When a single federal judge in, say, Seattle halts a president's nationwide policy, Trump's January 20, 2025, executive order on birthright citizenship, it's enough to make you wonder: who elected that guy to run the country? The Geller Report calls it "judicial tyranny," spotlighting "far-Left" judges issuing universal injunctions that block executive actions coast-to-coast, like Trump's attempt to end automatic citizenship for kids born to undocumented or temporary parents. The Supreme Court's May 15, 2025, hearing on this issue, per SCOTUSblog, isn't just about birthright citizenship, it's a showdown over whether lower-court judges can wield this massive power. Some, like the article's sources, say these rulings are unconstitutional power grabs. Others argue they're vital checks on executive overreach. How do we handle these judges? Can the president just ignore them, as Andrew Jackson supposedly scoffed, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it"?
First, what's a nationwide injunction? Per The Washington Post, it's when a single district judge blocks a federal policy everywhere, not just for the plaintiffs in their courtroom. Think of it like one referee stopping a game across the entire league. The Geller Report cites Trump's birthright citizenship order, blocked by judges in Washington, Massachusetts, and Maryland, as a prime example. These injunctions, per Politico, have spiked: 64 hit Trump's first term, 14 hit Biden's four years, and a staggering 39 have slammed Trump's second term since January 2025. America First Policy claims 79 total against both Trump administrations, over half of all such injunctions ever issued.
Critics, including the Geller Report and The Federalist's Margot Cleveland, call this a "grotesque seizure of power." They argue judges overstep Article III's "case or controversy" limit, acting like unelected super-legislators. Justice Clarence Thomas, in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), called these injunctions "legally and historically dubious," saying they clog courts, encourage "forum shopping" (plaintiffs picking friendly judges), and turn every case into a national crisis. SCOTUSblog notes Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have also criticised them, suggesting a Supreme Court majority might be ready to curb this practice.
But defenders, like UVA law professor Amanda Frost in Politico, argue these injunctions are crucial when a president "blatantly violates constitutional rights." The birthright citizenship order, opponents say, defies the 14th Amendment's clear text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens." CBS News reports Leftist Justice Sotomayor slammed it as violating four Supreme Court precedents. Without nationwide injunctions, Frost warns, Trump could enforce policies in some states while others sue, creating a chaotic patchwork, imagine citizenship varying by ZIP code. The Conversation adds that injunctions protect against "immediate, irreparable harm," like deportations or policy rollouts that can't be undone.
If you believe these judges are acting unconstitutionally, as I do, what can be done? Here are the legal and constitutional paths, as I understand them:
1.Supreme Court Review: The current case, per SCOTUSblog, is a prime chance for the Court to limit or ban nationwide injunctions. Trump's DOJ, led by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, argues they "compromise the Executive Branch's ability to function" (Geller Report). Reuters notes both parties, Biden's DOJ in 2023 and Trump's now, have urged the Court to rein in these orders. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito have long pushed for this, and The Federalist suggests Barrett and Kavanaugh might join them. A ruling could restrict injunctions to specific plaintiffs or states, as The New York Times explains, or require higher courts to handle broad remedies. Politico highlights Chief Justice Roberts and Barrett as swing votes, but no clear outcome emerged from the May 15 arguments (SCOTUSblog).
2.Congressional Action: Congress can curb judicial power. America First Policy and Daily Citizen note Article III lets Congress create and regulate lower courts. The House passed the No Rogue Rulings Act (H.R. 1526) in April 2025, per The New York Times, limiting injunctions to case parties. The Center for Renewing America praises it for requiring three-judge panels for broader injunctions, reducing "rogue" judge power. Washington Examiner cites Sen. Mike Lee's similar bill. But The Washington Post says Senate passage is unlikely, needing 60 votes means convincing seven Democrats, a tall order. ABC News mentions Democratic proposals, like Sen. Mazie Hirono's 2023 bill to funnel nationwide cases to D.C., showing bipartisan frustration but no consensus.
3.Judicial Discipline or Impeachment: The Center for Renewing America floats impeachment for "rogue" judges, but admits it's a long shot, requiring a House majority and two-thirds Senate vote. No federal judge has been removed since 1989, per Reuters. CBS News notes Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump's call to impeach Judge James Boasberg over a deportation case, calling it inappropriate. Impeachment for ideological disagreement, per Politico, risks politicising the judiciary further.
4.Case Assignment Reforms: Axios and Stevevladeck.com highlight "forum shopping," where plaintiffs target sympathetic judges. The Judicial Conference's 2024 anti-judge-shopping policy, per AEI, aims for random assignments, but some districts resist. CBS News notes Massachusetts adjusted rules to randomise nationwide cases. This could dilute "rogue" judge impact but doesn't address existing injunctions.
Now, the interesting part: can the president just ignore these rulings,since judges "have no army"? The Geller Report's rhetoric and X posts like @profstonge's "Trump should ignore them" echo Andrew Jackson's supposed 1832 defiance of Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia. The story goes that Jackson, furious over a ruling protecting Cherokee rights, said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Historians, per Smithsonian Magazine, debate whether he said it, the quote's likely apocryphal, but Jackson did defy the ruling by pushing Cherokee removal (the Trail of Tears). No troops marched in; the Court had no enforcement power.
Could Trump pull a Jackson? Legally, it's a minefield. Daily Citizen notes presidents are "hesitant" to defy courts, as it undermines the rule of law. The Washington Post reports Trump allies like JD Vance and Elon Musk have floated ignoring orders, and The Conversation says Trump's March 2025 push for massive "security bonds" to deter lawsuits hints at sidestepping courts. But CBS News emphasises courts aren't toothless, U.S. Marshals, under the DOJ, enforce orders, and contempt proceedings can jail officials. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review; ignoring it risks a constitutional crisis.
Practically, defiance could backfire. Politico warns it'd erode public trust in institutions, already shaky per Gallup (28% trust in judiciary, 2025). Axios notes Biden's student loan forgiveness was blocked by injunctions, showing courts bind both parties. If Trump ignores a ruling, opponents could flood courts with suits, paralysing his agenda. Plus, Reuters highlights Roberts' defence of judicial independence, defiance could alienate moderate justices, hurting Trump's broader goals.
Nationwide injunctions, as SCOTUSblog frames them, turn local judges into national policymakers, frustrating executives but checking potential abuses. The Geller Report's claim of "far-Left" bias isn't baseless, The Washington Post notes 70% of anti-Trump injunctions come from Democratic appointees, but AEI counters that Republican judges also issue them, and Trump's "unprecedented" legally shaky orders invite challenges. Harvard Law Review data shows injunctions spiking across administrations: 6 under Bush, 12 under Obama, 64 under Trump 1.0, 14 under Biden. It's less about "rogue" judges and more about polarised, high-stakes policies.
Ignoring courts, as Jackson maybe did, is a nuclear option. It might let Trump push his agenda short-term, say, enforcing birthright citizenship limits in red states, but risks long-term chaos, from legal gridlock to eroded legitimacy. Better bets? Push the Supreme Court to curb injunctions (likely, given five justices' scepticism), back Congress to pass laws like the No Rogue Rulings Act, or tighten case assignments to stop forum shopping. These keep the fight within the system, avoiding a constitutional meltdown.
The Supreme Court's ruling, expected by June 2025, could reshape judicial power. If it limits injunctions, Trump's agenda, birthright citizenship, immigration, DEI rollbacks, might face fewer roadblocks. If it upholds them, expect more judge-driven gridlock. For now, defiance is a bad gamble. Courts aren't armies, but they're backed by law, precedent, and public expectation.
"Far left judges issue rulings that go far beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies. It is a grotesque seizure of power that puts the entire nation at risk.
The Supreme Court under a corrupt and compromised Justice Roberts has abandoned it's judicial responsibility to uphold the Constitution. He is owned.
The case proper is over birthright citizenship. This hearing, however, will be about the numerous injunctions that have sought to limit the administration's efforts coast to coast. SCOTUS Blog: The dispute is one of the relatively rare proceedings that came to the justices as an emergency appeal – on the so-called "shadow docket" – only to be set for oral arguments…. the primary issue before the court on Thursday is whether lower-court judges can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block an order nationwide. With a universal injunction, a federal judge (or several in this case) can that bar the government from enforcing an executive order – or, in another case, a law or policy – anywhere in the country. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by many such injunctions in recent months, argues that the practice is unconstitutional…. President Donald Trump set the events leading to Thursday's argument in motion on Jan. 20, when he signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Under the order, which was originally slated to go into effect on Feb. 19, children born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship if their parents were in this country illegally or temporarily – for example, on a work or student visa…. Seven years ago, in a concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Clarence Thomas called universal injunctions "legally and historically dubious." Moreover, he added, they are "beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch" (SCOTUSblog).
The very fact that they are holding this hearing may bode well for the president. Margot Cleveland at the Federalist: That the Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on the nationwide injunction issue, while the underlying question of the constitutionality of the president's EO continues to percolate in the lower courts, suggests several of the justices have grave concerns over nationwide injunctions. Further, as the Trump Administration's brief highlights, five justices — Justices Alito, Barrett, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch — at different times and in various concurrences or dissents, have criticized the use of nationwide injunctions (Federalist).