newYou can listen to Fox's news articles!
The fight over whether unelected U.S. District Court judges should be able to unilaterally suspend an elected president on the US agenda has reached a critical point.
Over the past three months, American efforts to deeply change the establishment of Washington have been blocked by radical district judges who have far exceeded their authority. In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second administration, lower court judges issued 37 national injunctions for various administration actions. It's more than one every three days.
This is not a judge's issue against President Trump. It's a question of judges against Americans.
The number of injunctions to halt Trump's policies doubles its predecessor
In the 2024 election, Americans elected Republican homes, Senate and President. President Trump carried all seven swing states. He won 77.3 million votes. This is 2.3 million votes more than Vice President Kamala Harris.
We must protect the rights of Americans to elect people who control the federal government.
There are 677 district judges on the federal bench. If any of them can issue a national injunction to override the decision of an elected president, we are in real danger. Remember that these judges have never been elected by Americans. If their sentences are ruined or they waste taxpayer dollars, they will not face consequences.
Not all of them are overreaching, but certainly some. And some of the national injunctions handed over are plagued by insanity.
One injunction argued that executives could not suspend or terminate fugitive entry in the United States and must accept hundreds of thousands of refugees. Don't worry about the humanitarian or economic costs of a decision.
Johnson Speaker gives a verdict on House plans to fire each judge blocking Trump
Another injunction blocked the removal of men from women's prison despite the risk of physical harm to female prisoners.
The third injunction prevented the administrative agency from doing anything about the so-called sanctuary cities. It went overboard violently, claiming that the White House could not even talk about the sanctuary city.
These are just some of the absurd judicial microcontrollers we are witnessing.
Senators warn of “unconstitutional” judicial overreach ahead of Scotus' showdown
As President Thomas Jefferson worked to build and protect our new nation, he warned that the government, ultimately ruled by judges, would be the path to tyranny. In a letter to William Jarvis on September 28, 1820, Jefferson wrote:
“You seem to think of the judge as the ultimate arbitrator of all constitutional questions. It is a very dangerous Doctrine Inday (D) and what puts us under the tyranny of the Olihead.”
As he testified at the House Judicial Subcommittee hearing, all founding fathers believed that the three branches of the government should be comparable. If anything, the judiciary is probably the weakest of the three branches. They revealed that two elected branches could modify the Judicial Branch if they attempt to impose a will on Americans.
In a federalist treatise, Alexander Hamilton warned that legislative and administrative departments could respond strongly to judges. The judge will have no means of defending himself.
As president, Jefferson and the Democrats eliminated 14 of the 34 federal judges in the Judiciary Act of 1802. No one of them fired each (long and difficult task). Jefferson simply abolished the judges, and the judges were no longer at work.
Unless we are forced, we need not rule out the district courts in Jefferson tradition.
For more information about Fox News, click here
Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will recognize that judicial tyranny by lower courts is unbearable and unsustainable. The High Court can either take decisive steps to eliminate a national injunction by a local judge, or create a rule that it will be awarded immediately by the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the House and Senate began working to correct the absurd overreach of the most radical district court judges.
This week's introduction of the 2025 Judicial Relief Clarification Act by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and 20 senators is a powerful signal that the Senate can defend itself against tyrannical judges. When this is combined with the 2025 Rep. Darrell Issa's fraudulent arbitrage law (which was passed in the House of Representatives by 219-213), it is clear that district judges are enforcing a constitutional crisis.
We must protect the rights of Americans to elect people who control the federal government. Lower court judges who believe they can micromanage and override the elected president and Congress have the simple path to resign and take office.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Hopefully the Supreme Court will end this absurdity. Otherwise, Congress and the President must exercise their constitutional powers and eliminate national injunctions by district judges.
There is no alternative for us to maintain government, by that, and for the people.
For more information about Newt Gingrich, click here
