John Roberts’ Tacit Endorsement Of Judicial Supremacy Is Undermining SCOTUS

Roberts fails to understand that SCOTUS's continued allowance of leftists' judicial coup is undermining Americans' faith in the judiciary.

C-SPAN Asks Chief Justice John Roberts To Do Them A Favor For Major Birthright Citizenship Case

'This case holds profound national significance'

This red-state attorney general has declared war on the First Amendment



We thought the Supreme Court had finally purged anti-religious discrimination from Establishment Clause jurisprudence. After years of confusion — conflating the ban on state-sponsored religion with an invented mandate to scrub faith from public life — the Court, through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funding, had restored sanity. It returned the law to its pre-Warren era understanding: Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.

Yet, here we are again.

Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.

In a move that stunned observers, Oklahoma’s own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state supreme court now argue that states cannot recognize religious charter schools.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The case centers on St. Isidore, a Catholic online school seeking to join Oklahoma’s charter school system. Drummond contends the school’s religious affiliation disqualifies it. He sued the state charter board — a move usually made by the ACLU or militant secularist groups.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with him. The court claimed that granting charter status to a Catholic school would violate the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a state religion. Justices labeled charter schools “state actors” and argued that any religious affiliation disqualifies a school from public recognition.

This logic turns the First Amendment on its head. The Constitution does not require hostility toward religion. It requires neutrality. Denying a religious school access to a public benefit — simply because it is religious — violates precedent.

Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act permits any “private college or university, private person, or private organization” to apply for state funding to open a charter school. Excluding religious applicants contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court rulings.

In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v. Comer (2017), the court ruled that excluding a religious school from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified “solely because it is a church” is “odious to our Constitution.” That case involved a grant for playground resurfacing. If states can’t deny rubber mulch, they can’t deny full charter status.

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a 5-4 majority held that state constitutions barring aid to religious institutions over secular ones violates the Free Exercise Clause. Public benefits, the Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized, cannot be denied “solely because of the religious character of the schools.”

Then came Carson v. Makin (2022), where Maine tried to distinguish between religious status and religious use, barring religious schools from voucher funds. The court rejected the distinction. Roberts, writing again for the majority, ruled that the program “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” He warned that attempts to judge how a religious school carries out its mission invite unconstitutional state entanglement.

So how, after such ironclad precedent, do we find a Republican state attorney general and a court in a state Trump carried in every county ruling that religious schools can’t even apply for public funding?

The answer lies in years of lukewarm Republican control. These are Republicans in name only, who blocked judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts. Now, Drummond wants a promotion. He’s announced his run for governor after already overruling the state education superintendent’s decision to ban pornography in public libraries.

This case reveals a larger pattern. Courts act as a one-way ratchet. Even after strong Supreme Court rulings, liberal lower courts defy precedent. They delay, split hairs, and distinguish without merit. The high court may reverse Oklahoma, but its rulings rarely secure lasting victories.

And the irony? Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.

During the House debate on the First Amendment in 1789, James Madison explained: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

That principle — freedom of conscience without coercion — shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders assumed its influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” He added that politics and religion formed an “alliance which has never been dissolved.”

It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that alliance — clearly, decisively, and without leaving room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it’s time to elect Republicans who still believe the Bible belongs in the Bible Belt.

SCOTUS’s Refusal To End Leftists’ Judicial Coup Is Damaging Its Credibility More Than The Media Ever Could

By refusing to reign in the lower courts' lawlessness, SCOTUS has greenlit a judicial coup that is stymying the will of 77 million Americans.

Mass deportations are critical to America’s future



In a late-night order, the Supreme Court on Saturday blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal aliens. The administration had relied on the law to expedite removals of some of the most dangerous individuals in the country, including alleged MS-13 gang members.

This wasn’t a final ruling on the statute, but it froze current deportation efforts and signaled a likely loss for the White House. Once again, Donald Trump faces betrayal from the very justices he appointed — only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The president now finds himself at odds with a politically driven judiciary that seems to believe unelected lawyers, not the commander in chief, should run the executive branch.

The implication is clear. If Biden can import millions without due process, but Trump can’t deport them without it, then the system has no future.

Mass deportations remain essential if the United States hopes to remain a functioning nation. But the legal system isn’t the only obstacle. Mass democracy — often hailed as a bulwark against tyranny — turns out to be remarkably easy to rig.

When the ruling classes can’t depend on the current electorate to keep them in power, they simply replace it. Democrats understand that new immigrants overwhelmingly support the party that promises wealth redistribution — from the established population to the newly arrived.

Illegal immigrants may not vote immediately, but many will gain amnesty or eventually naturalize. Their children will all receive birthright citizenship. That’s the plan: long-term voter replacement to eliminate serious opposition in national elections.

The crisis at the southern border never threatened Democrats. They designed it. It wasn’t a policy failure. It was an electoral strategy.

And the Supreme Court saw no urgency in stopping a border policy designed to rig American elections for generations.

The Biden administration ran a cell phone app that fast-tracked illegal entry. It didn’t just leave the southern border wide open — it flew planeloads of Haitian migrants directly into the United States and dumped them in small Midwestern towns, where they overwhelmed local infrastructure. At no point did Chief Justice John Roberts step in, despite the administration’s blatant disregard for federal law and its constitutional duty to protect citizens.

When government officials at every level violated core constitutional rights during the pandemic — freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and more — the Supreme Court barely stirred. When federal intelligence agencies colluded with social media platforms to censor Americans and manipulate the outcome of a presidential election, the justices stayed silent. No emergency orders. No late-night rulings.

Even when January 6 defendants were charged under a statute that clearly didn’t apply to them, the court dragged its feet for years before taking up the case.

But when MS-13 gang members faced deportation under a long-standing federal statute, the Supreme Court sprang into action — issuing a midnight order to protect their due process rights.

Different rules for different people. And we’re all supposed to pretend not to notice.

The situation has become so absurd — so transparently political — that Justice Alito called it out in a blistering dissent, highlighting the irony of denying due process in an emergency order supposedly aimed at protecting due process:

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

The absurdity doesn’t end with the timing. Millions of illegal immigrants already lived in the U.S. before Biden took office. Since then, more than six million (at least) have entered illegally — an estimate even generous analysts won’t dispute.

Now consider the implications: If each of those six million requires a full court hearing before deportation, Trump could devote every waking moment of his presidency to the task and still fall short of removing even that cohort.

The implication is clear. If Biden can import millions without due process, but Trump can’t deport them without it, then the system has no future. Democrats get to flood the electorate with a new dependent voting class during their terms, while Republican presidents get bogged down in endless legal entanglements trying to undo the damage.

Every Republican president becomes a man with a bucket, bailing water from a cruise ship with a hole the size of Mexico.

The left keeps warning that Trump’s battles with the courts risk plunging us into a constitutional crisis. But that crisis began tens of millions of illegal immigrants ago.

Federal judges have already blocked Trump administration efforts to reform the military, reduce spending, and rein in foreign aid. They act as though they — not the president — command the executive branch. Now, the Supreme Court has taken the absurd position that the due process rights of illegal alien gang members matter more than the rights of American citizens.

A government that fails to secure its borders or remove those who violate them abandons its most basic responsibility. No country that tolerates mass illegal presence can long remain a country at all — certainly not for long.

The judiciary isn’t defending the rule of law. It’s eroding it — obstructing legitimate executive action, undermining democratic accountability, and weakening national sovereignty.

The Trump administration has ambitious and vital goals: restoring American industry through tariffs, ending the globalist drift in foreign policy, removing progressive rot from universities, and dismantling the administrative state.

But none of it will matter without mass deportations.

Tens of millions of people live in the United States in defiance of our laws. They must be expelled. The only question is how far the courts will go to damage their own credibility trying to stop it.

This Supreme Court Is Woefully Weak On The Second Amendment

When firearms are involved, originalism is ignored and basic principles of statutory interpretation are overlooked.

Judicial impeachment is a remedy — not a rebellion



Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement last week declaring that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” His remarks come amid renewed debate over the scope of judicial accountability, as some conservatives, including President Trump, have called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg over his handling of cases related to deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Roberts’ assertion, while reflective of modern norms, oversimplifies history. The reality is more complicated: Judicial impeachment has, at times, been driven by judicial decisions and the conduct surrounding them. While impeachment should not be a routine mechanism for challenging case outcomes, history shows it has been used when a judge’s rulings indicate persistent bias, a disregard for legal constraints, or an abuse of judicial authority.

If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

The clearest rebuttal to Roberts’ statement is the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. Chase, a staunch Federalist, was accused of allowing his political views to shape his rulings, particularly in cases related to the Sedition Act. The House of Representatives impeached him for what was effectively a judicial philosophy that his opponents found intolerable.

The Senate ultimately acquitted Chase, but the very fact that he was impeached — explicitly for his conduct on the bench — undermines the claim that judicial decisions have never been a basis for impeachment.

Chase’s case is not an outlier. In 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed, partially for erratic behavior but also for making decisions Congress viewed as improper and politically motivated. Judge West Humphreys, a Confederate sympathizer, was removed in 1862 in part because his rulings reflected active opposition to federal law. These cases show that, historically, judicial decisions and their consequences have been central to impeachment discussions.

The constitutional framework

Roberts’ statement implies a rigid wall between impeachment and judicial decision-making, but the Constitution draws no such line.

Article III, Section 1 provides that judges hold office “during good Behaviour,” a standard distinct from the more lenient protections given to elected officials. Article II, Section 4 allows impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That last phrase, historically interpreted to include abuses of power, opens the door to judicial decisions being relevant — not as mere policy disagreements, but as evidence of a judge’s failure to uphold his duties impartially.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 81 acknowledged that judicial misconduct, including decisions reflecting personal bias or disregard for the law, could be grounds for impeachment. The notion that impeachment exists only for personal corruption, rather than judicial overreach or defiance of legal norms, is a modern interpretation rather than an ironclad constitutional principle.

When does a ruling become impeachable?

The key distinction between a bad decision and an impeachable ruling is that the latter falls into a pattern of rulings that indicate a judge is abandoning his role as a neutral arbiter. A single controversial opinion does not justify impeachment, but if a judge repeatedly defies precedent, injects personal ideology into his decisions, or rules in ways that ignore constitutional limits, impeachment could be an appropriate remedy.

Consider the executive branch: A president is not impeached simply for enacting an unpopular policy, but if he abuses his authority, Congress has the power to remove him. The same reasoning applies to the judiciary. If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

A guardrail, not a weapon

None of this is to say that impeachment should be a routine check on judicial power. Judicial independence requires that courts be protected from political retaliation.

But the absolutist claim that impeachment is never an appropriate response to judicial decisions erases historical precedent and ignores the Constitution’s broader framework. Impeachment is not a tool for re-litigating every case, but neither is it an untouchable relic of the past.

Whether or not Congress agrees with Trump that Judge Boasberg should be impeached, it is essential that both judges and lawmakers recognize impeachment as a legitimate constitutional mechanism when a judge is no longer upholding his duty. The debate should not be about whether judicial decisions can ever warrant impeachment — they have before, and they will again — but about where the line is drawn between bad rulings and a true abandonment of judicial responsibility.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Destroy The Judicial Branch

Americans intuitively understand that the judiciary’s primary role is to protect the rights of American citizens, not those of bureaucracies.

Mark Levin SLAMS SCOTUS for acting like an autocracy: 'The law is as I say'



Mark Levin always knew that the Trump resistance wouldn’t die after inauguration, but he didn’t expect the Supreme Court to fuel the fire by ruling in favor of district court overreach.

He was horrified when he saw Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts' decision to side with the radical leftists judges and uphold a lower court’s temporary restraining order demanding President Trump unfreeze $2 billion in USAID funding.

He summarizes Roberts’ pathetic single-page explanation that’s “based on nothing” as follows: “The law is as I say, and that’s that.”

That is how autocracies function, he warns.

Dictators don’t care if their law is immoral, unjust, or violates the Ten Commandments or our inalienable rights. The law comes from the government, end of story.

“This is a throwback,” says Levin. “People talk about progress, progressivism, modernism, futurism, and yet they're primitive.”

Barrett, Roberts, and the other leftist judges, he says, would do well to revisit what our Declaration of Independence says about unalienable rights — the kind “no man can give, no man can take; no collection of men (government) can give, no collection of men (government) can take.”

“Obviously, we have a government that makes laws, but those laws have to have a moral basis. This is part of the big distinction between autocracies, totalitarian regimes, and our country,” says Levin.

To hear more of his commentary and learn about his latest book, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained



Can a single judge unilaterally thwart the president of the United States?

That’s the contentious question the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve last week in response to court orders blocking its effort to curtail birthright citizenship, coming after a slew of decrees requiring the president to do everything from halting major actions on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and domestic spending to disbursing billions in foreign aid.

'If any judge can weaponize their power to usurp the president’s legitimate Article II authority and defy the will of the American people, then we no longer have a constitutional republic.'

At issue is a legal remedy — universal injunctions — that allows any of the nearly 700 federal judges to prevent the president from enforcing policies not only against those bringing a case but anyone, everywhere. Universal injunctions were rare until the first Trump administration, when their usage exploded as Democrats and progressives turned to the courts to block many of his policies.

In the early days of Donald Trump’s second administration, courts have issued such injunctions at a historic pace and with growing potency, notably over the weekend with a suspension in deportations of Venezuelan gang members without a hearing. During February alone, district court judges, most nominated by Democrats, ordered 15 such injunctions — more than Joe Biden faced during his first three years as president. Courts from Washington, D.C., to Washington state have issued injunctions in “epidemic proportions,” now not only governing “the whole nation” but “the whole world,” the administration says.

The injunctions come in response to the more than 100 lawsuits that, critics argue, blue states, progressive nonprofits, and ex-government officials have deliberately brought before sympathetic judges — a tactic known as “forum shopping” or “judge shopping” that both parties have employed.

Democrats and progressive legal scholars argue these injunctions are a necessary brake because Trump is creating what they call a “constitutional crisis” by pushing the bounds of his office. “Thankfully,” Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Dick Durbin (Ill.) has said, “the judiciary is performing its duty to check the executive.”

Alito ‘stunned’

The universal injunctions ordered so far have not only hamstrung the president but raised myriad legal and practical questions, some of which the administration raised in its applications to stay the birthright citizenship injunctions filed on March 13. These include whether a court’s authority is limited to ruling on cases and controversies concerning the parties before it; if it’s reasonable for the federal government to have to “run the table over months of litigation in multiple courts of appeals to have any chance of implementing” its policies; and to what extent the Supreme Court wishes to see conflicting circuit court opinions as to universal injunctions’ legitimacy persist.

So far, the nation’s highest court has been unwilling to resolve these questions, despite past pleadings from Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and the Biden administration. The justices’ reticence was brought into stark relief earlier this month when a 5-4 majority issued a one-page opinion involving a D.C. district court’s universal injunction halting the administration’s “pause” on foreign assistance. The ruling neither grappled with the merits of the case nor the ability of the trial judge, Amir Ali, to, in critics’ eyes, micromanage a president.

In a blistering, nine-page dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he was “stunned” that the court’s majority had asserted that “a single district court judge” has “the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars.”

The court’s reluctance to weigh in — as such cases have worked their way through the lower courts — has left all three branches of government in limbo and increasingly at each other’s throats.

As the Trump administration accused “liberal judges” of “abusing their power” to unilaterally block the president’s basic executive authority, frustrated congressional Republicans are moving to pass legislation to curtail universal injunctions while making it harder to “judge shop.” Some are even pursuing the more extreme measure of impeaching judges perceived to have overstepped their authorities — recently drawing the ire of at least two federal circuit court judges.

The dueling clashes between Democrats and a president they see as overreaching in pursuit of his agenda, and Republicans and a judiciary they see as overreaching while the Supreme Court sits idly by, come months after Chief Justice John Roberts issued a report hailing judicial independence and fretting over purported threats to it.

The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025

Scholars differ over when courts first started issuing universal injunctions. Some date them back to the Progressive Era and others to the 1960s. Congress’ concern with such decrees appears to have escalated during the first Trump administration when their usage exploded, with panels in both houses holding hearings on the practice.

No matter what the Supreme Court decides in the case brought by the Trump administration, congressional Republicans are addressing the issue.

On March 5, the day Alito issued his dissent, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) brought his No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 before the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation would prohibit district courts from issuing injunctive relief beyond the party seeking it in court.

Issa argued that while universal injunctions have stymied Democratic and Republican presidents alike, none has found himself nearly as constrained as Trump. He spoke while introducing his bill flanked by a chart showing the number of decrees issued against each administration from George W. Bush onward.

According to an April 2024 Harvard Law Review article, courts slapped the first Trump administration with 64 universal injunctions, more than half of all such injunctions entered between 1963 and 2023 — that is, over six decades. Democrat-nominated judges issued 92% of these orders.

In notable instances, the 45th president prevailed on appeal — as in Trump v. Hawaii, a case overturned by the Supreme Court concerning his executive order restricting travel from nations posing terror threats — but often only after months of litigation.

Justice Clarence Thomas laid out his argument against universal injunctions in a concurrence in that 2018 case, calling them “legally and historically dubious” and “inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.”

“If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so,” Thomas concluded — a position Justice Gorsuch, too, would adopt.

The first Trump administration would oppose their usage in public remarks and official guidance, but the court never took up the question — and the injunctions persisted. Ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.) shot back at Issa over the chart that “the implication ... is that somehow the courts have done something wrong rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong.”

'Allowing a single district judge to unilaterally micromanage the executive branch should raise eyebrows, to say the least.'

The courts have targeted Trump, Raskin argued, “because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States. He’s violating the civil service rights of federal workers. And he’s betraying the federal law in every particular way.”

Advocates of such injunctions contend that, beyond constraining an overreaching executive by covering non-parties to a case, they protect those who might lack the resources to bring suit, reduce needless litigation, and are, at times, practically necessary while promoting uniformity.

Raskin, who voted against the legislation alongside his fellow Democrats, did not respond to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries about this story.

The Biden administration took a different position when courts issued universal injunctions against its favored policies. In December 2024, it asked the Supreme Court to stay one such injunction halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act. Therein, the departing president endorsed both Thomas’ and Gorsuch’s criticisms of the practice and called on the Court to consider ruling on their legality. It did not.

Issa’s bill passed out of committee with an amendment permitting a three-judge panel to issue a universal injunction should a case be brought by two or more states in different circuits. He characterized this as a “middle ground, something that’s fair” to protect presidents, regardless of party.

He anticipates his bill will come to the House floor “relatively quickly” and pass.

Hours after the markup, Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) took to the Senate floor to express concern about “some of the recent orders from individual district judges, issued on an expedited basis with very broad nationwide impact.”

In a statement to RealClearInvestigations, Sen. Grassley said:

Allowing a single district judge to unilaterally micromanage the executive branch should raise eyebrows, to say the least. I have serious questions about district courts’ recent use of [generally non-appealable] temporary restraining orders [which Justice Alito argued deserved scrutiny] and universal injunctions to put a leash on the executive branch, and I think Congress ought to closely examine the issue.

Grassley’s committee colleague, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is working on a bill to curtail the practice. “The Constitution empowers Congress to address this issue by limiting jurisdiction and, in some cases, through impeachment,” Lee said. “I am drafting legislation to establish a [three-judge] panel that would expedite Supreme Court review of such blanket injunctions.”

Checkered history of reform

Whether and to what extent a bill to curtail injunctions can pass through the Senate is unclear, though Issa told RealClearInvestigations he was optimistic. Similar legislation has languished in past Congresses — though notably, a federal law called for three-judge panels to preside over cases dealing with injunctions against federal statutes until its repeal in the 1970s.

Democrats and Republicans alike have also previously sponsored legislation aimed at combatting the related practice of forum — or judge-shopping — only for those bills to die. While considered a “first cousin” to the issue of nationwide injunctions, Issa said there will be legislation forthcoming to deter it. He touted a companion bill that would require disclosure of third-party funding of cases.

The California congressman also told RealClearInvestigations he would be raising matters of judiciary reform before the Judicial Conference of the United States, which held its biannual meeting earlier this month, while noting that he believed Attorney General Pam Bondi would be making a similar pitch.

The Justice Department did not respond to RCI’s inquiries about this story.

The conference, chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, meets twice yearly to “consider administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.”

Issa says the organization, which has previously issued nonbinding guidelines concerning judge shopping, may serve as a venue to “fix some of these things sooner rather than later.”

For its part, the Trump administration recently availed itself of its own tool to “ensure the democratic process remains intact by curbing activist judges and holding litigants accountable.”

The White House published a memorandum on March 11 requiring parties seeking injunctions against it to “cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” This, the administration has argued, would “deter frivolous litigation” by creating risks for “activist groups” filing “meritless lawsuits.”

The White House did not respond to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries for this story.

A March 13 order from U.S. District Court Judge James Bredar in Maryland illustrated the limits of this effort. In directing the administration to reinstate federal workers fired across 18 agencies, Bredar imposed an injunction bond of a mere $100 per plaintiff.

One Mike Lee aide has indicated that Congress could look to pass legislation, perhaps as part of a package limiting universal injunctions, to ensure injunction bonds meet certain standards — a law that would presumably combat judicial efforts to demand artificially small bonds.

‘A wave of judicial impeachments’

Injunctions aside, as Lee suggests, a more extreme remedy exists for taking on justices whose jurisprudence is perceived to be beyond the pale: impeachment.

Elon Musk has called for an “immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” as he put it in a quote post referring to D.C. District Judge John D. Bates. The judge had ordered federal health agencies to restore certain pages removed from their websites under President Trump’s executive order on “gender ideology and extremism.”

Some GOP House members concur. They have introduced articles of impeachment against Bates, one of three such judges threatened with the ultimate sanction, generally on the grounds of abuse of judicial power.

Another is Judge Paul Engelmayer, a Southern District of New York judge who originally prohibited President Trump’s chosen personnel — from the DOGE staffers to senior appointees, including even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent himself — from accessing Treasury Department payment systems.

D.C. District Judge Amir Ali is the third judge to have been hit with articles of impeachment to date. He issued the temporary restraining order halting the administration’s foreign aid pause that drew the rebuke of the Supreme Court’s minority.

With his weekend directive halting President Trump’s effort to remove Tren de Aragua gang members from the United States via invocation of the wartime Alien Enemies Act, D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg joined his colleagues on Tuesday as at least the fourth judge to face articles of impeachment this year. Hours after Boasberg issued his directive, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), announced on X that he planned to file such articles this week.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) told RealClearInvestigations, “If any judge can weaponize their power to usurp the president’s legitimate Article II authority and defy the will of the American people, then we no longer have a constitutional republic.”

In response, he and Reps. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) and Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), sponsors of other articles of impeachment, have launched the Judicial Activism Accountability Task Force. “We encourage members who are passionate about ending abusive judicial overreach, upholding the separation of powers, and defending the U.S. Constitution to join our effort,” Clyde said.

Congress has impeached only 15 federal judges in U.S. history, convicting eight — almost always on grounds of corruption. Three left the federal bench before impeachment proceedings concluded.

Despite the rarity of such efforts, Crane told RealClearInvestigations, “Our Founders gave us the power to impeach, and we cannot take stands based on what the Senate is allegedly going to do. We owe it to the American people to use every tool at our disposal.”

Following the Judicial Conference’s biannual meeting, it hosted a call with reporters in which two circuit court judges, Jeffrey Sutton and Richard Sullivan, condemned the recent impeachment efforts.

“Threats to judges are threats to judicial independence,” Sutton said, acknowledging the calls for impeachment. “One thing worth keeping in mind is if we dilute the standards for impeachment, that’s not just a problem for judges, that’s a problem for all three branches of government.”

Sullivan added, “Impeachment is not — shouldn’t be — a short-circuiting of [the judicial] process, and so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that.”

Clyde told RealClearInvestigations that beyond impeachment, “I certainly think other remedies to combat judicial activism are worth pursuing, and I anticipate that’s an avenue our task force will explore.”

While myriad cases make their way through the courts, Democrats have suggested the Trump administration will lose patience and seek a more dramatic showdown.

Chuck Grassley’s remarks on the Senate floor came in response to a March 4 speech from Durbin regarding a resolution calling on the Senate to affirm “the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review.”

The Illinois senator and other Democrats insinuated, based on recent remarks from the president, vice president, and others in and around the administration, that it might defy a court order, necessitating the resolution.

In a rejoinder, Grassley argued that Democrats had “repeatedly threatened the court for ruling in ways that they did not like” and remained mum while Joe Biden flouted the Supreme Court in response to its positions on policies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium, student loan debt relief, and affirmative action.

“Now that we have a Republican president, my Democratic colleagues appear to have a newfound respect for the courts,” Grassley said, calling Durbin’s resolution “nothing but a partisan messaging statement.”

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 13, Grassley defended the Trump administration, noting:

In the few weeks since he’s been in office, President Trump has been overwhelmed by decisions from individual district judges that encroach on his core constitutional powers. Nevertheless, he and his administration have worked diligently to abide by those orders, no matter how outrageous, by appealing them and challenging their scope and reach. And the President has been explicit about his views. He’s said, “I always abide by the courts, always abide by them. And we’ll appeal."

Nevertheless, invoking Dred Scott and other landmark decisions, Grassley noted, “Our history teaches that, in extreme cases, there may even be grounds to defy a court decision.”

Just days later, it appeared to some that such an extreme case might have arisen.

Critics of the Trump administration and many in the media were quick to claim it had defied Judge Boasberg’s Saturday universal injunction halting the president’s Tren de Aragua deportation effort. That's because several hundred members of the designated terrorist organization, apprehended and ticketed for deportation to El Salvador under the policy, landed in San Salvador reportedly hours after Boasberg issued his directive — and despite his oral demands in a hearing just prior that any such flights be turned around.

In a notice to the court on Sunday, the administration indicated the members “had already been removed from U.S. territory” when the order came down. Citing this point, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement indicating, “The administration did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order. ... The written order and the administration’s actions do not conflict."

Leavitt added:

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear — federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the president’s conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion. A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.

The administration argued that Boasberg’s order constitutes a “massive, unauthorized imposition” and “unprecedented intrusion upon the Executive’s authority” in an emergency court filing that same day. Consistent with Grassley’s remarks, it came in a motion to stay Boasberg’s order — while the president appeals it, and, per his administration's notice, as it uses other unchallenged authorities to target Tren de Aragua.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has called on the plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship cases to file their responses to the administration by April 4.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.