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.

Where were these Guardians of Justice when Joe Biden illegally invited and lured in millions and millions of "new Americans and undocumented immigrants?" Where? Why nowhere, of course. These robes seemingly had very little to say about U.S. Code § 1325 (based on Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution) and its undeniable violation. A violation that has, and will continue to for decades, fundamentally changed the history of America. Letting in millions and millions of aliens, and then making the citizenry pay for their everything from schooling, health care, drunk driving deaths, rapes, murders, and any other crimes they committed while here has changed life for us all on many different levels.

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.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/23/us-news/lower-courts-blocking-trumps-executive-orders-at-much-higher-rate-than-predecessors/. //

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.

When the media omit the facts that matter most, it’s clear that they are more interested in undermining the Trump administration in the court of public opinion than in informing the public about the very real threats America faces.

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.

The solution is clear: either the Supreme Court needs to step in and reassert its unique authority to issue nationwide rulings, or Congress must pass legislation limiting district courts' ability to issue sweeping national injunctions. The current system, where any district judge can effectively veto presidential actions, is unsustainable and undermines our constitutional order.

Trump's administration continues to fight these battles in court, often successfully on appeal. But the time has come to address this abuse of judicial power head-on.

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.

Random US Citizen
3 hours ago edited
He’s not “going to lose” the narrative, he’s already lost it. He lost it back when he manipulated the outcome of the Obamacare case by ignoring the plain wording of the statute and decided the the word “penalty”—those seven literal letters—meant “tax.” Everything he’s done after that has just proved that he is a politician, not a judge. The damage he has done to the reputation of the judiciary through his blatant political maneuvering is incalculable. It’s rather ironic that insiders claim he is doing this to protect the court from a reputation for being political. But the Supreme Court has gone from one of the most trusted institutions in the country to one that is at a historic low of trust.

John Roberts has no one to blame for this but himself. His constant refusal to decide constitutional matters before the court in favor of remanding them over minor issues is part of the problem. His willingness to join the conservatives on the bench in important decisions merely so he can write tepid opinions is another. His need to make choices based on political calculations is a third. But most damaging is his unwillingness to admit the reality that lower court judges are making decisions based on their personal politics and take action. His claim that “There are no ‘Obama judges’” in the face of this reality was proof that he’s not serious about his job as a justice.

Either that, or someone is holding his kids hostage.

jester6 Random US Citizen
8 minutes ago
As I wrote in another thread, SCOTUS's power to declare actions of the Executive and Legislative branches unconstitutional is not found in the text of the Constitution. That power comes from a 1803 court decision called Marbury vs Madison. SCOTUS granted themselves that power, and the other branches aqueised.

However, for most of our history, it was only SCOTUS who challenged the Executive or Legislative branch openly. Over the last 40 years the Circuits began to do it. And now, since 2016, the District courts are playing at the game. These judges are operating on the idea that power of the judiciary iis sacrosanct; infact the judiciary is the weakest branch if government in our system. It has no real power over the other branches if they decide to ignore it.

Thanks to the actions of these district judges, the entire judiciary is now part of our political process. Sooner or later, the traditional political branches are going to start treating the judiciary as political players. The judiciary has very little power to withstand that onslaught.

Not only can Trump simply ignore the judiciary, Congress can wipe out all courts but SCOTUS with a simple majority vote, and there is nothing the judiciary can do. Congress can also simply remove jurisdiction on certain matters from the courts with a majority vote.

If Trump decided to ignore the courts tomorrow, their only hope would be for Congress to impeach Trump... and the judiciary has made enemies of so many people in Congress, there is zero chance the Senate would vote two-thirds to remove Trump from office. The bottom line is Roberts has let these district judges put the entire judiciary into a precarious position.

These judges are like a 50 year old man reffing a football game who decides he wants to play running back... they've picked up the ball but they have not considered what it will feel like when a 300 pound 25 year old linebacker takes them down. They are foolishly assuming the protections that went with their role as ref will continue when they play the game. If they don't reverse course, they will find out that is a bad assumption. //

1776-2023RIP
3 hours ago
It is Roberts job to rein in these out of control judges.
Like everything else, he’s failing at this. He pontificates that “for over 200 years…blah, blah”.
But he doesn’t acknowledge that no president has ever faced this level of litigation. This is Judicial tyranny. Nothing less.
The Judicial Branch ( headed by the Supreme Court ) is a coequal ( not superior) branch of government.
The Executive Branch ( The President) is a coequal ( not inferior) branch of government.
Sometimes they are in conflict. It would then be up to the other Co-equal branch ( the Legislature) to resolve the conflict. That is our system under the constitution.
Reminder the Supreme Court has gotten many, many things wrong over the years. The “Dred Scott decision “ being a notable one. Abraham Lincoln famously ignored this ruling. He was right to do so.
Just because a court ( even the SC) says it so, doesn’t mean it has to be so. Otherwise, a rogue supreme court could simply rule that every action a president took is unconstitutional. Effectively neutering the President, and arrogating Executive Powers to themselves. This is judicial tyranny and Justice Roberts should put an end to it. Before Trump does. //

Mike Rogers
2 hours ago edited
Roberts gets ONE chance. Either the court takes one of these challenges to article 2 and rules in favor of the constitution or Trump can remind the nation that the judiciary cannot control the presidency and plow on with the people’s agenda.
There is a big difference between contract law and the (unfortunately) painful procedures for firing civil servants, and ruling on policy which is outside the purview of ANY judge.

During Trump 1.0 Roberts was concerned about maintaining the legitimacy and relevance of the Supreme Court, but Trump 2.0 can destroy both if he does not guide the court to adhere closely to the constitution. //

anon-jzmf
3 hours ago
Justice Roberts wants courts and judges to be seen as neutral arbiters sitting on a serene plane high above the excesses of politics. But John, if you want your fantasy to come true, your courts and judges have to actually sit above politics, and many judges do not. If a significant number of judges decide to become activists, making their venues "political courts," then the political branches will inevitably respond to the politicization of those courts. Get ready, Johnny, because it's coming and coming hard. //

Jeff Bartlett
2 hours ago
You miss the point. Trump is whining about impossible impeachments when he should be doing this:

1. Sue EOs in pro-Trump courts: Trump wins, uses as cover to proceed while
   rulings conflict.
2. Use Lincoln precedent: remove judges for violating Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1.
3. Charge judges with treason: acting w/o jurisdiction (US v Will, Cohens v Virginia). //

A federal judge has no power to usurp Executive Branch authority or dictate foreign policy to the president. //

In response, Boasberg called a hearing on Monday demanding to know exactly what time those planes took off, when they left U.S. airspace, and when they touched down in El Salvador — again, as if he, a lone federal judge, has authority to direct counter-terrorism operations that fall under the exclusive authority of the Executive Branch. The administration said simply that these were operational questions that it was not at liberty to discuss in a public setting. (In a jaw-dropping display of arrogance, Boasberg shot back that that his judicial powers “do not lapse at the airspace’s edge.”)

Just prior to that hearing, Attorney General Pam Bondi laid out the administration’s view of the larger question of whether the federal courts even have the power to intervene in this case. In a response and motion to vacate, Bondi argued that the plaintiffs in this case “cannot use these proceedings to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign-affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”

Bondi went on to explain that “just as a court assuredly could not enjoin the President from carrying out a foreign drone strike or an overseas military operation, or from negotiating with a foreign power to coordinate on such an operation, nor could a court lawfully restrict the President’s inherent Article II authority to work with a foreign nation to transfer terrorists and criminals who are already outside the United States.” The president’s invocation of the AEA, in other words, is non-justiciable and unreviewable.

What the administration is expressing here is a view of judicial and executive powers that more closely conforms to how the Founding Fathers understood them. Put simply, 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, that doesn’t mean they are supreme over the other two branches, or the states for that matter. //

James Madison stated plainly the reasoning behind this more expansive view of separation of powers clearly in Federalist No. 49: “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

That means the judiciary can’t simply dictate to the Congress or the president what they must or must not do according to the Constitution. As legal scholar Michael Paulsen has written, “the power of constitutional interpretation is a divided, shared power incident to the functions of each of the branches of the national government — and to instruments of state governments, and of juries, as well — with none of these actors literally bound by the views of any of the others.” According to this view, the Constitution itself, not the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land.

If that sounds like a radical view of the Constitution and the separation of powers, that’s only because we have strayed so far from how our constitutional system was first established, and have imported the alien concept of judicial supremacy that elevates the role of the courts over and above the political branches and the states.

It wasn’t always this way. Abraham Lincoln, for example, understood that the Executive Branch was not necessarily bound by the rulings issued by the Supreme Court but had its own inherent power to interpret the Constitution. Lincoln and the Congress both famously asserted what we might call constitutional supremacy in their defiance of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, by enacting and enforcing laws prohibiting slavery in federal territories — something Dred Scott expressly forbade. Lincoln also defied a Supreme Court decision purporting to limit his authority as commander-in-chief to hold enemy prisoners during the Civil War.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS on Trump world's calls to impeach James Boasberg, who ruled against the president on the Alien Enemy Act:

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.

"The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.". //

Musicman
2 hours ago
Roberts is the reason we are having this controversy. For years now, under Trump's first and now second term, District judges have been issuing orders that extend beyond their districts. Roberts has had numerous opportunities to reign in those judges and has failed to do so. Yes, there is an appellate process, but SCOTUS should make it clear that only the SUPREME COURT is a co-equal branch of government. Congress is a co-equal branch, but Congressmen are not. If a district court judge rules against a Presidential action, it should be stopped from enforcing that ruling until SCOTUS confirms that ruling (which it can do by refusing to hear the case) or overturns it. But Roberts cannot simply stand by and allow District Court after District Court to run the Executive Branch.

laker 7w7o7r7d7s
2 hours ago
Article 3 created ONLY the supreme court. everything else was put into place by Congress & the President.

For those on the right who think this will invalidate much of the prior administration, this is magical thinking along the lines of a silver bullet designed to stop everything.

I actually do know the law here fairly well.

The basic rule of thumb is that signing a document is a ministerial act. The intention matters. If Joe Biden intended for someone to sign his name on a document, that is what matters. This is a rule in common law going back to the English Kings in the 1600’s who often had others affix the King’s seal to matters. Those matters were binding because the King’s intended his seal to be affixed even if he did not pour the wax and set down his seal.

I’ve had people throw wild hypotheticals at me since I brought this up yesterday. “What if they summoned Joe Biden’s doctor to court and he testified Joe Biden was out of his mind and incapable of doing so?” Sure. Good luck with that.

What is more likely is that Joe Biden’s wife and Chief of Staff would testify that Joe Biden was in sound mind at the time, lucid, etc. etc. etc. and that he did intend for his signature to be affixed by an auto pen.

All day yesterday, people who do not know the law in this area kept spinning wilder and wilder and more argumentative hypotheticals. I get the desire for a silver bullet, but it is a fairy tale.

What is real is this.

The Supreme Court has never heard the matter of pardons before. But the White House Office of Legal Counsel, during the Bush years, affirmed the long held view that signing a document is ministerial. What matters is the intention of the President — if the President tells you to sign his name, that is as good as the President signing it. The Office of Legal Counsel matter was legislation, not a pardon, but the same basic principle applies. There are numerous court cases of executives authorizing others to sign legally binding documents on their behalf and all those cases conclude the signing is just a ministerial act so long as the executive had not surrendered his power to make the decision.

Only the President can sign a bill into law. Only the President can make certain appointments, promotions, and commissions. Only the President can grant pardons. To argue he can use an auto pen on the first three and not the last is a weak argument. Even more so, a clear reading of the Constitution affirmatively requires the President to “sign” legislation, which can be done by directing another to sign his signature. The Constitution does not actually require the President “sign” a pardon to be effective.

You may not like this, but good luck challenging it in court. Likewise, a few weeks before the pardons, Biden expressed that he was leaning towards granting those pardons.

Kids have figured out that America’s failing liberal institutions have left them surrounded by a harmful cultural and political order that can’t justify itself. //

But in the clip from the debate that was most widely shared, a young Hispanic guy asks Seder about his objections to supposed religious fundamentalists and then, as the kids say, he proceeds to absolutely own Seder. Essentially, the question put before Seder is this: If he objects to traditional religious values as a foundation for guiding America’s collective political and legal decisions, what does he think should be the basis for morality? //

Presumably, Seder knew this debate would be hostile, but he seems genuinely shocked a kid would cut right to matters of first principles and question the assumptions of moral authority underpinning bog standard boomer liberalism. But this shouldn’t have been entirely unexpected. When it comes to political punditry, there’s a pretty basic test for whether or not you take someone seriously: How does that person justify the use of political power to implement the policies they favor?

What Seder was asked was far from a trick question; rather, it’s basic American civics. This is exactly the question that the Declaration of Independence addresses, as the founders knew that any attempt to legitimize the rejection of their present government would start with establishing why the government they were proposing was more just and morally superior. In that sense, it wasn’t just a declaration — it’s an explanation of the basis of morality, and how England’s governance was illegitimate for not respecting it. So our founding document is a fairly succinct and compelling natural law argument for a government that recognizes all men are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights that cannot be abrogated, let alone by a king who claims the “divine right” to tax people on a whim.

Of course, the actual structure of American governance is more complicated than that because we have to define and apply those rights, and the most just way to do that involves consent of the governed. So our system hinges on allowing an element of democracy, while putting enough checks in the system to ensure the tyranny of the majority doesn’t overwhelm the God-given rights of individuals. We don’t always get the balance right, but that’s the basic idea. And there’s no getting around the fact that having objective notions of morality, traditionally represented by a belief in God, is foundational to our whole system. You may not like the structure of American governance, but you’d think a guy who’s been doing liberal talk radio and podcasts for over twenty years would recognize why the question he was asked was so important and have a coherent way to answer it.

As Chris Rufo observes, “The remarkable thing here is that the Left’s ‘debate champ’ doesn’t see the entire setup, which means he’s ignorant of basic Christian theology, the natural rights theory of the American founders, and the criticism from Nietzsche to Weber to Foucault. Just doesn’t know any of it.” There’s also an element of blatant hypocrisy here as well. “Seder objects to religion because it ‘imposes’ values on everyone,” notes professor and First Things editor Mark Bauerlein. “It is, however, a dream to think that imposition of values is NOT a precondition of every social order. (Foucault’s prime critique of liberalism is that it presumes such.)” //

In other words, it’s safe to assume Seder is defending the dominant liberal order imposing its values on everyone because it’s what he knows and what he prefers, not because he can articulate why it’s justifiably “moral.” Nor is our current liberal order necessarily a matter of consent or democracy. This is pretty evident in the left’s approach to social issues. Gay marriage flailed in nearly every referendum it faced, and only became legal after the Supreme Court made it legal by decree, using a decision that has all the defensible legal and moral rubric one would expect to find on the back of a cereal box. And when a more conservative Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the left screamed in unison they actually preferred it when nine unelected judges conjured up a new right to murder children in the womb that half the country found morally abhorrent, rather than letting such a controversial issue be decided by be democratic means.

And when liberals couldn’t exercise raw power to get their way in courtrooms and legislative chambers, they leveraged the economic might of corporate America to enforce their agenda. Despite the fact BLM was a scam literally run by communists who explicitly stated the nuclear family was an obstacle to “social justice,” corporations were alternately bullied and praised into giving BLM and related causes $83 billion even as the movement burned cities to the ground.

The problem is that you can only arbitrarily impose values on people from the top down for so long before there’s political and cultural backlash.

President Donald Trump declared any pardons signed by former president Joe Biden via autopen are officially "void," directing his ire very specifically at the House Select Committee behind the investigation of the January 6th protest at the Capitol.

Trump's comments were posted on his Truth Social media platform in the early hours of Monday morning.

"The 'Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen," the President wrote.

"In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them! The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden.". //

Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
This crap is why for millenia Kings, nobles, generals, Popes, and others who wield power employed heavy wax seals, signet rings, witness signitures, and other seals applied to documents to verify authenticity. The Sumerians used them for goodness sake!

At the bare minimum, physical access to the autopen machine must be as tightly controlled as the nuclear launch codes. Nobody should ever be authorized to use it solo. At least 1 other individual should be required for the machine to even work.

Indylawyer Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
Note that those rings did allow the ruler to choose one aide to have the authority to use the ring and make decrees in his name, but the identity of that aide was therefore well known so that he could be held accountable for abusing the authority. See, for example, the fate of Haman in the Biblical book of Esther 3:10, 7:5-10, 8:2.

Hank Reardon
an hour ago
And let’s not forget that Biden DOJ senior executive and pardon attorney Liz Oyer was suddenly relieved of her job and escorted from the building two weeks ago. Because, stuff’s going on . . .

Shipwreckedcrew reported in Red State last week that Oyer was suddenly fired, had her government phone(s) confiscated, and was immediately escorted out the door before she could access any government computers. The long play here seems to be the full investigation of precisely how all of Dementia Joe’s pardons were vetted. And whether he even knew.

That gets into the issue over who was controlling the auto pen. I hope this stays front and center.

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2025/03/10/pardon-attorneys-n2186488

This sequence of events tees up a court fight that challenges the ability of the Trump administration to use the Alien Enemies Act to rid the US of known members of terrorist groups.

The deportation of TdA members is one of at least three sets of court cases that, in my opinion, put the US on the cusp of a constitutional crisis due to activist and anti-Trump judges using an imagined ability to impose nationwide orders stopping the administration from acting. So far, a judge has ordered probationary employees rehired, another has ordered the government to spend money according to his rather than the administration's timetable, and now this judge has decided that illegal aliens who are members of a terrorist group can stay in the US; //

Spartan Conservative
an hour ago
I believe this is the key sentence to this post:

While the J6 defendants had to beg for help or rely on public defenders who may not have had much sympathy for them, somehow, the airborne terrorists, like Hamas provocateur Mahmoud Khalil, were able to come up with high-powered and very expensive legal help on very short notice to keep them from being speedily deported.

Like Orwell said, "some of us are more equal than others." Follow the money path going into those lawyers' pockets.

the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so. //

Bukele is a tough character whose uncompromising stance on law and order has transformed El Salvador from the most dangerous to the safest country in Central America; see El Salvadorian Hardman, President Nayib Bukele Wins Blowout Re-Election Victory – RedState. I'd much rather have Venezeuelan terrorists held in El Salvador than detained in America, and if it costs less in the process, that's a bonus. //

I remain of the view that this is a test case the Trump Admin has purposely triggered in order to RE-establish POTUS authority to use the AEA [note: Alien Enemies Act] to address the consequences of the Biden Admin "Open Border" policy. That policy allowed millions of unvetted migrants to enter the country illegally. The ability of the Administration to deport a substantial number of those illegal aliens is limited by the physical facilities necessary to arrest, detain, and hold them while deportation proceedings take place. Having the ability to execute mass deportations of the worst criminal offenders without going through the processes set forth in other federal statutes would increase significantly the pace by which large numbers of such individuals could be removed without burdening the facilities we do have.

...

What makes me think this is a test case is that the complaint was filed before President Trump issued an Executive Order stating that he would be using the AEA to remove these five individuals. The exercise of authority under the AEA begins with a Presidential “Proclamation” that certain factual circumstances have arisen, and extraordinary Presidential authority granted by Congress is being invoked to respond to those circumstances.

At the time the complaint was filed, no such proclamation had been issued by President Trump, but the Complaint was specific to an extent that would be highly unlikely if the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had not been given a preview of what it was likely to say.

the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so.