In a troubling pattern of judicial defiance, lower courts are increasingly resisting U.S. Supreme Court rulings, particularly when those decisions align with President Trump’s agenda. This judicial activism is raising alarms among some activists and constitutional scholars about rogue judges who they say place ideology above constitutional order.
As lower courts take up cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, state and federal district courts are attempting to issue nationwide injunctions preventing President Trump from implementing policies, even wildly popular policies, that run afoul of liberal politics.
In April, a Connecticut court blocked President Trump’s directive targeting federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public education funding. Trump’s justification over the DEI order was a 2023 Supreme Court decision preventing colleges from using the race of an applicant as a factor in admissions, hiring, scholarships, and other benefits.
Similarly, a federal judge halted Trump’s executive order to downsize and partially dismantle the Department of Education. The order flew in the face of a long-held philosophy that presidents have the authority to restructure and reorganize executive branch agencies. The Trump administration admitted to the court the orders are meant to make the Department more efficient, not close it, acknowledging that closure requires Congressional action. The Trump administration appealed the lower courts’ rulings to the Supreme Court in June, asking the high court to reverse the injunctions and allow them to continue with downsizing and restructuring efforts.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle also stuck his toe into the proverbial water in March of this year when he issued a stay that stopped the Trump administration from implementing the President’s executive order on transgender individuals serving in the military. The order would “rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness” and update rules on “medical standards for military service” of transgender individuals.
Lower court judges are also defying the Supreme Court’s conservative majority by relying on dissents written by SCOTUS justices. In a high-profile case over the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants to countries other than that of their origin, Justice Sotomayor challenged her colleagues in a dissent of the order. (RELATED: Wisconsin Supreme Court Strips Legislature’s Power Over Agency Rules)
Emboldened by Sotomayor’s dissent, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy “clarified immediately” that the SCOTUS order did not apply to Murphy’s first order issuing a nationwide stay on deportations. After Murphy’s order defying the Supreme Court, the Trump administration again asked the Justices to rule and clarify the order on the Court’s “shadow docket”, which is a ruling traditionally not accompanied by an opinion or without the typical process of full briefs and oral arguments.
The latest saga over judicial activism ended late June when the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in favor of the Trump administration in a case regarding his authority to end birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is a concept that allows children born in the United States to become American citizens regardless of the legal or citizenship status of their parents. In an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the question of the President’s authority was not addressed. But Barrett’s opinion ruled that “federal judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that go beyond relief for individual plaintiffs on cases.”
A recent Fox News report detailed how activist judges are launching what amounts to a political resistance campaign from the bench and how Trump and Republicans can fight back. The chief means of the Trump administration implementing lasting policy changes is by working with Congress “to codify its biggest policy priorities, shielding the level of review currently afforded to the courts in the absence of any legislation.” Congress can also pass appropriation bills that limit funding for the courts or impeach judges they feel have overstepped their constitutional responsibilities.
Earlier this year, Congressional Republicans plotted to “push back at the federal judiciary” after so-called activist judges’ rulings that were “unfairly targeting the Trump administration.” Divisions among Republicans emerged over what tactics and procedural mechanisms to use in order to curb judicial overreach. (RELATED: Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Legislative Oversight Of DOJ Civil Settlements)
