Since returning to the White Home in January, President Donald Trump has been met with an unprecedented authorized onslaught from far-left activist judges and radical teams decided to sabotage his administration at each flip.
These rogue judges—many appointed by Clinton, Obama, and Biden—have launched a relentless authorized coup to undermine the desire of the American folks and forestall Trump from finishing up his constitutional duties.
Showing on The Warfare Room with Steve Bannon, Josh Hammer, Senior Counsel for the Article III Undertaking, warned that what America is witnessing isn’t any atypical judicial activism—it’s a full-blown judicial rebellion.
Thus far this yr, President Trump has confronted 125 authorized challenges in simply two months.
The complete listing of 125 authorized challenges stays lively and is documented on the Just Security website.
The Structure and historic precedent are clear: activist judges haven’t any authority to intervene with the President’s govt powers. The Supreme Courtroom settled this subject in Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), ruling that courts can not restrain the President from finishing up his govt duties.
Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) – Presidential Discretion is Not Topic to Judicial Interference
In 1867, when President Andrew Johnson was tasked with imposing the Reconstruction Acts—regardless of personally opposing them—Mississippi sued, asking the Supreme Courtroom to cease him.
The Courtroom unanimously dominated towards Mississippi, stating {that a} president’s govt duties are past the attain of the judiciary.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing for the Courtroom, distinguished between the president’s ministerial duties (which may very well be topic to judicial evaluate) and govt/discretionary duties (which couldn’t be interfered with by the courts).
Ministerial Duties (Topic to Judicial Evaluation)
These are duties the place the President (or an govt officer) has a transparent authorized obligation to carry out a selected act in a prescribed method, leaving no room for discretion. Courts can compel the efficiency of those duties by way of writs of mandamus.
Examples:
- Issuing a Fee
- In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall held that delivering a judicial fee was a ministerial obligation. The courts might compel an govt officer (just like the Secretary of State) to carry out this obligation.
- Processing a Pardon Utility
- Implementing a Congressional Appropriation
- Certifying Electoral Votes
Government (Discretionary) Duties (Not Topic to Judicial Interference)
These are duties the place the President has policy-based discretion, which means courts can not order or prohibit the train of such features.
Examples:
- Pardon Energy
- The President has absolute discretion to subject or deny a pardon underneath Article II, Part 2 of the Structure. Courts can not power the President to grant a pardon.
- Commander-in-Chief Selections
-
- The President’s army selections, together with troop deployments, orders to have interaction in fight, or withdrawal from treaties, are discretionary and never topic to judicial evaluate.
- International Coverage and Treaty Negotiations
-
- The President has discretion over recognizing overseas governments (Zivotofsky v. Kerry), conducting diplomacy, and negotiating treaties. Courts can not compel the President to have interaction in or alter diplomatic relations.
- Government Orders and Coverage Prioritization
- Appointments and Removals of Officers
-
- The President has discretion over firing govt officers (Myers v. United States). Courts can not power the President to retain or take away an official except removing is statutorily restricted.
Primarily based on Mississippi v. Johnson and Marbury v. Madison, courts can solely intervene with ministerial duties—duties which can be strictly procedural and depart no room for discretion.
Nonetheless, the circumstances towards President Trump contain his govt and discretionary powers, that are off-limits to judicial interference.
Regardless of this clear authorized precedent, activist judges proceed violating the Structure by ruling towards President Trump’s govt authority. If the Supreme Courtroom refuses to intervene, it dangers setting a harmful precedent the place radical judges maintain extra energy than the elected President.
The judicial department was by no means meant to manipulate the nation—that duty belongs to the chief and legislative branches, that are accountable to the folks.
The judicial coup towards Trump is an unconstitutional energy seize that have to be stopped earlier than it dismantles our republic.
Based on White Home Deputy Chief of Workers Stephen Miller, “Judges haven’t any authority to manage the chief department. Or to nullify the outcomes of a nationwide election. We both have democracy, or not.”
This isn’t nearly Trump—it’s about defending the Structure, the Presidency, and the desire of the American folks. The Supreme Courtroom should comply with historic precedent and strike down these illegitimate circumstances. Something much less is a dereliction of obligation.
