Trump Battles Numerous Progressive Judges While Supreme Court Remains Indecisive

President Donald Trump is fighting back against the litigation-industrial complex’s assault on his agenda.

On Monday, Trump’s Justice Department submitted an emergency request to the Supreme Court, urging it to address the widespread issue of national injunctions — now exceeding 70 and growing — that left-leaning district court judges are employing to hinder the president’s efforts.

Only the Supreme Court can halt this “power grab,” asserted Trump’s attorneys.

The fate of his presidency could depend on the court’s intervention. The justices have delayed action for too long.

Trump’s legal team made their initial “emergency” plea for relief from these national injunctions on March 15.

Since then, the high court has exhibited nothing but shameful inaction.

Numerous federal judges are obstructing key policies — reducing government size, ending DEI, cutting foreign aid, banning transgender individuals from the military, deporting Tren de Aragua, and others — that voters supported by electing Trump.

A group of left-wing lawyers and judges is effectively undermining the results of the November election.

Four justices have already expressed opposition to national injunctions, including Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito.

Chief Justice John Roberts possesses the votes. He must put aside his aversion to Trump’s rhetorical excesses concerning the judiciary and act to safeguard both the Constitution and the results of the November election.

In Monday’s emergency application, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris challenged a San Francisco district court judge’s injunction that barred federal agencies across all 50 states, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce, from reducing workforce numbers.

In February, during the commencement of downsizing, government unions and non-profits filed lawsuits in the Northern District of California, known for its leftist leanings.

They were quickly rewarded for their strategic court choice with sympathetic Judge William Alsup ordering the Trump administration to reinstate 16,000 terminated provisional employees nationwide and signifying his intention to micromanage each reinstatement.

Forget that the public elected a president who vowed to deliver a leaner, more cost-effective government.

While Harris’ emergency appeal reached the Supreme Court, leftist judicial militancy was clearly visible at the US Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett, one of the three panel members, criticized the president for deporting alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

The matter involved a national injunction issued by District Court Judge James Boasberg blocking deportations.

The act empowers the president to arrest, detain, and deport non-citizens deemed a threat during times of war, invasion, or enemy incursion. Trump argues that this includes the mass influx across the southern border.

Trump’s lawyers asked the Court of Appeals to overturn Boasberg’s injunction, labeling it an “unprecedented and massive intrusion” on the president’s authority.

Millett disregarded this fundamental constitutional question, instead advocating for the 260 gang members already deported to a prison in El Salvador.

“There were planeloads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people,” she admonished Trump’s attorneys. “Nazis received better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than what transpired here.”

Sorry, Judge. That’s not an argument that resonates.

Border czar Tom Homan stated that Tren de Aragua “is a designated terrorist organization,” pushing back against a reporter mentioning the judge’s comments about the deportees.

“Advocate for Laken Riley’s family,” Homan replied. “What due process was afforded to her?”

The reality is, the Alien Enemies Act does not impose any requirements like Millett suggested.

The discretion granted to the president under the act is “as unrestricted as legislation could confer,” as ruled by a federal court in the 1817 case of Lockington v. Smith.

When the act faced scrutiny during World War II, the Supreme Court ruled that “some statutes preclude judicial review.”

During Monday’s hearing, Millett exhibited herself as a left-leaning zealot. However, Judge Justin Walker, also on the panel, had a contrasting viewpoint.

Walker pointedly questioned the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing the deportees, inquiring why they hadn’t pursued their habeas corpus action in Texas, the origin of the deportation flights, instead of the DC Circuit.

The ACLU offered only evasive responses, because the truth is, they engaged in court-shopping.

Now, we wait.

The three-judge appeals panel has yet to make a decision on lifting Boasberg’s national injunction.

Until then, the rapid deportation of illegal immigrant Tren de Aragua affiliates, a focal point of Trump’s campaign, is halted.

Equally important is the Supreme Court’s reaction to Trump’s emergency petition.

National injunctions from rogue lower-court judges have paralyzed presidents from both parties — none more than Trump.

It’s time for decisive action, Mr. Chief Justice.

As the left consistently reminds us — though this time it’s true — democracy is at risk. 

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