OPINION: Democrat U.S. Judges Collude to Thwart Trump Policies and Agenda.

Does Democrat U.S. Judge James Boasberg really want all these brutal “Tren de Aragua” killers and rapists to remain in this country, or is he so blinded by total hatred of Donald Trump that he cannot think straight? What we know: When Boasberg learned that the Trump Administration had deported 238 of the worst vile monsters to enter the U.S. illegally, the members of the notorious, ruthless “Tren de Aragua” gang, and that they were on airplanes headed to a jail in El Salvador, he ordered the planes to turn around and to bring these ruthless horrible people back to the U.S. He viewed that he, and not the President of the United States, should decide whether they should stay or be deported, and he (and not the President) would make that call.

Of course he didn’t put it that way. Rather, he questioned whether the President had violated the Constitution in deporting these immigrants, and that it was his role, as a U.S. judge, to decide constitutional challenges. The problem with this approach is that nearly everything the President does has a constructional angle, allowing politically-oriented judges to claim that any and every action taken by the President violates the Constitution.

UPDATE 1. The Court of Appeals rules for Boasberg and against Trump. Read the Order denying the emergency motions to stay the district court order.

UPDATE 2. The Trump Administration has now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Read the Application to Vacate Boasberg’s Order. “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.”

This would not be a problem if the quality of judges were better than it is, but Democrat Presidents have nominated highly-partisan judges, and Democrat-controlled Senates have confirmed these people no matter how inadequate their qualifications appeared, no matter what their apparent conflicts were, no matter whether they lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, withheld essential documents, or failed to provide cogent answers to reasonable questions. We’ve all watched sessions of the Senate Judiciary Committee on youtube, when the Democrats were in the majority, where Republican Senators such as Cruz, Kennedy, and Hawley, have caught one Democrat nominee after another lying, presenting phony resumes, and withholding probative documents, but no matter how bad the questioning makes the nominee appear, the Democrats have always voted unanimously to confirm the nominee. Hence we have a cadre of judges who are judges in name only. They are unqualified, politically-motivated, partisan activists, who now wear black robes, and instead of carrying anti-Trump signs and marching in anti-Trump protests, they now place their signatures on anti-Trump restraining orders.

So is this a real problem? Just how often does it occur?

As you can see, in Trump’s first 4-years, he was enjoined 64 times, compared to 12 injunctions for Obama over 8 years; and in the first one month in Trump’s 2nd term, he has been enjoined 15 times, which compares to Biden’s 14 over his entire 4 years.

So there are two possibilities here: (1) Trump is wildly unconstitutional and the courts are doing their job to throttle-back his unconstitutional excesses; or (2) the judges are unconstitutionally usurping Executive Branch functions, trying to run the government from their courthouses.

Let’s take a brief look at the injunctions so far:

• Trump issued an order on his first day in office declaring an end to birthright citizenship. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a nationwide temporary restraining order halting Trump’s Executive Order and decrying Trump’s action as “blatantly unconstitutional.” (Read our constitutional analysis, “Does the Constitution Require “Birthright Citizenship?” and our previous article, “Trump Orders an End to “Birthright Citizenship.” A Federal Judge calls the Order “Blatantly Unconstitutional.”)
• Trump signed an order pausing foreign aid for the a 90-day period to ensure it was aligned with his Administration’s goals and values. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali prohibited the Trump administration from canceling all foreign contracts, ruling they had “not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid … was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.” (Read out previous articles, “U.S. Ends (temporarily) Most Foreign Aid. USAID Officials Placed on Leave for Insubordination,” “Trump has Closed USAID. The Agency is Accused of Mismanagement, Losing Funds, and Corruption,” and “The Most Egregious Programs and Projects Funded by USAID.”)
• Trump banned transgender people from openly serving in the armed forces. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes voided Trump’s order claiming that it discriminated against people based on their sex and transgender status.
• Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, proclaiming that the Venezuelan “Tren de Aragua” gang was “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” This formed the basis for arresting and deporting the vicious “Tren de Aragua” gang members. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg “temporarily” restrained the order, while he studied the matter and decided whether his opinion should count for more than the President’s. He said he was concerned that some of those deported under the order could face irreparable harm. In reality, he is a leftist hack who was given a judgeship by the Democrats. When he learned that the deportation planes were in the air, he ordered that the planes must be turned around and the violent monsters being deported must be returned to the U.S. President Trump said of Boasberg, “He’s radical left.” He “should be impeached.” “We don’t want vicious, violent and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers, in our country.” (Read our article, “U.S. District Judge Boasberg Orders Trump Not to Deport Any More Venezuelan Gang Terrorists.”)
• The President ordered ending federal contracts with the Perkins Coie law firm, a Democratic-linked law firm that had participated in many acts of lawfare against President Trump in his first term and against candidate Trump as be campaigned to regain the presidency. Trump also revoked the security clearances that had been given to the Perkins Coie lawyers. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell (a Democratic Party operative who was ruthless in sentencing Jan. 6th defendants) issued a temporary restraining order, under the pretence that Trump’s order would have a chilling effect on law firms’ First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.
• Trump ordered a “pause” in the refugee resettlement program for four months, having determined that, “The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.”  Trump’s order made clear that, “This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.” U.S. District Judge Judge Jamal Whitehead “temporarily” voided the order on Feb. 25, claiming that the President’s action was an “effective nullification of congressional will.” (Read our constitutional analysis “‘Sanctuary’ Governors and Mayors Could be Charged and Imprisoned if they Impede Federal Immigration Enforcement,” and our article, “Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Has Referred the Mayors of Boston, Denver, Chicago, and New York to the DOJ for Prosecution.”)
• Trump banned transgender surgeries and procedures for people under the age of 19. The order said the U.S. “will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson “paused” the order, saying that to disallow these under-19-year-olds from getting the surgeries and procedures would be “horribly dangerous.” The “pause “was extended by U.S. District Judge Lauren King , who accused the Trump administration of having a “bare desire to harm.”
• Trump signed an order to “ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers.” U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted a temporary restraining order blocking the transfer of biological male inmates out of female facilities and into male facilities.
• Trump signed another order ending support for “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” programs within the federal government. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson blocked the order. (Read our article, “All Federal Government DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) Offices are Closed and all DEI Personnel are Suspended.”)
• Several Executive Branch Departments decided to trim their employment bloat and they terminated 16,000 probationary employees. U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued an order requiring that all 16,000 be immediately rehired. On Monday, March 24, 2025, the Trump Administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The DOJ filing can be read here. In its Application to stay Alsup’s Order, the government argued that, “The lower courts should not be allowed to transform themselves into all-purpose overseers of Executive Branch hiring, firing, contracting, and policymaking.” The government’s filing in the Supreme Court concluded, “The district court’s order causes extraordinary and irreparable harm to the Executive Branch by ordering the reinstatement—to full duty status, complete with work assignments—of more than 16,000 employees the Executive has chosen to terminate. … An order directing reinstatement of thousands of employees across six agencies is intolerable.”

These are just a few of the most prominent injunctions, but though this listing is long it constitutes only a fraction of the injunctions stymying Trump’s Agenda. As noted above, Trump has already accumulated 15 of these exercises of judicial overreach in his first month.

We used the word “collusion” in the headline. We don’t mean to imply that these judges are actively consulting and secretly agreeing on how to take down, or at least thwart, the Trump Administration. But the word “collusion” does not necessarily imply that they are coordinating with each other, or that they have illegally agreed on a course of conduct. Rather, these judges read the newspapers and watch the news. They know what is being done in other judicial districts by other judges who share their sentiments against Trump and who can’t abide the fact that Trump is the President. While they do not move in unison, they do move in a common direction and with the common goal of frustrating, delaying, and if possible, shutting down President Trump’s policy efforts.

Of course, none of these courtroom tyrants will admit to operating as rogue judges, to being lawfare partisans in judicial robes. Some of them might even believe, but only if they are profoundly stupid, that their actions are motivated by a desire to stop unconstitutional activities by the Executive Branch. On this assertion, just realize that while our southern border was left wide-open by Biden, an unconstitutional action of and in itself, none of these judges were to be seen telling Biden to reverse course.

But what can be done if judges’ actions constitute unconstitutional activities by the Judicial Branch? In the Federalist Papers, which recount the great debates that led to the drafting, adoption, and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a common thread is the fear that the judiciary will “usurp” both legislative and executive functions. Such usurpation was considered unconstitutional.

“It is agreed that no department should have overruling power over another.  But as power tends to desire increase, restraints must be installed to avoid de facto encroachments of one branch on another.  The great problem to be solved is what restraints.

It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. ”  
— Federalist Paper № 48.

The judicial power to overturn legislative and executive actions is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but such authority exists as it was established by the courts, and yielded to them by the other branches, in long-honored judicial decisions.  While virtually everyone agrees that the courts do have the power to overturn unconstitutional actions by the legislature and the executive, it is equally agreed that such powers are to be exercised sparingly, rarely.  To do so with regularity, and thus to effectively control the legislative or executive function, is a “usurpation” by the judiciary.  As stated by The Heritage Foundation:

“Judicial power can be used, and has been used, for both good and ill. However, in a basically just democratic republic, judicial power should never be exercised lawlessly–even for desirable ends.  Judges are not legislators. The legitimacy of their decisions, particularly those decisions that displace legislative judgments, depends entirely on the truth of the judicial claim that the court was authorized by law to settle the matter. When this claim is false, a judicial edict is not redeemed by its good consequences, for any such edict constitutes a usurpation of the just authority of the people to govern themselves through the constitutional procedures of deliberative democracy. Decisions in which the courts usurp the authority of the people are not merely incorrect; they are themselves unconstitutional. And they are unjust.” 
—  “Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution: Historical and Contemporary Issues.“

Thus, in a stated effort to address, and remedy, a purported Executive Branch action said to be unconstitutional, U.S. judges are taking actions that might themselves be unconstitutional. A judge’s order arrogating to himself or herself the powers given to the Executive by the Constitution, is clearly unconstitutional.

If any one of us does anything unconstitutional, you can be sure we would be looking at jail time or prison time. But judges are different. Judges are regularly overturned by higher courts, and occasionally the appellate courts may have a few choice words to say to the judge they are overturning, but do these overturned judges ever lose their jobs? Do they even see the inside of a jail cell?

Judges demand all sorts of immunity for their wrongful decisions. They argue that if they had to constantly worry about their wallets or their personal safety every time they issued an unpopular opinion, they’d not be able to do their jobs. If this is true for them, and we do understand the logic, why is it not applicable to police officers, who can be sued every time they turn around?

While judges do have judicial immunity, they do not have total impunity. Most people know that federal judges are given a lifetime appointment, and they assume that the only way to get rid of bad judges is through the impeachment process. But impeachment is nowhere provided in the Constitution for ridding ourself of imperious, uncaring, tyrannical, and partisan judges. The Constitution says only that federal judges will hold their offices “during good behavior.” Unlike impeachment, which requires a majority in the House and a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate, removing a judge for failing to maintain “good behavior” may only require a simple majority in both the House and the Senate. This could be a perfect remedy to send inadequate judges packing in a more perfect world, but in the world we live in, were this method for unseating judges used by the Republicans to rid the country of biased, partisan judges, it is almost a certainty that the next time the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress they would unseat every judge appointed by a Republican President. So the reality is that we are stuck with lifelong appointments, and given the partisanship in Congress, it will be extremely difficult to get any judges removed via impeachment unless one party captures two-thirds of the seats in the Senate.

But while judicial immunity shields judges from monetary liability in connection with their official duties, it does not shield them from criminal prosecution for breaking the law, and we tend to think that judges who operate unconstitutionally to usurp the rightful powers of the Executive Branch of government are engaging in criminal activity. Clearly, if a judge makes a constitutional determination and is thereafter reversed upon appeal, that would not, in itself, constitute a crime, and thus this would not be an easy remedy to enforce. But if it can be shown that the judge had engaged in fraud, or in self-dealing, or had obvious conflicts, biases, or blatant partisanship motivating his or her actions to usurp the proper duties of the Executive Branch and arrogate those Executive Branch functions for his own benefit or for the benefit of his political party, we believe such a showing would constitute sufficient proof of the commission of a constitutional crime by a judicial officer. Is this easy to prove? No, it is not, and it should not be easy. But if the facts come together to show that a judge has operated criminally, he should be charged and prosecuted like any other criminal. Proffering a black robe is not an affirmative defense to a criminal charge. Of course, there is a distinction between crimes committed “under color of law” from the bench and crimes committed as a common criminal. We submit that the former category is far worse.

However, we are realists, and we think that getting one judge to convict another, especially when they all share the same ideology such as in D.C., is not a possibility with great odds, and once charged, and then acquitted, a rogue judge has carte blanche to become a total obstructionist.

Will the Supreme Court step up and tell these District Court judges that their “judging” is severely lacking? We’d love to see this happen, but we’ve lost confidence in Chief Justice Roberts and in Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. We really liked her when Trump nominated her in his first term, and if nothing else, we thought she’d show some loyalty, but she’s been an unmitigated disappointment. So while we wait for some wonderful ruling out of SCOTUS, Chief Justice Robert’s recent statement criticizing those who called for the impeachment of Boasberg, demonstrates that judges stand up for one another, especially when they know each other, like each other, and belong to the same invite-only judges club, as do Roberts and Boasberg.

So what is left to rid ourselves of bad judges? Finally, we turn, with hope, to a legislative solution. Congress, which the Republicans control, but only by slim margins, has the absolute power to legislate the scope and jurisdiction of the District Courts. A vote is expected this coming week on the “No Rogue Rulings Act” introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), which would limit the power of District Court Judges to impose nationwide injunctions.

§ 1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.

Total Republican support for this bill is essential. Republicans cannot afford to allow its members to stray from unity and to join the Democrats in voting against this bill. The bill, H.R. 1526, is the best hope for conservatives and Republicans to stop rogue judges from doing everything they possibly can to place roadblocks in front of every Trump initiative. These judges know no bounds. They are judges, but they do not respect the law. Passing H.R. 1526 is necessary to rein in these “Judges in Robes Only” (JIROs), so that they can only do harm to the litigants in their courtrooms and not to the United States.