Enough is Enough, Supreme Court — Reign in the Misguided Judges

Who should wield greater authority: the President of the United States or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 situated in courthouses throughout the nation?

The answer is clear and ostensibly sensible.

The President is elected by millions and is granted power by the US Constitution to guarantee that “the laws be faithfully executed,” manage foreign policy, and command the nation’s armed forces.

In contrast, most district court judges often reach their positions through connections within the president’s party.

Their responsibilities on the bench are typically confined to adjudicating cases based on established law.

Nevertheless, across the nation, increasingly partisan district judges are employing legal maneuvers to undermine Trump, hinder his agenda — and establish national, even global, policies.

Since January 20, federal district judges — positioned at the lowest level of the judicial system — have issued nationwide injunctions halting Trump’s suspension of foreign aid, his deportations of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members, his layoffs and budget cuts within federal departments and agencies, his prohibitions on biased diversity programs in higher education and government hiring, among others.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, DC, issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Pentagon from enforcing Trump’s January 27 executive order, which excludes transgender individuals from military service. Reyes anticipates a “heated public debate” and potential appeals.

However, Judge Reyes has taken it upon herself to make this determination for the entire country, defying the commander-in-chief who is supposed to be in charge of the military — and doing so without allowing any evidence to be considered.

She is effectively maintaining a policy that the president opposes, possibly for months or years while the lawsuit and subsequent appeals are decided, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.

This situation is absurd.

The inappropriate use of national injunctions by politically aligned federal judges is not a new issue, nor is it entirely one-sided.

During Trump’s initial term, these injunctions were utilized 64 times to obstruct his initiatives.

They have also been issued 14 times against the Biden administration, according to a survey by the Harvard Law Review.

This makes it all the more essential for the Supreme Court to act promptly.

Justice Elena Kagan has been vocal in criticizing this misuse.

“It just can’t be right for one district judge to halt a nationwide policy and leave it in limbo for years while it navigates the standard legal process,” she stated to an audience at Northwestern University Law School in 2022.

During Trump’s administration, Kagan noted, activist groups would frequently turn to the Northern District of California, while during the Biden years they have shifted to Texas — “shopping” for judges willing to grant national injunctions that align with their objectives.

Her remarks came in the wake of a district judge in Texas imposing a nationwide injunction that mandated the Food and Drug Administration retract its approval of mifepristone, an abortion drug.

How is it possible for a single judge in a small courthouse in Amarillo to wield such power?

Frustrated abortion advocates raised this valid question.

Until the Supreme Court intervenes, Trump finds himself in a challenging game of whack-a-mole, appealing to federal appellate courts nationwide to overturn the relentless injunctions and revive his stalled policy initiatives.

It’s a battle won slowly: Just last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the ban on Trump’s executive order terminating discriminatory DEI protocols in government contracting, grant-making, and hiring.

However, left-leaning district court judges continue their legal onslaught against Trump — and the highest court is failing to fulfill its responsibilities.

On March 5, a divided Supreme Court denied Trump’s request to lift a district court order requiring the State Department and the US Agency for International Development to disburse $2 billion in foreign aid, in defiance of presidential policies.

Justice Samuel Alito issued a strong dissent.

“Is it acceptable for a single district-court judge . . . to possess unchecked authority to compel the Government of the United States to distribute (and likely forfeit) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” he thundered.

“The answer must be a resounding ‘No’.”

Despite the challenges, Trump’s Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris remains steadfast.

On March 13, she submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, cautioning that these injunctions have proliferated to “epidemic proportions.”

This type of legal warfare “prevents the Executive Branch from executing its constitutional duties,” she argued.

Harris made her appeal in the context of the birthright-citizenship cases now facing the court — yet another Trump directive that has been stifled by judicial intervention.

However, the court must go beyond merely assessing Trump’s policies regarding children born to undocumented residents.

It is time — overdue, in fact — to rein in these district court judges who act as if they are monarchs.

Although Harris characterized her request as “modest,” the truth is that the future of Trump’s entire agenda — and the expectations of the citizens who voted for him — hinge on it.

As Harris expressed to the court, “Enough is enough.”

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and co-founder of the Committee to Save Our City.