Despite a state ban on sectarian charter schools, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s request to participate in the state’s charter school program. The ban is rooted in the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment added to Oklahoma's constitution in 1907.
This set up an interesting conflict where the governor, a Republican, and the Republican state superintendent of public instruction supported the applications, but the Republican attorney general brought the case that the Supreme Court heard Wednesday. He sued in 2023 to block the charter because it would violate state law and the US Constitution. In June 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with Attorney General Gentner Drummond that St. Isidore's Catholic character, despite being open to everyone and requiring attendance of no one, would violate the Constitution's establishment clause.
The crux of the questioning centered on religious neutrality versus hostility to religion. Justice Kavanaugh hit this theme hard. “You can’t treat religious people, and religious institutions, and religious speech as second-class in the United States,” Kavanaugh said to Gregory Garre, a former Bush administration solicitor general who represented Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond. (As an aside, it is interesting to note how many prominent "conservatives" are lining up to oppose what I consider to be conservative positions once those positions have the high likelihood of becoming law. Funny, that.) “And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except religion...that seems like rank discrimination against religion,” Kavanaugh added. “They’re not asking for special treatment, they’re not asking for favoritism. They’re just saying, ‘Don’t treat us worse because we’re religious.’” //
If the Court rules the way it appears headed, it will shake up the charter school programs everywhere. First off, it will mean the thirty-eight Blaine Amendment states can no longer use that to block religious schools from applying for charter school status. The attorney for Oklahoma painted a picture of this, opening the door for the state to make personnel and curriculum decisions. "And if religious schools can qualify as public charter schools, it will raise questions about who can be admitted to such schools, whom the schools can hire as teachers, and what the curricula at those schools will be."
In reality, Oklahoma's lawyer is out of his tree. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government has to stay out of the hiring and firing decisions of people filling "ministerial" functions in religious organizations (Supreme Court Tells Ninth Circuit to Stay Out of Personnel Decisions of Religious Organizations – RedState). And there is no controversy over admission (anyone who wishes to participate may), and St. Isidore agreed to follow the state educational standards when it applied for the charter.
Some online comments have warned that this opens the door to "Satanist" schools or Alphabet-people schools. News flash, we already have those. The real fear by the establishment, Democrat and Republican, is that religious charter schools will proliferate (they will) and that many parents will opt for them because they can be sure their kids will not be introduced to gay porn or secretly "transitioned" without their knowledge or consent. The same people invariably raise the question of Islamic madrassas as though I give a rip about how someone else educates their child. As the charter lays out specific testing and achievement goals, the fear of Middle East-style schools is simply a straw man argument designed to appeal to the worst sort of bigotry. //
The only real question is whether the Court will follow the direction of Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh and issue a full-throated defense of religion as a critical component of American history and society, or will it just nibble around the edges, causing decades of future controversy. //
Ready2Squeeze
3 hours ago
The real opposition to this is by the Teacher Unions ... if religious schools take off, union membership will likely drop off - and with it union dues payments. //
anon-tf71 Ready2Squeeze
3 hours ago
I'd say the States are even more opposed. When this happens they lose some control of education, maybe even all of it.
Not that this diminishes the (religious?) ferver with which teachers unions oppose it. //
eburke
3 hours ago edited
"it is interesting to note how many prominent "conservatives" are lining up to oppose what I consider to be conservative positions once those positions have the high likelihood of becoming law."
Of all the things Trump has accomplished (and the list is lengthy) his exposure of the faux conservative wing of the GOP is at the very top of the list. He has caused these UniParty hacks to expose themselves for whom they really are...and they hate him for it. //
PubliusCryptus
2 hours ago edited
How about the Federal and State governments stay out of schooling altogether? Make schools competitive, profit-driven organizations; that means antitrust actions against teachers(and other) unions. It also means shining a spot light on tax collections and requiring that those collections be justified by value delivered to the taxpayers. It has become very clear(Thank you DOGE) that government is, almost always, a terrible waste of resources. I would point to Medicare as corollary evidence of that claim. Governments should be the parties of last resort when solving problems.
The Catholic Charities Bureau was created by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin to serve the poor and needy. In furtherance of this mission, Catholic Charities provides a number of important social services. These services are open to any Wisconsinite in need, regardless of his religious background. One might think Wisconsin would want to incentivize such open-ended acts of charity by granting Catholic Charities the same benefits made available to other religious organizations. Alas, that is not the case.
Instead, the Wisconsin Supreme Court disregarded the undeniably religious purpose behind the creation of Catholic Charities and ruled that serving the poor and needy is not “typical” religious activity. Setting aside the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s blissful ignorance of both the role religion plays in charitable activity and the dictates of Catholic Social Teaching, such a ruling creates a narrow set of state-approved religious activities that limits religious activity to the likes of “observance of liturgical rituals,” “evangelical outreach,” “pastoral counseling,” “performance … of church ceremonies,” and “education in … doctrine.”
The court’s ruling unilaterally declares that any activity that is unorthodox or resembles secular activities cannot be motivated by a religious purpose. This means that church-run food pantries or community projects cannot be religious activities under Wisconsin’s limited understanding of religion.
The Becket Fund, which represents Catholic Charities at the Supreme Court, has rightfully argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision “violates the principle of church autonomy,” “entangles church and state,” and “discriminates among religions.” While a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities on these grounds would be a win for religious liberty, it would only be a Band-Aid on a bullet hole.
Without a definition of religion, courts are forced to guess at what activities mandate protection from government interference. //
However, the definition the court should adopt is that which best reflects the original meaning and is adaptable to a changing religious landscape: namely, religion means a system of beliefs and practices derived from duties to a sacred authority, which is prior to and beyond human relations and receives allegiance and worship.
This definition recognizes that religion is not merely the product of internal contemplation but also features externally compelled duties. Such an understanding was commonplace among the founders and reflects the original meaning of religion as used in the Religion Clauses. However, this definition also provides flexibility by recognizing protections for religions with external governing authorities — such as the Great Spirit common to American Indian religions — that operate similarly to God in the Abrahamic faiths but may not be covered by an exclusively theistic definition.
Moreover, supporting a single definition respects the painfully obvious truth that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are complementary provisions working together to defend a preexisting sphere of authority against government capture. Similarly, this definition recognizes something that courts have so desperately tried to deny for decades: The Religion Clauses are not antagonistic to religion or even indifferent; they exist for the benefit of religion.
Citizens’ natural right to religious liberty is one of the foundational principles of American law, so much so that, according to the Supreme Court, a “religious people” enshrined in the First Amendment a guaranteed freedom to worship as one wills. A “religious people” are not a people indifferent or antagonistic to religion. Rather, they are a people who believe the dictates of religion impose superior obligations to those imposed by the state.
So let me get this straight. If parents don't want their child enrolled in a curriculum that teaches them about sexuality and transgenderism, the burden should be on them to homeschool? All those taxes they pay to fund the public school system should just be voided? They get no say whatsoever?
Returning to the core issue, why is it this important for public schools to talk about topics that violate the religious principles of some parents? Does LGBTQ ideology really trump religious liberty? It doesn't, but Jackson thinks it does, and that's a scary proposition. Imagine a court with a few more justices in her mold, and where that would leave the country.
Consider what else her ridiculous argument could apply to. A hospital denying care based on race? That would be fine, according to Jackson, because the patient could just provide themselves with care. Of course, we all know she would never agree with that because this isn't about logical consistency. It's about partisanship and propping up a specific worldview. Remember, this is the same woman who made her "Broadway debut" in an LGBTQ play. //
Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
Justice Kavanaugh with the most important point of the day:
“They’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom. They’re only seeking to be able to walk-out so their children aren't exposed to things that are contrary to their own beliefs.”
2:13 PM · Apr 22, 2025 //
As I said before, I'd argue this stuff shouldn't be in schools in the first place, but that's not even the issue here. Yet, Jackson still wants to trample on the rights of parents and spit on religious liberty. So is her motivation stupidity or worse? I'll let you be the judge of that.
If the average American were asked to point to the section of the U.S. Constitution granting the Supreme Court authority to execute immigration laws, chances are he would have a tough time finding it. Why? Because such a power doesn’t exist.
That pertinent fact didn’t seem to matter to seven justices on America’s highest court, however.
This past weekend, these justices took it upon themselves to usurp President Trump’s Article II powers over immigration enforcement by temporarily halting the planned deportations of dangerous Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. Released in the early hours of Saturday morning, the court’s one-page order arbitrarily directed the administration “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”
The order provided no rationale for the decision, prompting Associate Justice Samuel Alito to pen a blistering dissent, in which Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joined. In addition to chastising the majority for “hastily and prematurely” granting emergency relief in a case still working its way through the lower courts, Alito laid out a bulleted list of everything wrong with the high court’s “unprecedented and legally questionable” actions. He notably wrote, “It is not clear that the Court had jurisdiction” over the matter, and, “Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law” (emphasis added). //
While hordes of illegals came across the U.S.-Mexico border, the Biden administration facilitated the placement of foreign nationals throughout the country in places like Springfield, Ohio, upending countless American lives in the process.
Some American families suffered great losses as a result of Biden’s open border policies. Illegal aliens who never should have been allowed to set foot in the U.S. to begin with took the lives of young girls like Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungaray.
And yet, when Trump attempts to reverse this anarchy by lawfully utilizing his Article II powers and existing statutes to remove foreign nationals infringing upon America’s sovereignty, the courts interfere and tell him he can’t. That is patently absurd and illogical.
For one, the Constitution gives the authority to execute the nation’s laws to the president — not to the Supreme Court or any other lower court judge.
Secondly, the notion that the judiciary is “supreme” to the other branches directly contradicts the views of the Founding Fathers. As The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson recently explained, the founders “didn’t think the judiciary was the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.” “While the courts, headed by the Supreme Court, indeed have an independent power to interpret and apply the Constitution,” Davidson wrote, “that doesn’t mean they are supreme over the other two branches, or the states for that matter.”
Alexander Hamilton even suggested in The Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary is to be considered the weakest of the three branches, as it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.”
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, revolved around Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland. The county school board would not allow these parents to remove their elementary school children from portions of class actively advocating for things like gay marriage, trans-identifying children, pride parades, and the idea that a child can change his “gender identity” at any given moment.
Attorneys for the county board are claiming the purpose of the instruction was to simply engender “inclusivity,” and that the children who were being exposed to the material, ranging from pre-kindergarten to sixth grade, were only being shown that gay “marriages” exist. But that narrative was swiftly cut down by questioning from Justice Samuel Alito to parents’ attorney Eric Baxter, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. //
The books and instruction materials themselves are incredibly controversial, particularly for the exclusively young and captive audience they are meant for in Montgomery County, and Justices Alito and Brett Kavanaugh were both perplexed as to how it became unfeasible for the schools to allow an opt-out choice for parents.
The county offers opt-outs for “virtually everything else under the sun,” said Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who is representing the Trump administration on the side of the parents. But when it comes to force-feeding children gay and trans propaganda, the opt-out is “not administrable,” according to Schoenfeld. //
Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a different route, noting how Montgomery County’s policy is not one that simply exposes children to a concept, but rather relays a point of view as an unquestionable fact.
“It’s saying: ‘This is the right view of the world,’” Barrett said. “This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like, 2+2 is 4.”
The school board also claims that there is no religious hostility in the requirement, but Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to instances where board members said students were repeating their parents’ religious “dogma,” and expressing anger that the issue has some Muslim parents joining forces with others who they described as white supremacists and xenophobes.
Let's review the bidding. Biden creates a facially illegal and purely discretionary program. He brings in a half-million Third World illegals who are, according to the definition of the program, "inadmissible or otherwise ineligible for admission." President Trump, supported by the secretary of homeland security, orders an end to the program and jumps through the administrative hoops of using a Federal Register announcement to reverse Biden's purely discretionary program and a Deep State, or Deep State-adjacent federal judge says he can't and requires an individual interview to end the paroles, which is not required by law, when they never received the legally require individual parole.
This is not new. Barack Obama created the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program (DACA or Dreamers) out of whole cloth. It is simply a scheme whereby the federal government covers its eyes and pretends these people don't exist. This program was not created by executive order, law, or administrative rulemaking. Nope. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a freakin memo directing that "prosecutorial discretion" be exercised. However, when Jeff Sessions got around to pulling the plug on DACA, lawfare ensued, and the administration was told it could not rescind the Napolitano memo.
Just stop for a moment and consider this. Federal courts literally told the Trump administration that they could not rescind a memo written five years and three Homeland Security secretaries earlier. Logically, this means a cabinet secretary’s memo is more powerful than an actual law because it takes no consensus to issue it, and it can’t be withdrawn when management changes. To make matters worse, the Roberts Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the logically ridiculous notion that the whim of a Democrat president has the same standing, in terms of permanence, as the Constitution.
We clearly have a two-tiered justice system. Not only do BLM rioters get a pass while pro-life grannies go to jail for demonstrating peacefully outside an abortion center, the president himself has his decision treated with derision by the federal courts while all manner of Democrat humbug receives the adulation of our black-robed overseers. //
houdini1984
3 hours ago
The Supreme Court has become the problem. By refusing to keep the judicial branch in its own lane, the Roberts Court has greenlit a nationwide judicial coup against our elected representatives, including the President. The Founders never intended to create a nation that was subject to judicial tyranny of this kind.
The only solution is for the elected branches to push back decisively, soundly rejecting all judicial decisions that interfere with or run contrary to constitutionally-established congressional and presidential powers. Unfortunately, Democrats will block and congressional attempts to rein in these rogue judges, which means that it's up to executive to restore our constitutional order.
The President has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. If that requires him to defend it against one of the other branches, so be it.
Dieter Schultz houdini1984
3 hours ago
The Supreme Court has become the problem. By refusing to keep the judicial branch in its own lane, the Roberts Court has greenlit a nationwide judicial coup against our elected representatives, including the President.
Oh, if it were only that simple.
IMHO, it is not just the SC that is the problem, all of the branches of the federal government are confused and conflicted. Congress sets up independent departments and functions in the executive branch and puts language in the law prohibiting the President from removing them. Then, the executive branch makes rules, and binding rulings, that look, and are, a lot like lawmaking and the judiciary, respectively.
Today the most pressing problem is the judiciary and it being out of control but the problem is bigger than that and requires something more than just the SC doing its job.
Although, right now I'd settle for the SCOTUS actually doing its job.
houdini1984 Dieter Schultz
2 hours ago
Admittedly, our entire constitutional order is out of whack, but we have to start somewhere if we want to get things back on track. The problem is that too many on the right are sitting around waiting and hoping for SCOTUS to do the right thing. That's not going to happen with Roberts at the helm, since he's more concerned with protecting the Court than safeguarding the country.
Meanwhile, Congress is completely broken. They can't even do their job and complete a budget. Every year, they wait until the last minute and push some stupid continuing resolution at us while threatening a shutdown. The Dems have been waging war against normalcy for decades, and the Republicans are too disunited to mount any effective opposition.
Sadly, it's up to the Executive to stand against this nonsense and try to restore sense and order to the nation. The only good news here is that this administration seems to understand that the administrative state needs to be rolled back, so maybe that will mute some of your concerns about executive rulings, rules, and pseudo-lawmaking.
Hope is a terrible strategy, but it appears to be all we have at this point. //
houdini1984 Scholar
30 minutes ago
Just so. If I were Trump, I would assemble some of my most plain-spoken cabinet members and organize an instructional speech to the nation. We would explain, in simple words, exactly how our government has become so off-track, and the steps needed to put things back in order. Explain how this current dysfunction directly affects their lives, and the benefits they'll enjoy from a restoration of constitutional governance.
Oh, and make a point to talk about the people who support the current misrule, and the corrupt benefits they enjoy from corrupting our constitutional system. Then challenge Democrats to join us in fixing these problems -- while making it clear that we won't allow their anti-American revolution to do any further damage to the American people. //
mopani houdini1984
9 minutes ago edited
What it is going to take is years of push back and work by the executive branch, including making regular updates to the people.
There is no easy solution, and any quick fix will be quickly broken.
Buckle up, any victory worth having is worth fighting for.
I thank God we have a chief executive who understands this and is willing to wage the war. But he has got to take it to the people when frequent special addresses and pressure Congress to make his executive orders into law.
The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to define lower courts’ authority is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order. //
The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. And now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices’ latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday. //
Yet, those requests, as the Trump Administration pointed out yesterday in its response brief, directly infringe on the president’s Article II authority. “The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” the Trump Administration wrote. Rather, “[t]hat is the ‘exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”
While the Supreme Court has declared that “[s]uch power is ‘conclusive and preclusive,’ and beyond the reach of the federal courts’ equitable authority,” given her orders to date, Judge Xinis is unlikely to stand down. Rather, expect the Obama appointee to enter another scathing order demanding details and actions. But with its core executive powers at stake, the Trump Administration cannot comply.
The justices should have foreseen this standoff and defused the situation last week by clearly defining the limits of the lower court’s authority. The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to do so is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order.
On Thursday, Gov. Jared Polis signed a law that bans the production and most sales of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines. That means the gun control measure not only covers semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 (which would be bad enough on its own) but also makes essentially all modern-day handguns illegal as well. //
To say this is blatantly unconstitutional is an understatement. The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that firearms in common use are protected under the Second Amendment for "traditionally lawful purposes." That includes self-defense. Semi-automatic handguns and rifles with detachable magazines are the most commonly used guns in the United States. It's not even a question that this gun control law runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent. That means that Polis signed something that he has to know is illegal, making this move all the more insidious.
The stakes here could not be higher. If Colorado gets away with this, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye. If a state gets away with largely banning semi-automatic handguns, it can get away with banning any type of firearm. This is the most radical gun control legislation to ever be signed, and it must be fiercely opposed. //
FortCourage
2 hours ago edited
This would be a perfect case for AG Bondi’s DOJ to show us they’re serious about the 2nd Amendment. File a federal lawsuit against the State of Colorado for violating of the 2nd Amendment. And push it up the chain until it gets to SCOTUS.
Each of these cases seeks to return our nation to the original intent of religious liberty in our U.S. Constitution — an intent that was misconstrued and misinterpreted by Justice Hugo Black in his majority opinion in Eversen v. Board of Education in 1947.
It was in this case that Black inserted the phrase, “wall of separation of church and state,” words found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution but instead from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
The irony is that those who oppose any religious expression or rights of conscience for religious believers have also distorted Jefferson’s words to advance their anti-faith agenda. Up until Black’s opinion, the court had interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to support and encourage religious belief.
Unfortunately, with Black’s words, the damage was done. For the next generation, the Supreme Court, encouraged by groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wielded Black’s words like a legal wrecking ball to any public expression of religious faith.
So many of our current cultural issues and rapidly deteriorating public discourse is the result of the fundamental misunderstanding and misconstruing by previous Supreme Courts after Black’s opinion.
By restoring religious liberty to its rightful place, where people can openly practice their faith, regardless of what it may be, and the government encourages, but not endorses a certain faith, can we return to the original intent of our Founding Fathers.
At last check, we were north of 160 federal lawsuits filed against Trump administration executive actions, and while the district courts have been furiously handing out temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctions, a number of the cases have been snaking their way up through the appellate courts to the Supreme Court. Mind you, these are largely procedural rulings rather than decisions on the merits. There's still a long way to go before all the dust settles.
But the Trump administration scored a win before the Supreme Court Friday afternoon as the high court issued a 5-4 decision granting the administration's request for a stay of a district court TRO, which enjoined the administration from terminating various education-related grants and required it to pay out past-due grant obligations and continue paying grant obligations as they accrue. //
As noted above, this was a 5-4 decision. It is per curiam, so there's no designated author of the majority decision, but Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's three liberal justices in dissent. //
DaveM Outerlimitsfan
an hour ago
Roberts has been a problem from the day he became Chief Justice.
When he became Chief Justice he exposed himself as a typical long service government bureaucrat- i.e the smooth functioning of the organization is vastly more important than anything the organization actually does.
Kennedy then asked the assistant AG nominee to "explain how this works."
You have a plaintiff and you have a defendant. And the plaintiff files a lawsuit and goes in front of a federal judge. a federal judge has a certain jurisdiction ... and subject matter over the parties; the plaintiff and the defendant. They're the only two people in court. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else — other than those in front of him or her? How's that possible?
Shumate was on it:
It shouldn't be possible, Senator. But district courts do it all the time. I think on the theory that the courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they also will enjoin it nationwide so all non-parties are protected by that injunction. //
John Kennedy @SenJohnKennedy
·
The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump admin.
It’s long past time to put an end to this lawless practice.
12:50 PM · Mar 26, 2025. //
anon-l1t0
15 minutes ago
I remember when Obama wanted to make changes in the law but could not get Congress to agree. He found a willing plaintiff to sue the government, and a friendly judge, and then entered into a Consent Decree to accomplish his desired outcome. Then if someone sane objected, Obama simply pointed to the court order and said that his hands were tied by the court. Lawfare working for rather than against the President and his agenda. That is how it is done.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited ruling in Bondi v. Vanderstok, upholding the Biden administration’s 2022 rule that allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” But while headlines may frame this as a Second Amendment loss, that’s not the real story here.
The real story is this: the administrative state just scored another narrow, but important, win—and once again, it did so not through an act of Congress, but through bureaucratic interpretation.
Let’s walk through what actually happened. //
This case was a challenge to the ATF’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—a law meant to prevent executive agencies from exceeding their statutory authority. //
This may sound reasonable on paper—especially given concerns over untraceable firearms—but it opens the door to something much more troubling: the broadening of executive power through regulation rather than legislation.
Congress never passed a law banning or regulating ghost guns. Instead, the ATF reinterpreted existing law to give itself that authority. And the Supreme Court just signed off on that approach.
That’s the real concern here. Not the regulation itself, but the process. //
In a blistering dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court was effectively rewriting the statute to allow the executive branch to regulate products Congress never intended to regulate. He pointed out that the Gun Control Act only allows the ATF to regulate certain gun parts, not any part or unfinished frame that might one day become part of a gun.
He also noted that the logic behind the majority’s ruling could eventually be used to justify classifying AR-15 receivers as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act—an outcome that would have massive legal implications for millions of gun owners nationwide.
According to numbers compiled by the Harvard Law Review, U.S. District Courts have issued more sweeping injunctions against Trump in the past two months than they have against three former presidents over their entire terms.
Since Jan. 20, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, compared to what the Harvard Law Review recounts as six over the course of George W. Bush’s eight-year presidency, 12 over the course of Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, and 14 during Joe Biden’s single four-year term.
During his first term, Trump was subjected to 64 nationwide injunctions. If inferior courts continue issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration at the current rate (15 for every two months in office), then the second Trump administration will have accumulated 360 nationwide injunctions by the time the president leaves office—and a grand total of 424 over the course of both of Trump’s terms. However, there have been a total of over 45 rulings or more targeted injunctions leveled against the second Trump administration overall, according to The New York Times. //
The Harvard Law Review’s tally (published in 2024) also noted the increased partisanship of the federal judiciary. Of the six injunctions imposed against Republican Bush, half came from judges appointed by Democrats and half from judges appointed by Republicans. Of the 12 injunctions imposed against Democrat Obama, seven (less than 60%) were issued by judges appointed by Republicans. Of the 64 injunctions Trump’s first Republican administration was slapped with, 92.2% were issued by judges appointed by Democrats. All—100%—of the 14 injunctions issued against Democrat Biden came from Republican-appointed judges. //
The growing use of nationwide injunctions by inferior courts, the prestigious legal journal warned, necessarily has a chilling effect on the development of law and precedent. When several inferior courts of different jurisdictions issue conflicting rulings, the matter often winds up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where a definitive standard is set for addressing similar issues going forward. However, nationwide injunctions halt the continued challenging of executive orders, executive actions, or laws, since, as the Harvard Law Review pointed out, various other inferior courts simply refuse to take up related cases, determining that there can be no demonstration of injury in fact while the nationwide injunctions are in place.
It is unclear why the D.C. Circuit has allowed Dellinger’s Motion to Dismiss to linger, as opposed to denying it with a note reprimanding his attorneys to follow the controlling procedures for dismissing a case. But by failing to immediately nix Dellinger’s efforts to manipulate the court, we are now seeing other litigants, such as those in the Maryland case challenging the termination of DEI initiatives, trying similar tacks.
The appellate courts need to make clear to litigants that such jockeying will not work, and then they need to put an end to the outrageous preliminary injunctions. And if they refuse to do so, the Supreme Court needs to end its delusional view that it is maintaining the reputation of the judicial branch by allowing the normal process to play out in these politically charged cases—because there is nothing normal about the lower courts’ efforts to unconstitutionally control the Executive Branch.
The Republicans may have complete control of Congress, but President Trump still has a major roadblock to carrying out his agenda — the courts.
The lower courts blocked more of Trump’s executive orders in his first two months of office than they did for other recent commanders in chief during their entire terms.
The lower courts have slapped at least 15 national injunctions against Trump so far this year.
That drastically outpaces the six against former President George W. Bush during his entire presidency and the 12 against former President Barack Obama and the 14 against former President Joe Biden for their whole time in office, too, according to a tally from Harvard Law Review.
Stephen Miller @StephenM
·
It takes 5 Supreme Court justices to issue a ruling that affects the whole nation. Yet lone District Court judges assume the authority to unilaterally dictate the policies of the entire executive branch of government.
Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten
Replying to @EricTeetsel
There’s a credible case to be made that any one of around 700 district court judges possesses more power than any one Supreme Court justice, given the unilateral power to issue a universal injunction
8:34 AM · Mar 20, 2025. //
How it works: Lawsuits against the federal government start in a district court — there are more than 600 district-court judges — then can move to an appeals court, then the Supreme Court.
In the old days, district courts' rulings only applied to the parties before them. But since the beginning of the Obama administration, those judges have become increasingly willing to say their rulings apply nationwide — the same scope a Supreme Court decision has. //
I’m open-minded enough to consider that some of these rulings are in fact fair, but the sheer number of them—especially compared with historical precedent—is simply impossible to ignore.
And deeply troubling.
The Supreme Court has become a paper tiger, failing to hold defiant lower courts accountable when they make rogue decisions. //
Lower court federal judges across the country are standing athwart the American people’s will to allow the Trump administration to cut government programs and deport violent gang members from the country. But these unelected judges have a long-running pattern of clinging to their status quo, even in defiance of the Supreme Court, because the high court refuses to rein them in.
The Supreme Court has the responsibility to make sure its subsidiary courts follow its directives — often by taking more cases, and making their precedent unambiguous. Arrogant, active, and open defiance on some of the most important issues, however, has been the norm from these lower courts for years, and a majority on the high court has persistently refused to stop them. //
The Court’s majority again refused to take a case wrongly decided by lower courts, when the Biden administration attempted to fine a Medicare-funded work-around for Dobbs, forcing hospitals in Idaho, which had outlawed almost all abortions, to perform them anyway.
“Shortly before Idaho’s law took effect, President Biden instructed members of his administration to find ways to limit Dobbs’s reach,” Alito wrote in a dissent for Moyle v. United States. “Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable.”
It’s not just abortion, it’s Second Amendment rights as well. Lower courts repeatedly waged war against DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court precedent that struck down a law that banned handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., and clarified that the Second Amendment does not just protect a right to self defense for militia purposes.
In a 2018 case that would have allowed the Court to enforce its own precedent, the Court ran away, and had done so for years, Thomas wrote in yet another dissent slamming lower courts for defying the high court.
“Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years … If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari,” Thomas said before listing other rights that the Court would have taken cases on. “The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.” //
The Court used to enforce its precedent, like when lower courts attempted to defy Brown v. Board of Education and its mandate to racially integrate schools. It used to do it because it has always been part of the job — precedential decisions are not ‘one-and-done’ adventures. They will need clarification, parameters set, or clarity for lower courts to tell them the high court meant what it said.
At least one federal judge, James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has publicly diagnosed at least part of the problem with the court refusing to take cases: A debilitating lack of fortitude among a vast array of federal judges.
In a 2023 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Ho said many federal judges are afraid to make tough decisions, or take tough cases, because they are afraid of public backlash for making the right decision:
If you plan to be faithful to the Constitution in every case, no matter how unpopular that may be, gold stars are not in the cards for you. But that’s the job. Judges don’t swear an oath to uphold the Constitution part of the time: We swear an oath to uphold the Constitution all of the time.
If you’re an originalist only when elites won’t be upset with you—if you’re an originalist only when it’s easy — that’s not principled judging. That’s fair-weather originalism. We’re not binding ourselves to the text if we only follow it when people like the result.
“When you look at the résumé of a typical federal judge, you often see a bunch of fancy credentials,” Ho added to the argument in a 2024 piece for the National Review. “People who have devoted their whole lives to collecting gold stars tend to be motivated by one overarching objective: getting more gold stars. If that’s what drives you, then the threat of public scolding can be a powerful motivator.”
The “booing of the crowd,” Ho said, “is not going away anytime soon,” and if judges cannot handle it, they should probably find other work.
At what point does judicial review turn into judicial rule?
This problem isn’t just about these issues or executive power — it’s about the broader politicization of the judiciary. When a judge blocks a policy because he personally opposes it, rather than because it violates the Constitution, he is no longer functioning as a neutral arbiter. //
Even the Supreme Court has recognized the dangers of this judicial overreach. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Chief Justice John Roberts warned lower courts that they do not have the authority to micromanage national security decisions made by the executive. Yet lower courts continue to ignore that warning, issuing nationwide injunctions based on political discomfort rather than constitutional law.
The media will cast Trump’s decision to ignore Boasberg’s ruling as reckless, lawless, or authoritarian. But what’s truly reckless is allowing the judiciary to continue seizing power it does not have. There is precedent for presidents pushing back against judicial overreach. Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in 1861 when Chief Justice Roger Taney attempted to block his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Andrew Jackson famously refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, arguing that the executive branch — not the judiciary — was responsible for enforcement. Both of those decisions were controversial. Both were necessary.
The ACLU is seeking to stop the executive branch from removing five plaintiffs. D.C. District Judge James Boasberg hastily took command and control over the latest iteration of lawfare, emergently agreeing to consider the case and issuing orders camouflaged in legitimacy. Judge Boasberg’s orders, actions, and reactions are laden with plain error.
From the onset, Boasberg failed to recognize his court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this case. Why? The ACLU filed this case in the District of Columbia. The five Venezuelan plaintiffs represented by the ACLU are not detained in D.C., but in New York and Texas. The Supreme Court ruled in Rumsfeld v. Padilla that no court has jurisdiction over a habeas petition unless those filing the petition are detained in the district in which it was filed.
Boasberg was also quick to accept the plaintiffs’ premise that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) is a power properly exercised only during a time of war. This is patently false. Any plain reading of the law makes it clear that the AEA is an appropriate power to invoke not only during a time of war, but when the president determines there has been an invasion or predatory incursion. Even more persuasive is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ludecke v. Watkins that the AEA extends beyond wartime. And without a statutory definition of “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” it is the judgment of the president alone to determine if such has occurred. This national security determination is a non-justiciable political question and the Supreme Court has repeatedly informed the intellectually curious that political questions are not reviewable by a court. //
Boasberg has gone too far and too fast to retreat, so this skirmish will continue until the Supreme Court loads up the Article II canons on his position (see what I did there). Through his orders and admonitions, Boasberg has tactlessly given imprimatur to the “legal strategy” of disrupting the Trump presidency at all costs. Boasberg has called DOJ’s response to brash authority as “woefully insufficient,” but, candidly, his stewardship of this case thus far has been nothing more than woeful.
President Trump’s adversaries were determined to take his freedom, his fortune, and even his life. Those efforts thankfully failed. But his enemies remain undeterred.
This is just lawfare by other means.
Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?
The answer is obvious, and pure common sense.
The president is elected by millions, empowered by the US Constitution to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed,” conduct foreign policy and command the nation’s armed forces. //
Yet across the country, highly partisan district judges are using legal ploys to bulldoze Trump, stymie his agenda — and set national, even international policy.
In dozens of cases since Jan. 20, federal district judges — the lowest on the ladder — have issued nationwide injunctions halting Trump’s suspension of foreign aid, his deportation of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members, his layoffs and spending cuts in federal departments and agencies, his prohibitions on discriminatory diversity programs in higher education and government hiring, and more.
On Tuesday, US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, DC, issued a nationwide injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order excluding transgender individuals from the military. Reyes said she foresees a “heated public debate” and appeals.
But Emperor Reyes is taking it upon herself to decide the issue for the entire nation, in defiance of the commander-in-chief who actually heads the military — before any evidence is heard.
She is freezing in place a policy the president opposes, for all the months and years it may take for the lawsuit to be decided and for appeals to be made, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. //
But lefty district court judges are still waging lawfare against Trump — and the high court isn’t doing its job.
On March 5, a divided Supreme Court turned down Trump’s request to lift a district court order compelling the State Department and the US Agency for International Development to pay $2 billion in foreign aid, in defiance of the president’s policies.
Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent.
“Does a single district-court judge … have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” he thundered.
“The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No’.”
Trump’s Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris is undeterred.
INGRAHAM: But going forward...would you defy a court order? Because...we all know that was out —
TRUMP: No, I never did defy a court order.
INGRAHAM: And you wouldn't in the future?
TRUMP: No. You can't do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed...I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at: What do you do when you have a rogue judge? //
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
From a friend: "It’s hard to tell whether the principal purpose of Lawfare 2.0 is (1) to stop Trump from doing stuff or (2) to goad him into saying he won’t follow court orders (so that they can say he’s a dictator, and potentially turn the Congress and the Supreme Court against him; so far, Congress has been helpful by the narrowest of margins and the Supreme Court has been slow but not hostile). Conservatives need to realize that Trump is playing it smart by avoiding direct confrontation. By the end of the year, he’ll get 90% of what he wants through the budgetary or appellate process."
10:49 AM · Mar 19, 2025. //
anon-89ic
3 hours ago
You can't ignore the corruption of the federal bench. Federal judges are now generally picked by the senior Senator of each state, so Liz Warren picks the federal judges for all the Bray State and it was obvious during the covid hoax that all of these judges she has picked for so many years are partisan hacks, and the same is true in New York, California and elsewhere, so the problem is not judicial v. executive, but also legislative v. executive in which the courts are a tool of select members of the Senate. this is a real constitutional crisis because it is clear that 28 years of bench packing has created a constitutional crisis from a discredited and politicized judiciary. No, you cannot ignore a court order from a legitimate and non partisan court, but that isn't what we have now, and that is a huge problem.