In recent days, the conduct of the judiciary, both federal and state, has been called into question. On the national level, a series of injunctions have been issued by District Court judges which block the implementation of various initiatives taken by the Trump Administration. We have previously discussed the restraining order issued by the Chief Judge of the DC District Court, James Boasberg, which prevented the Department of Homeland Security from deporting five alleged members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. But there have been many others.
For instance, in April of this year, “[a] federal judge in California issued an injunction…blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to halt federal funds from going to several cities and counties considered sanctuary jurisdictions.” In fact, this same judge issued a similar order during President Trump’s first term, but the Biden Administration dropped the appeal of that order. Then, “[a] federal judge…blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind collective bargaining rights from employees at nearly a dozen government agencies and departments. The order…requires federal agencies to engage with their employees’ unions and to resume collecting dues payments, among other normal employee relations business. The judge’s order covers employees at the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Treasury and Energy, the Office of Personnel Management, and other major agencies.”
Also in that same month, two different federal judges “blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from schools that participate in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Hours after a New Hampshire judge issued a similar order…a federal judge in Maryland…issued a broader ruling that prohibits the Department of Education from using federal funding to end DEI initiatives within public schools.”
In fact, the Congressional Record Service “has identified 17 cases in which federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025.” Of these, three block the Executive Order regarding Birthright Citizenship, and six restore federal funding to various programs and organizations.
Most of these orders are on appeal, and undoubtedly, many will be overturned in whole or in part. As we have discussed in a previous article, the Executive Order redefining citizenship cannot stand. Undoubtedly, many voters support changing the definition of citizenship provided in the US Constitution in an effort to exclude illegal immigrants from having “anchor babies.” But the process for changing any clause in the US Constitution is outlined in the document itself, at Article V – “[A]n amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention…[a] proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”
As we stated in March, “if the President and Congress want to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, they must follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution, and propose an Amendment.”
Aside from whether or not these injunctions will be reversed on appeal is the question of judicial interference in the Trump Administration’s agenda. As the situation is described by Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction…[t]he problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate…as we expedite these appeals.”
President Trump himself believes these federal judges are breaking the law, or at the least, exceeding their authority, and should be impeached. As described by NPR, “[w]ithout naming [Judge] Boasberg…Trump said, ‘This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!’ He also called Boasberg a ‘Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.'” But US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts responded with reason to the President’s understandably emotional statement; “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
As frustrating as the delays in moving forward with the Trump Agenda may be, and as obviously reactionary as many of these stays may be, Justice Roberts is right. The appellate process is the correct way to handle the rash of nationwide injunctions. But to quote Professor Turley again, “[t]he Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts’ issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality.”
Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow