Which of the following is the president of the United States: (1) James Boasberg, (2) Deborah Boardman, (3) Ben Settle, (4) Donald Trump?
Of course, the correct answer is number four, Donald Trump. He won the popular election with 77 million votes and a 312 to 226 landslide win in the Electoral College.
You probably have never heard of the other three individuals on my little pop quiz. They are among the 677 US district court judges. District courts are the lowest on the federal judiciary ladder. But, despite their modest place in our system of government, the three district judges and other such activists have decided they have the right to stop President Trump from implementing the agenda he ran on in the 2024 election. They are employing a tactic rarely used in the past, yet it has been used against the Trump presidency virtually every week.
First, they rule against the president in their particular district. Then, they assert their decision applies to the whole nation, not just their districts. This is called a “nationwide injunction” or “temporary restraining order.” In the 100 years of the twentieth century, district courts issued, in total, twenty-seven nationwide injunctions. In the first two months of President Trump’s administration, the activist judges have already issued at least seventeen. Not surprisingly, these justices were appointed by former President Biden. They seem to be following a political agenda, not the Constitution.
This development is not just an interesting theoretical debate topic in a law school classroom. Left unchecked, these liberal magistrates will prevent progress on securing our borders, blocking trans indoctrination in our schools, protecting parental rights and religious liberty, restoring law and order, shrinking the federal bureaucracy, and many other reforms. These issues helped President Trump win the overwhelming majority of voters who care about faith, family, and freedom.
During the Biden administration, 12 to 15 million people crossed our open borders. Contrary to claims, most were never “vetted.” Unknown numbers of the illegal aliens were criminals, people from countries known as areas of high radical Islamic activity, gang members, drug traffickers, and other dangerous individuals. Migrant crime waves overwhelmed many communities. When state governors and attorneys general sued the Biden administration, the federal courts repeatedly ruled that only the president had the power and authority to secure our borders.
To his credit, President Trump has stopped much of the illegal entry into our country. He is also fulfilling a promise to return illegal immigrants to their home countries. Initially, he has authorized Homeland Security to remove gang members, including the notorious criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The US has negotiated agreements with a variety of nations to take these gang members back.
On March 16, as a planeload of 261 gang members headed to El Salvador, Judge Boasberg, in the District of Columbia, issued a Temporary Restraining Order, not only blocking the removal of the illegals but ordering that the plane, already airborne, immediately return to the United States. Attorney General Bondi responded in a brief filed with Judge Boasberg:
The Executive Branch hereby notifies the Court that no further information will be provided . . . based on the state secrets privilege and the concurrently filed declarations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II [of the Constitution] and the mandate of the electorate, . . . to remove from the homeland designated terrorists participating in a state-sponsored invasion of, and predatory incursion into, the United States. The Court has all of the facts it needs. . . . Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address. Accordingly, the state secrets privilege forecloses further demands for details that have no place in this matter . . .1
Unfortunately, the judge refuses to back down. The Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to intervene and support the president’s constitutional authority.
A district judge has also blocked President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from removing individuals from combat units who are confused about their gender. This is in spite of the fact that the president is the commander in chief and has wide latitude on military issues. Other district judges are blocking the president from removing racially discriminatory DEI policies in federal agencies and even blocking efforts to fight waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal bureaucracy.
Our entire system of checks and balances, so wisely created by our Founding Fathers, is at risk. We have three coequal branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. If each of the 677 district court judges had greater legal power than the president of the United States, we would have 678 presidents. If a district court bench can make an order that applies to the whole country, there is no need for a Supreme Court. Why would anyone run for president or vote in a presidential election?
There are only a few ways this judicial district encroachment can be resolved. If President Trump surrenders to the left-wing judges, his presidency is effectively over. Should he resist and refuse to follow a lower court ruling, the leftist media will accuse him of causing a “constitutional crisis.”
The Supreme Court must resolve the disputes as quickly as possible. Hopefully, Chief Justice John Roberts has the courage and wisdom to act. If not, the tyranny of judicial oligarchy will only worsen, and the great American experiment in self-government may well be over.
1. "Notice Invoking State Secrets Privilege," Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00766, United States District Court for The District of Columbia, FactCheck.org, accessed April 1, 2025, https://www.factcheck.org/.