Federal judges appear to be revolting against President Trump’s resolve to keep government accountable. In an unprecedented turn, Democrat plaintiffs are putting cases before Democrat appointees, who are then blocking executive authorities under Article II. A coup? Maybe.
In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton said the “judiciary” would stay weak, lacking a “sword or purse.” He was wrong. Below the Supreme Court, federal courts are created by Congress – and they have grown in power.
Today, we see this in spades. Of 123 cases before federal judges challenging President Trump’s Article II power to manage immigration, access to financial data, stop fraud, identify two sexes, deport criminals, and push contractor reductions at unexamined federal agencies – based on existing law – most are before anti-Trump Democrat judges, who are not holding back.
In short, Democrat plaintiffs are “forum shopping,” looking for a favorable, politically active judge – cherry-picking from among Democrat appointees. Most judges hearing these cases are Obama and Biden appointees – and they are issuing anti-Trump rulings.
Of the few Republican-appointed judges involved, most favor existing caselaw, specifically Article II authorities being used for downsizing and re-normalizing of government.
Of the 123 pending cases, many involve a challenge to the executive order revoking birthright citizenship, arguing the 14th Amendment was never intended to allow a pregnant illegal alien to enter the country. have a child, and use that child’s birth to justify their own citizenship.
Of those, most are before Obama or Biden judges, multiple before Leo Sorokin (Obama) and Deborah Boardman (Biden), others before Eumi Lee (Biden), Autumn Spaeth (magistrate, appointed by Democrat bench), and Margaret Garnett (Biden).
A second set, challenging the deportation of criminal aliens, how we investigate false asylum claims, and federal rights in sanctuary cities are also before Democrat judges. Of these cases, only two are before Trump judges (John Kness and Carl Nichols). All the rest are before Democrats, Judge Daniel Moss (Obama), William Orick (Obama), Jia Cobb (Biden), multiple cases Rudolph Contreras (Obama), Edward Chen (Obama), George Russell (Obama), Richard Stearns (Clinton), Indira Talwani (Obama), Randolph Moss (Obama), Jamal Whitehead (Biden), and Kevin Sweazea and Michael Harvey (magistrates appointed by Democrats).
A third set of cases – these involving challenges to DOGE (within OMB), access to information suggestive of fraud, contractor favoritism, payments to non-existent accounts, waste, and layoffs, has also ended up – curiously – before largely Democrat judges.
Five of these cases are before Republican-appointed judges (Dabney Friedrich, Rosie Alston, John Bates, Richard Leon, and Reggie Walton) – all the rest are before Democrats, half a dozen before Jia Cobb (Biden), many before Amir Alli (Biden), Ellen Hollander (Obama), Amy Jackson (Obama), Theodore Chuang (Obama), and Christopher Cooper (Obama), still others before Denise Cote (Clinton), Jesse Furman (Obama), Paul Friedman (Clinton), Paula Xinis (Obama), Daniel Moss (Obama), Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton), Jeanette Vargas (Biden), George O’Toole (Clinton), Beryl Howell (Obama), Matthew Maddox (Biden), Myon Joun (Biden), “Sparkle” Sooknan an (Biden), Richard Leon (Biden), several before anti-Trump judge Tanya Chutkan (Obama) – harshest January 6th sentencer.
Yet another raft of cases has been launched, like a fusillade of missiles, by non-profits pushing CRT, DEI, and other extremist ideologies. Only three are before Republicans, Joyce Lamberth (Reagan), Mitchell Goldberg (Bush), and Daniel Domenico (Trump).
Again, all the rest are before Democrats, Christopher Cooper (Obama), James Bredar (Obama), William Alsup (Clinton), Ana Reyes (Biden), Amir Ali (Biden), multiple before Loren Alikhan (Biden), Jennifer Rearden (Biden), James McConnell (Obama), multiple before Mary Kelly (magistrate for Democrat bench), George O’Toole (Clinton), Brendon Hurson (Biden), Lauren King (Biden), Julia Kobick (Biden), Linda McCafferty (Obama)…and the list goes on.
A survey of these 123 cases, shows the ratio before Democrat-appointed judges versus Republicans is roughly 10 to one. Rulings against Trump are proportional, if incomplete. Three cases are headed for the Supreme Court.
The takeaway is that political ideology plays a major part in rulings by Democrat appointees, no surprise given their past politics. Disappointing, as it undermines trust in the judiciary.
Whenever political activism, favoritism, or determinism enter a judicial opinion, it represents another cut, another wound to the body politic, and diminished trust in judicial impartiality.
Taken as a whole, what this 10-to-one tip in decision-making – a slap at fair administration of laws – means is simple. Since most judges hearing challenges to Trump are Democrat-appointed, many transparently activists, do not expect impartiality.
Behind the curtain, even absent coordination, these judges are anti-Trump, and see themselves as a bulwark – not of democracy but of their left-leaning ideology.
A coup is a coordinated, anti-constitutional effort to unseat incumbent leadership. This may not be that, but when the judicial branch – conceived as limited and accountable – believes it can assume Article II powers of a President, something is off. If this is not a judges’ coup, it is close. Let us hope the Supreme Court can quickly put things right.
Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR). He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and is National Spokesman for AMAC. Robert Charles has also just released an uplifting new book, “Cherish America: Stories of Courage, Character, and Kindness” (Tower Publishing, 2024).
Read the full article here
