary information to refute these fraudulent claims imposes an enormous burden on the Federal Government. And this fraud in turn undermines the integrity of our immigration laws and the legal profession more broadly — to say nothing of the undeniable, tragic consequences of the resulting mass illegal immigration, whether in terms of heinous crimes against innocent victims like Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, or Rachel Morin, or the enormous drain on taxpayer resources intended for Americans.”

The president wrote, “To address these concerns, I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.” He also demanded that Bondi and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ):

“take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rules, including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions, and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity. In complying with this directive, the Attorney General shall consider the ethical duties that law partners have when supervising junior attorneys, including imputing the ethical misconduct of junior attorneys to partners or the law firm when appropriate.”

Examples of punitive measures the president named include revoking security clearances held by attorneys or cancelling government contracts with individual attorneys or law firms. The president also instructed Bondi to review litigation against the federal government over the last eight years and identify instances of “misconduct that may warrant additional action, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices…” He concluded, “Law firms and individual attorneys have a great power, and obligation, to serve the rule of law, justice, and order. The Attorney General, alongside the Counsel to the President, shall report to the President periodically on improvements by firms to capture this hopeful vision.”

The president’s order to the attorney general and Homeland Security secretary comes as numerous federal courts have restricted the Trump administration’s executive actions, including efforts to deport known criminals and members of foreign terrorist organizations. In a recent controversial move, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg demanded that the Trump administration halt the deportation of members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang, which has been formally classified as a foreign terrorist organization, and ordered that planes deporting at least 250 TdA members be returned to the U.S. Boasberg’s court order prompted calls for impeachment from the president and even a rare public comment from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Notably, Boasberg’s court order blocked the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law which allows the president to forcibly remove noncitizens from enemy countries during times of war or invasion. While some have claimed that use of the over-200-year-old law violates the due process of illegal immigrants, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Trump’s top immigration advisor, has vocally defended the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, as have other administration officials.

In an interview Sunday, border czar and former head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tom Homan rejected claims that the Trump administration is violating the law and insisted that use of the Alien Enemies Act is just “using the laws on the books. We’re not making this up.” When questioned about the “due process” afforded to deported TDA members, Homan angrily pointed to the violence committed by TdA and other illegal immigrants. “Where is Laken Riley’s due process? Where are all these young women killed and raped by members of the TdA? Where was their due process? The young woman on the subway, where is her due process?” he asked. He continued, “The bottom line is, that plane was full of people designated as terrorists, number one. Number two, every Venezuelan migrant on that flight was a TdA member based on numerous criminal investigations, on intelligence reports, and a lot of work by ICE officers.” The border czar added, “They were given due process according to the laws on the books.”

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz also defended the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act on Sunday. “President Trump has determined that this group is acting as a terrorist organization. It is terrorizing our communities through attacks, torture, rape and the most awful of situations for those communities, number one,” Waltz stated.

He continued, “Number two, the Alien [Enemies] Act fully applies because we have also determined that this group is acting as a proxy of the [Venezuelan president Nicolas] Maduro regime. TDA is acting as a proxy of the Maduro regime. This is how the Alien [Enemies] Act applies. And we cannot have district judges interfering with the commander in chief’s actions to take care of — in the way he deems necessary — a terrorist organization.”

The president’s National Security Adviser accused Maduro, whom the first Trump administration labelled a dictator, of “deliberately emptying his prisons in a proxy manner to influence and attack the United States,” adding, “President Trump is taking decisive action to rid our communities of these gangs that are operating in a paramilitary fashion…”

Some, however, have anticipated that courts may require the use of due process even in cases involving TdA and other foreign terrorist organizations. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday explained, “There are some big legal questions here. On the one hand, The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, to persons. The Bill of Rights doesn’t specifically designate citizens. It’s anyone in the United States, The Bill of Rights applies to.” He continued, “On the other end, The Alien and Enemies act says you don’t get much process. The president can declare that you are somehow a problem for foreign policy and opposed to our foreign policy you can be deported.”

“Ultimately, this goes to the court,” the senator admitted, adding, “I think the courts will rule there has to be [due] process.” He continued, “I think there’s going to be a process afforded by the courts for representation before you are deported in most cases. I don’t know about the ones under the Alien Enemies Act. I’m not sure anybody knows that.” Paul predicted, “I think it goes to the Supreme Court and there are arguments to be made on both sides.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Analysis: Trump Admin Besieged by Record Number of Injunctions from Partisan Courts

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Abortion, Mega-Donors, and Election Integrity: What to Know about Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race

A judicial contest in the Badger State is heating up and drawing national attention. Following President Donald Trump’s sweeping electoral victory in November, the race for a seat on Wisconsin’s state supreme court is shaping up to be the first major test of conservative voter momentum since the presidential election. Already, the race has become the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with spending exceeding $59 million so far and expected to reach $100 million. Early voting is underway and will continue until March 30, and the election itself is on April 1.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter urged Christians and conservatives in Wisconsin to vote in the crucial contest. “Turnout is generally low in these odd-year elections, even below midterm elections, so that’s why it’s important that Christians show up big-time — they can make the difference,” Carpenter said. An FRC Action Alert obtained by TWS and sent to voters in Wisconsin highlighted the significance of the judicial race:

“The decisions made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court have an immense impact on the work of the General Assembly, the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections, the unborn, and more. In 2023, liberal Janet Protasiewicz won an open seat, which created a 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This majority has already forced the redrawing of state legislative districts, reversed previous court rulings on unstaffed mail-in drop boxes, and is expected to rule soon on a pre-Roe v. Wade law concerning the protection of unborn lives.”

While the race is officially non-partisan, candidate Susan Crawford, an incumbent Wisconsin Circuit Court judge for Dane County, has aligned herself with the Democratic Party’s agenda, and candidate Brad Schimel, an incumbent Wisconsin Circuit Court judge for Waukesha and the state’s former attorney general, has aligned himself with the GOP’s agenda. So who are Crawford and Schimel, what do they stand for, and who is backing them?

Susan Crawford

The Democrat-aligned candidate for a seat on Wisconsin’s highest court began her legal career with Iowa’s Department of Justice, before moving to Wisconsin’s, where she worked closely with then-Attorney General Jim Doyle, who would later become the state’s Democratic governor. Under Doyle’s administration, Crawford moved around various state departments, including the Wisconsin Department of Administration and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections before eventually being elevated to the role of Doyle’s chief legal counsel. Following Doyle’s departure from office, Crawford worked as a litigator for various left-wing organizations and causes, particularly focusing on teachers unions and pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood.

Crawford’s litigation history and positions on issues such as abortion have earned her the support of numerous Democrats and left-wing donors. She has so far been endorsed by former President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), billionaire activist George Soros, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) President Mini Timmaraju, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, the pro-abortion EMILY’s List, the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign, the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and a host of labor unions. She has also received the tacit endorsement of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D), who has funded much of Crawford’s advertising campaign, alongside Soros.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America affiliate Women Speak Out PAC sent out fliers to Wisconsin voters warning of Crawford’s “extreme” pro-abortion positions. The mailer stated that Crawford “is an extreme abortion activist, not an impartial judge.” Noting the bevy of pro-abortion activists and organizations supporting Crawford’s candidacy, the mailer added, “Thousands of lives are at stake! Don’t let Susan Crawford use Wisconsin’s highest court to impose abortion on demand with no limits!”

Pro-abortion groups aren’t the only ones backing Crawford, though. According to The Federalist, an LGBT nightclub in Madison hosted a “Disney Princess Drag Bingo” fundraiser to benefit Crawford’s campaign. “Right now more than ever we need to make sure to elect Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” said a social media post by Brandon Rounds, a “drag queen” who goes by the stage name Bianca Lynn Breeze. He added, “This [is] the future of Wisconsin and the LGBTQ Community. Come support this cause, and let’s raise some money!”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also stomped for Crawford in an event featuring a vulgar, profane singer who identifies as transgender performing a song blaspheming God. A campaign ad aired by Schimel’s team also accuses Crawford of being backed by pro-transgender radicals. The ad warns that Crawford’s donors support allowing adult men who identify as transgender to use girls’ bathrooms at schools, biological boys to compete against girls in sports, and furnishing children with puberty blockers without parental consent. “That’s who Susan Crawford sides with, and I’m not okay with any of it,” the ad’s narrator ends.

Brad Schimel

The conservative Catholic candidate began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in the Waukesha County District Attorney’s Office, where he worked for 16 years before being elected district attorney. He was elected as Wisconsin’s attorney general in 2014 and, in that role, contested pro-abortion laws and court rulings and challenged the Obama-instituted Affordable Care Act. Republican Governor Scott Walker appointed Schimel to the Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018.

While Crawford has earned the support of numerous Democrats and progressive groups, Schimel has been endorsed by Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), five Wisconsin Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Wisconsin Republican Party, the National Rifle Association (NRA) Political Victory Fund, and several high-profile allies of President Donald Trump, including billionaire Elon Musk, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, and the president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr. Musk has reportedly spent millions of dollars campaigning for Schimel. The Women Speak Out PAC and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America have both supported Schimel’s pro-life record, describing the candidate as someone “who respects life, the Constitution[,] and the rule of law.”

In a televised debate against Crawford last week, Schimel accused his opponent of disingenuously moderating her position on election integrity while campaigning. Schimel noted that a measure to enshrine voter identification requirements into the state constitution is also on the ballot April 1 and that he intends to vote for it, but pointed out that Crawford has challenged the state’s voter identification laws in the past. “Now she backs off from things she was once proud of, campaigning as a judge,” Schimel said.

Carpenter told The Washington Stand, “Wisconsin has some of the best — if not the best — voter I.D. laws in the nation and enshrining them in the state constitution is one way to ensure the state’s supreme court (which has had a liberal majority since Janet Protasiewicz won an open seat in 2023) can’t block them.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York’s Top Court Rules Only U.S. Citizens Can Vote

‘Judicial Overreach’: Judge Blocks Trump EO Keeping Men Out of Women’s Prisons

Johnson on Judicial Activism: ‘These Decisions Are as Dangerous as They Are Unconstitutional’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Impeaching Federal Judges Protects the Constitution … If Used Properly

A much-needed national debate about impeaching rogue judges has erupted over a federal judge’s order to return illegal immigrant terrorists and murderers to the American heartland — a power which, if exercised properly, holds the potential to restore constitutional government.

This week, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, unsuccessfully ordered planes deporting Tren de Aragua gang members to be stopped in midair and returned to the United States. The ruling proved so outrageous that Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, and President Trump has led broader calls to impeach the “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge.” Chief Justice John Roberts sharply responded that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” But America’s founders would disagree.

Boasberg is one snowflake in an avalanche of judicial activists waging lawfare against President Trump. At least 46 judicial opinions had enjoined the 47th president’s actions as of March 15, according to The New York Times, including:

  • U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee who identifies as LGBTQ, overturned Trump’s executive order to preserve military readiness by disallowing most people who identify as transgender from joining.
  • U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointeeprevented Trump from shielding minors from transgender procedures, claiming his executive order violates the Fifth Amendment.
  • U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointeeordered the Trump administration to pay USAID grantees $2 billion.
  • U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin, a Biden appointee, forced taxpayers to keep funding Department of Education grants funding DEI programs.
  • U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, reinstated 24,000 fired federal employees at the behest of public-sector labor unions.
  • U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointeehalted Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
  • U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden appointeestopped the Trump administration from ending grants that promote DEI extremism and transgender ideology.
  • U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden appointee, insisted the United States cannot stop admitting illegal immigrants who abuse asylum status by posing as “refugees.”

The New Yorker summarized bluntly: “Judges Are Blocking His Agenda.” Call it the Legal Resistance 2.0.

America’s Black-Robed Oligarchy

Yet judicial activists are doing far more than opposing the president. Nationwide injunctions against legislation in effect reverse the basis of American government.

Monarchs and despots of old ruled their subjects by the code of Rex Lex: The king is the law.

The Founding Fathers waged the American Revolution to institute the principle of Lex Rex: The law is king. Democratically ratified legislation becomes legally binding even on the highest magistrate, in a reflection of the biblical concept that one law should rule all people.

But in current-year America, the reality is Iudex Rex et Lex: The judge is the king and the law. Nationwide injunctions, which are a controversial and relatively recent development, give every one of America’s 670 unelected district judges veto power over the nation’s elected representatives. Over time, judges’ temptation to impose their personal views has become irresistible.

When judges can impose their private opinions without reference to the Constitution’s fixed original intent, America has become a black-robed oligarchy. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers gave Americans the tool to regain their sovereignty over their government, the very process Trump mentioned: impeachment of rogue judges.

In her ruling, Reyes cited the musical “Hamilton.” But Lin-Manuel Miranda never wrote a rap paeon to Alexander Hamilton’s position on judicial impeachment (nor of the immigrant’s restrictive view of immigration). Like the other Founders, Hamilton believed Congress has the right to remove judges whose rulings violate the Constitution before they become “a permanent tyranny.”

Impeachment: The Constitution’s Self-Defense Mechanism

In an 1802 essay written under the pen name “Lucius Crassius,” Hamilton addressed concerns that activist judges could one day become a “colossal and overbearing power, capable of degenerating into a permanent tyranny, at liberty, if audacious and corrupt enough, to render the authority of the Legislature nugatory, by expounding away the laws, and to assume a despotic controul over the rights of person and property.” But Hamilton said the Constitution institutes “a complete safeguard” against such “a palpable abuse of power” in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “the authority of the House of Representatives to impeach; of the Senate to condemn. The Judges are in this way amenable to the public Justice for misconduct; and upon conviction, removeable from office.”

Impeachment is the Constitution’s self-defense mechanism. Hamilton naively believed the threat of impeachment alone could stop bad judicial behavior. “There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 81. He once again referred to removing activist judges as “complete security” for American liberties.

But no security system works unless it is armed. And Congress has ceded much of its delegated powers to undemocratic commissions, federal regulators, and the ever-expanding encroachments of power-mad presidents and judges. (The fact that the Boasberg case involves a district judge enjoining an executive action demonstrates the growing irrelevance of Congress.)

Until the Left discovered it as a tool to overturn elections, impeachments had been rare. In America’s nearly 250-year history, “The House has impeached twenty individuals: fifteen federal judges, one Senator, one Cabinet member, and three Presidents. Of these, eight individuals — all federal judges — were convicted by the Senate,” according to a 2023 Congressional Research Service report. (Since its publication, the House impeached Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas last February over his refusal to secure the border.)

The exceptional nature of impeachment shows not only the Founders’ love of stability but also that the Supreme Court and the American people retained a largely Originalist constitutional orientation until just decades ago. A pivotal moment came in 1936, when FDR’s court-packing scheme intimidated constitutionalist Justice Owen Roberts into reversing his opposition to New Deal legislation, a change of heart history dubbed the “switch in time that saved nine.” Since then, all three branches of government have been free to expand federal power without proper constitutional restraint. Supreme Court justices now openly base their opinions on foreign law rather than the Constitution, e.g., in a notable case striking down a Texas law against sodomy.

The Left has since waged war on the ideology and legitimacy of the American project writ large. Destroying the image of America’s founders — and thus, the limits they imposed on government power — was the entire point of the 1619 Project.

Now, the culturally dominant liberals pressure judges to conform every opinion to the Left’s lone governing principle: Does it expand government power and further the social revolution? Hence, judges are good when they foist immorality on the American people by, for example, removing prayer and the Ten Commandments from public schools, or discovering constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court became evil to the Left when it allowed the American people to halt the process democratically. This explains why liberals have no qualms opposing the impeachment of judges in one breath and trying to frame a specious “ethics code” as the first step to removing justices and packing (or “expanding”) the Supreme Court in the next.

Despite popular judicial impeachment efforts (such as that of the infamous Chief Justice Earl Warren), only in the second Trump administration does anyone seem poised to clean out the worst offenders. This escalation shows the American people realize that the last four years, to use the Left’s regnant phrase, were not normal. But that abnormality should also inform our qualified use of judicial impeachment going forward.

Judicial Impeachments Must Be Principled, Not Partisan

While the Founding Fathers held out impeachment, they assumed the vast majority of judges would faithfully serve the Constitution and the American people for life. They saw this as a major boon to the American people. Judges’ lifetime tenure gives them the “independent spirit” necessary to defy lawmakers, wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. Courts, Hamilton wrote, must be free “to dispense the laws with a steady and impartial hand; unmoved by the storms of faction, unawed by its powers, unseduced by its favors.” Otherwise, the judiciary becomes “doomed to fluctuate with the variable tide of faction, degenerates into a disgusting mirror of all the various, malignant and turbulent humors of party-spirit.” Justices who bow to political pressure — like Owen Roberts in 1936 or John Roberts switching his Obamacare vote under pressure from the liberal media — degrade the American people’s liberties.

If wrongly pursued, the potent tool of judicial impeachments can undermine national stability. It is fitting the Boasberg ruling involves one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. The Adams administration’s only use of the laws came in prosecuting journalists who belonged to the other party. In many ways, the Alien and Sedition Acts were the original weaponization of government that set the tone for all future efforts. The Left has certainly never had any trouble accusing the president and his supporters of “sedition.” (The Alien Enemies Act was the only one of the four laws with a legitimate purpose.) It is hardly a stretch to foresee the mass impeachment of constitutionalist judges by a Democratic Party that cheers on the full disbarment of Trump lawyers and fantasizes about rendering Trump voters unable to earn a living.

To properly restore our government, the American people need both civic revival and spiritual revival. The necessary use of judicial impeachments cannot be based on politics or the political popularity of any one leader. Impeachment must be principled, not partisan. Judges must be appointed or removed based solely on their fidelity to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution as written. This must be accompanied by widespread cultural appreciation for the nation’s magnificent charter of liberties, the Constitution. And it must be informed by the deeply Christian (and overwhelmingly Protestant) worldview that inspired its framers.

President Trump’s speeches have done much to revive America’s flagging patriotism. Vice President J.D. Vance has publicly discussed the importance of faith and family. Their Cabinet members, perhaps especially Pam Bondi, can speak to the glorious limitations the Constitution places on the State, paving the way for a Hamiltonian use of judicial impeachment. They should adopt the motto of Hamilton’s rival, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1798, “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” As with illegal immigration, modest enforcement will likely induce judges to self-correct.

The Constitution gives the American people the ability to exercise the greatest government: self-government under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Congress Reacts to the Judicial Actions Slowing Progress on Trump’s Agenda

Congress Has The Tools To Stop Rogue Judges From Overriding Trump’s Agenda — Without Reaching For Impeachment

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Chief Justice Roberts Can Avert an Impending Constitutional Crisis — But Will He?

For nearly a decade, Democrats have campaigned on little more than the message that President Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnated. Although Trump won both the electoral and popular votes in November, effectively having been given a mandate from the American people to govern the nation, the old cries of “Dictator!” may soon be heard again from the progressive corners of the nation — unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and averts a rapidly approaching constitutional crisis.

As this writer previously noted, Trump was elected in order to carry out the agenda that he promised he would: gutting the swollen federal bureaucracy, eliminating the waste and fraud plaguing the American taxpayer, ending the woke stranglehold suffocating key federal institutions, and initiating the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants who have violated the laws and disregarded the sovereignty of the United States of America.

However, a spate of unelected, largely-partisan federal judges — almost exclusively at the district court level — have issued sweeping restrictions against many of the president’s executive orders and actions. Some recent examples include a U.S. district court judge halting the Trump administration’s virtual shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), another district court judge blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from reclaiming roughly $20 billion hastily spent by the previous administration on climate hysterics, and yet another district court judge preventing the U.S. military from barring transgender-identifying individuals from enlisting, citing the musical “Hamilton” in her order.

One of the most egregious examples of this recent judicial overreach came when District Court Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order demanding that U.S. planes deporting 250 members of the criminal terrorist organization Tren de Aragua return the violent gang members to the U.S. In concert with his top immigration advisor, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a war-time measure allowing the president to arrest and detain or deport any male over the age of 14 who comes from a foreign country which has been designated an enemy. The Alien Enemies Act has actually been used on several occasions throughout U.S. history, including during the War of 1812 and both the First and Second World Wars.

Miller and the White House have spent the past several days defending the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act — which Trump pledged on several occasions to invoke while campaigning. In an interview this week, Miller took a particularly strong stance against Boasberg’s ruling, explaining, “The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country — men like John Adams — was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States.” He continued, “That is not something that a District Court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way. … There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone District Court review.”

The Alien Enemies Act, which is part of Title 50 of the U.S. Code, explicitly bars federal courts from curtailing the president’s use of the Act. In fact, Title 50 § 23 addresses the jurisdiction which federal courts do or do not have over the president’s exercise of Title 50: federal courts are allowed to detain or deport “any alien enemy resident” within their jurisdiction or district, even if the president’s terms for invoking the Alien Enemies Act does or would exempt that individual from detainment or deportation. What a federal court is most certainly not allowed to do, according to the clear terms established in Title 50, is prevent the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act or rescind his proclamation of invocation. “Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one? Or the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy?” Miller asked regarding the Alien Enemies Act. He answered, “The president and the president alone makes the decision of what triggers that.”

Since then, Miller has continued to warn of the dangers posed by an unchecked, unelected cabal of partisan judges who are empowered to effectively shape — via restrictive court order — the policy of the executive branch of the federal government and prevent the administration from enacting the policy that the American people overwhelmingly voted for. “There are nearly 700 unelected district court judges. If the most extremist of these judges on any given day decides he is in charge of the executive branch then Article II, democracy[,] and government itself cannot function,” Miller observed in a social media post.

He added, in another post, “Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security[,] and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing[,] and national security policies of the Administration.” He warned, “It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end.”

This is where the U.S. Supreme Court comes in — or, rather, where it should come in but has so far refused to. As The Washington Stand previously reported, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a case where a district court judge forced the administration to pay $2 billion, erroneously labeling his order of compulsion as a temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter, accepting, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the district court’s temporary restraining order “at face value,” as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito put it in a scathing dissent. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito asked, in his dissenting opinion, with which Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. He continued, “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

The justices’ majority in rejecting the Trump administration’s petition was comprised of Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush. The fact that Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s left-leaning trio (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) is not much of a surprise, as the nominally conservative jurist has sided with the court’s more liberal wing on numerous occasions, seemingly in an effort to maintain some form of consensus. What was only slightly more surprising was that Roberts publicly rebuked the president for calling for Boasberg’s impeachment.

Following the district court judge’s order demanding that hundreds of already-deported terrorists be returned to the United States, Trump suggested that Boasberg should be impeached. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” the president declared over Truth Social.

In a relatively rare public statement, Roberts replied, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” He added, “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” This is, once again, not the first time that Roberts has seemingly been at odds with Trump, although his public statements on such subjects are a relative rarity. In 2018, after Trump disparaged a federal judge as an Obama appointee, Roberts told the media, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges, or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Of course, the recent rash of overreaching temporary restraining orders and the years-long partisan lawfare campaign aggressively waged against Trump stand themselves as rebukes against Roberts’s 2018 claim. While “Bush judges” and even “Trump judges” may not see themselves as levers of power for one ideological faction over another, “Obama judges” and “Clinton judges” — and especially Biden judges — are largely blatant activists. Therein lies a crucial part of the problem: if the president is to do his job and carry out the agenda that the American people elected him to carry out, then he cannot be hampered by activist judges who are willing to bend, misconstrue, reinterpret, and misinterpret the very U.S. Constitution which they were sworn to uphold.

Trump has a very limited period of time in the White House, a very limited period of time in which to enact his agenda; he should not have to waste months or even years working his way through a federal court system at least partly run by the very activist judges erroneously and (in many cases) disingenuously thwarting his executive efforts in the first place. As, once again, Miller noted, “Unelected rogue judges are trying to steal years of time from a 4 year term. It’s the most egregious theft one can imagine: robbing the vote and voice of the American People.”

Yet Roberts is unwilling to intervene. While his siding with left-leaning justices is par for the course and his public rebukes of the president are not thoroughly shocking, his refusal to intervene is something of a surprise. Despite numerous decisions Roberts has made (some of which he has himself authored) that have disappointed conservative Americans, he has long been a strong and clear proponent of the separation of powers.

One of his most consequential rulings, in Trump v. United States, is typical of the Chief Justice’s bent for preserving not only the integrity and power of the federal judiciary but the integrity and power of the executive branch of the federal government too. In that case, Roberts penned a landmark opinion defending the core constitutional duties and powers of the presidency, clarifying that a president is entitled to absolute immunity for any of his actions which fall within the scope of his core constitutional duties and powers, as delineated in Article II of the Constitution, and is entitled to presumed immunity for all of his official acts.

“Appreciating the ‘unique risks’ that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him ‘unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,’ the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history,’” Roberts himself wrote in July. He continued, “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” In other words — again, as Roberts himself noted — there is a fundamental urgency inherent in the office of the president and the president himself is empowered by Article II of the Constitution to make bold decisions for the good of the nation. When it comes to the exercise of his core constitutional duties and powers as established in Article II, the president should not be able to be enjoined nationwide by activist judges who are, frankly, acting outside their jurisdictions.

This line of reasoning is one which Roberts should readily reach, particularly given his robust defense of the executive branch and the separation of powers over the course of his jurisprudential career. Yet he has still declined to intervene in these urgent cases wherein the Trump administration has sought the Supreme Court’s ruling. The very fact that Trump and his White House officers have repeatedly beseeched the Supreme Court for relief is demonstrative of the fact that the president will abide by the Supreme Court’s decision, as he has numerous times in the past.

As recently as this week, Trump insisted that he does not, at present, intend to openly defy court orders. “You can’t do that,” he said, affirming that he expects the Supreme Court to make a just and reasonable decision, once his cases reach that level. That is, of course, if one of Trump’s numerous petitions is taken up by the Supreme Court. Thus far, the record reflects that Roberts and Barrett, at least, are not inclined to allow the president to make his case. But the refusal of the justices to act may precipitate a constitutional crisis on a scale not seen in the U.S. in over 160 years.

Should the Supreme Court refuse to examine the question of whether activist judges are maliciously — and, more than likely, unlawfully — stepping outside their jurisdictions to bombard the Trump administration with a bevy of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, court orders, and other such, the president will be faced with a gravely difficult decision.

On the one hand, in the absence of Supreme Court intervention, the president could simply waste the next four years attempting to battle these multitudinous court orders, effectively allowing unelected activist judges to throttle the executive branch of the federal government. He may prevail in a Court of Appeals or even at the Supreme Court, but by the time the cases are litigated, argued, decided, and appealed over and over again, Trump will be on his way out of the White House, having achieved very little of what he was elected to achieve. In essence, national policy for the next several decades will be shaped not by elected officials, but by a judicial mafia appointed by agenda-driven Democrats in the first quarter of the 21st century. More crucially, the judicial branch will have managed to subdue the executive branch, shattering that barrier hailed as the “separation of powers” and choking the vitality and potency from the presidency. Such a situation would, clearly, be a constitutional crisis, and even the oft-assailed authority and legitimacy of the Supreme Court may not prove a strong enough force in such times to check the power-snatching of the district courts.

On the other hand — again, in the absence of Supreme Court intervention — the president may choose to continue exercising the powers clearly granted to his office in Article II of the Constitution, even in seeming defiance of the lawless orders of activist judges. There is a dangerous sort of precedent for such a course of action, no doubt made all the more appealing to a man of Trump’s character by the “Great Man of History” theme associated with it. President Andrew Jackson’s infamous line, “The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it,” comes readily to mind, as does Napoleon Bonaparte’s maxim, “He who saves his country violates no law,” which Trump himself recently quoted. Following such a course of action, the president would be flagrantly violating the letter of the law, as contained in the host of court orders assailing his administration, but would still be able to present a strong case for upholding the law and saving his country. This, too, would be an obvious constitutional crisis and would certainly see a resurgence of wailing progressives crying, “Dictator!” and “Hitler!”

The Founding Fathers designed America’s federal government — and the crucial separation of powers — in such a way to ensure that no one state and, even worse, no one man could force his will on the entire nation. Yet that’s exactly what these unchecked activist judges are doing, defiling the very Constitution which they swore to uphold and corroding the nation they purport to safeguard. If the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice continually refuse to intervene, a constitutional crisis of near-unrivaled magnitude will decimate the nation. If Roberts continues rejecting the president’s pleas for order and clarity, then Jackson’s quote may be amended to read, “The Chief Justice has made his decision. Now let him live with it.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.