Black Robes, Deep State: The Judges Trying to Overthrow Trump

If you’re having trouble keeping up with the legal challenges to actions by the Trump Administration – you are not alone. At this moment, over 210 cases are pending. Nearly every action is being litigated, no matter the issues with jurisdiction or venue, and no matter how weak the case might be.

Of these cases, the Congressional Research Service identified 17 nationwide injunctions – “a universal remedy whereby a court enjoins a party with respect to all persons and entities, not just parties to the litigation” – issued against the Trump administration from January 20, 2025 through March 27, 2025. Seventeen nationwide injunctions before April 2025. Astonishing, really. And that number continues to grow.

Not that this hasn’t been an ongoing problem for Trump since his first term, which saw a total of 64 nationwide injunctions. For comparison, Bush, Obama, and Biden totaled 32.

Of course, judicial hostility to Trump isn’t just about nationwide injunctions. Rather, it has infected nearly every type of decision. As the 2024 election approached, Judge Tanya Chutkan – at the request of Special Counsel Jack Smith – ordered an expedited trial date to take place before the Presidential election, in violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Trump and his team were only given months to prepare for a case that Special Counsel Smith estimated would take up to six weeks, and which required the review of over 11 million pages of documents, 8.5 terabytes of data, and the interviews of hundreds of witnesses. Or, there was Judge Emmett Sullivan, who ignored an order from the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the criminal case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, leaving then-President Trump no choice but to issue a pardon.

Trump and his supporters are, understandably, exhausted by the obvious unfairness of the courts. And their response has been to demand the impeachment of District Court judges. In response to these demands, Chief Justice John Roberts offered some unsolicited advice:

“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.”

Roberts may not have responded to some past calls from Democrats to impeach judges – he was silent when Democrats sought to impeach Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito – but he wasn’t managing a legitimate showdown between branches, one which could pose significant problems if adopted by both sides. If impeachment over the disagreement over judicial decisions is normalized, Republicans must remember that it will go both ways. Republicans also venue-shop, and there are a number of reliable judges (many of whom are Trump appointees) who will be targeted by the Democrats, whenever they return to power.

In any event, Roberts can plead for parties to follow the appeals process but his words ring hollow. The Supreme Court, just over a week ago, “hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief” and “ordered the government not to remove a putative class of detainees” until the Supreme Court issues an order on the matter. As explained in Justice Alito’s dissent, the Supreme Court entered that order without jurisdiction, before the Fifth Circuit had issued its decision concerning the requested emergency relief, and did so without providing the Trump Administration the opportunity to be heard. That’s not the “normal appellate review process” that the Chief Justice demands others follow.

Moreover, these supposed judicial “norms” have already been eviscerated by District Courts. The problem isn’t just the political response to the rulings of the District Courts, but the conduct of the judges themselves. Federal judges who are prohibited to engage in behavior that is prejudiced or biased are, in fact, prejudiced and biased.

Proving prejudice and bias can be difficult; for many, the working assumption is that courts make good-faith interpretations of the law, especially where judges are grappling with matters of first impression or where the law isn’t settled. But in the case of Trump, how is it possible, without partiality, that so many smart judges get the law so wrong on fairly simple matters? (And if that is the case – and it is the case – then is impeachment not a necessary remedy?)

In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, for example, Judge Amir Ali in the District of Columbia ordered the Government to pay billions in disbursements which the Trump administration sought to pause. To briefly summarize, after the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the Government’s appeal of that order, the Government took the matter to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, a divided Supreme Court denied the relief the Government sought, despite compelling arguments that the district court judge lacked jurisdiction to compel such payments. As Justice Alito observed in his dissent (which was joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh), the Government was forced to make the $2 billion in payments “not because the law requires it, but because a District Judge so ordered.”

And in Massachusetts, a District Court enjoined “the Government from terminating various education-related grants,” concluding that the groups seeking relief were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).” The Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s order pending the disposition of the appeal in the First Circuit, observing the Court of Federal Claims – not Federal District Courts – have jurisdiction over such contractual disputes.

Then there was a Maryland Federal District Court that improperly restricted “the ability of Executive Branch officials to operate” USAID, barring USAID’s Chief Operating Officer from running USAID. The Fourth Circuit stayed that order.

In the District of Columbia, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the reinstatement of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of the Special Counsel who had been terminated by President Trump. In doing so, Judge Jackson placed improper limitations on the Executive, who has the Constitutional power – as recognized by the Supreme Court – to remove principal officers who serve as the heads of executive agencies. The D.C. Circuit stayed that order, after which Dellinger dropped his suit. He wasn’t overcoming clear precedent. As the Supreme Court explained in 2020, “the President’s power to remove—and thus supervise—those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text of Article II” and “was settled by the First Congress.” Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 204 (2020).

More recently, the Supreme Court vacated temporary restraining orders issued by Judge James Boasberg which prevented removal of Venezuelan nationals and prevented removal of a provisionally certified class of foreign nationals in US custody. President Trump had sought their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, as they had been designated members of Tren de Aragua, an entity designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization. The Supreme Court concluded that the detainees’ claims “must be brought in habeas” (the detainees had initially sought relief in habeas but had dismissed their habeas claims before Judge Boasberg) and that venue was improper in the District of Columbia. Instead, venue was proper where the detainees are confined – in Texas.

Yet the case before Judge Boasberg hasn’t concluded – he subsequently issued an opinion that the Trump Administration willfully disregarded his unlawful order and held “that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.” While that order has been stayed by the DC Circuit, the plaintiffs continue to demand relief from Judge Boasberg for those aliens deported to El Salvador. He’ll continue to create problems for the Trump Administration moving forward.

Read more