The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

03/08/25 A Stunning Supreme Court Ruling

On Wednesday morning, March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold a lower court ruling forcing the Trump administration to reinstate billions of dollars in foreign aid, which was placed under a 90-day moratorium by the president (Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment). In Justice Alito’s dissent, joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, he noted:

 “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

Alito continued.:

“Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.”

While the issue of paying for work already done is important, the issue of Judicial interference in Executive powers looms larger. Alito’s dissent acknowledged a “frustration with the Government” and that the aid groups had broached “serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work.”

If a new President cannot pause federal funding to audit it for waste, fraud, and abuse, then the former President can load up on spending for their policy goals and agendas and reward their supporters before they leave office. This is exactly what occurred as the Biden Administration left office. The Biden Administration also hid this funding through a series of cash flow transactions through several organizations before it reached its final destination. There is also the possibility that very little of this money was used for its intended purpose, and instead, it was being utilized for administrative costs and salaries, which, if this were done by a private person or company, could be considered money laundering.

This judge’s decision also makes a judicial ruling superior to Executive powers and, thus, makes judges lords, as I have examined in my article "Judges, Not Lords". This judicial encroachment on the Executive Branch has become far too common in today’s governance, as lawsuits, rather than presidential discretion and political debates, are being utilized to achieve policy agendas and political goals. It is also true that these lawsuits are initiated in district courts by the process of ‘Forum shopping’ to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. This forum shopping needs to end, as it calls into question the neutrality and equal protection of the law in a judicial ruling.

Consequently, if the Supreme Court cannot see the importance of the issue of the balance of powers between the Executive and Judicial branches of government, then it may be time for the President to assert his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and defy the rulings of a Court as Unconstitutional. While this may provoke a Constitutional crisis, the encroachment of courts on Executive powers is also a Constitutional crisis. Thus, the Supreme Court must consider the issue of judicial encroachment on executive powers and make a clear and unambiguous decision as to the extent to which judges may intervene in executive powers while respecting executive powers.

addendum – Since I had written this Chirp, George Landrith, the president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, has written a column that addresses this topic—“Judicial Overreach and the Separation of Powers: Why Judges Cannot Run the Executive Branch” that supplements my thoughts.

03/21/25 Men (and Women) in Black Robes

Americans have become used to the supremacy of courts in deciding issues of constitutionality and proper governance. From a lowly District Court Judge to the Supreme Court Justices, they consider themselves the final arbiter on all things Constitutional. However, this was not what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted Article III of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were well aware of how destructive the courts could be to liberty and freedom. One of the main reasons for The Declaration of Independence was judicial overreach and the passions of judges that led them astray from Equal Justice For All and doing the bidding of the King or Parliament in their rulings.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, warned that if the Constitution means whatever judges want, it would be like “a mere thing of wax, that they could twist and shape it into any form they please.” George Mason did not support ratifying the Constitution as written, in part because it might still allow judges, by reinterpreting the Constitution, to “substitute [their] own pleasure for the law of the land.” Carson Holloway, a Professor at the University of Nebraska Omaha, wrote a paper in 2019 for The Heritage Foundation, “Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts”, that has been summarized as:

“Americans’ contemporary understanding of judicial power is inconsistent with the argument put forward by Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist. Although The Federalist affirms the power of judicial review—and hence the role of the judiciary as a check on the other branches—it does not present this as the first or most important function of the courts. Moreover, The Federalist does not support the vast implications of judicial review as including a power to decide the great moral issues of the times and to adjust the Constitution to trends in public opinion. Finally, The Federalist lends no aid to the belief that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning, unanswerable for its interpretations to any authority but itself.”

My own article, "Supreme, But Not Always Right", examines how when the Supreme Court rules outside the boundaries of the Constitution or does not review constitutional issues (known as Activism or Abdication), it is not upholding the Constitution. And, sometimes, the Supreme Court simply gets it wrong. And when the Supreme Court gets it wrong, it impacts our Natural and Constitutional Rights and our society for decades, if not permanently.

We must all remember that judges and justices are but men (and women) in black robes. While they are skilled at law, they are not endowed with any special wisdom that supersedes the Executive or Legislative Branch's wisdom or prerogatives. Judges need to remain within the Four Corners of the Law and the Constitution and only rule on the words and meaning of the law and the Constitution. They (and we) should remember that they are "Judges, Not Lords" and that they need to leave policy differences or social changes to the prerogative of Congress or the President where it rightfully belongs. To do otherwise is for the Judge to become a legislator or executive, which would make them Lords over America and Americans.

03/21/25 Reign in the Rouge Judges

The issue of Judicial overreach on Executive powers has dramatically increased since President Trump took office, with over 120 legal lawsuits currently in progress. This has been a long-standing issue, as in 2012, Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House, wrote a paper, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution”, that examined the historical background of this issue, as well as the then current impacts of Judicial overreach. I have also examined this issue in my March 2020 article on "Judges, Not Lords". This current Judicial overreach is a form of "Lawfare" that is being utilized against President Trump to hinder or halt his actions in support of his agenda, for which the American people elected him. One of the most stunning decisions was the refusal of the Supreme Court to become involved in this lawfare, as I have written in my Chirp on “03/08/25 A Stunning Supreme Court Ruling”.

Through several Supreme Court decisions (starting from Marbury v. Madison in 1803), American courts have asserted that they have the power to strike down laws and statutes that violate the Constitution of the United States. They have also asserted that they can restrict Executive and Legislative powers and actions that they determine to be unconstitutional. Such assertions are an inferred interpretation of the Constitution, as there is no direct power in the Constitution that allocates this power to the Judicial Branch. Thus, they have accrued unto themselves a power not delegated to them in the Constitution. Such an accrued power is dangerous to the Balance of Powers in the Constitution if not applied cautiously and prudently.

There is no doubt that when a President overreaches his Executive powers, Judicial action is appropriate. However, such judicial action should be done with much trepidation by judges so as not to usurp legitimate Executive powers. Such trepidation has not been the normal course of action by judges regarding President Trump’s actions, as their judicial decisions have often seemed to have been motivated by political considerations rather than Constitutional considerations. When a judge usurps legitimate Executive powers, they are also usurping the Constitutional balance of powers, which was instituted by our Founding Fathers to maintain our Democratic republic and preserve our Liberties and Freedoms.

Perhaps it is time we consider limiting the jurisdiction of judges to reduce the impacts of judicial overreach. A first step may be for a law that restricts a District Court Judge from issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Injunction to the Executive or Congressional Branch outside the boundaries of their District Court jurisdiction. This law would also restrict an Appellate Court from issuing a Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction to the Executive or Congressional Branch outside the boundaries of their Appellate Court jurisdiction. Consequently, only the U.S. Supreme Court could issue a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction against the Executive or Congressional Branches.

This law would also effectively reduce ‘Forum shopping’, a dubious legal tactic to have a legal case heard in the court that the filer believes is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. It would also force the Supreme Court to make decisions on issues of nationwide importance. This law would not, however, reign in the power of the Supreme Court in a dubious decision that would overstep its own powers and unconstitutionally intervene in the Executive or Legislative Branches. To reign in this Supreme Court overreach, we need a strong, united Legislative and Executive Branch to assert their constitutional duty and responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States whenever the Judicial Branch usurps its Constitutional powers.

In all corrective actions, we should remember that all three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) are co-equal, and each branch has the constitutional duty and responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. No branch is the final authority on the Constitution, and no branch has the final say on constitutional issues. To do otherwise is to make one branch supreme over the other branches, which was not our Founding Fathers' intent in drafting the Constitution.

03/25/25 Executive Order Restraining Judicial Powers

This is the Executive Order and speech to the American people that I would like for President Trump to sign and give:

I, President Donald J. Trump, the 47th President of the United States, have taken an oath of office: —"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Executive Officers and members of Congress, as well as Justices and Judges, take similar oaths to support the Constitution.

Our Constitution was structured to have three co-equal branches of government— Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, with neither branch superior to the other branches, and that each branch is responsible for preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. This was done to provide checks and balances within government so as to protect the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans from the passions for power of those who serve under the Constitution.

Through several Supreme Court decisions (starting from Marbury v. Madison in 1803), the Supreme Court have asserted that they have the power to strike down laws and statutes that violate the Constitution of the United States. They have also asserted that they can restrict Executive and Legislative powers and actions that they determine to be unconstitutional. Such assertions are an inferred interpretation of the Constitution, as there is no direct power in the Constitution that allocates this power to the Judicial Branch. Thus, they have accrued unto themselves a power not directly delegated to them in the Constitution. Such an accrued power is dangerous to the Balance of Powers in the Constitution if not applied cautiously and prudently.

The first sentence of Article II. Section 1. of the Constitution states that; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Since I was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, the American people have seen hundreds of lawsuits against my Administration. The resultant judicial orders from these lawsuits are, in my opinion, an encroachment upon the executive powers of the Presidency, and, thus, such judicial orders have exceeded the powers of the Judicial branch. Alas, such Lawsuits and Judicial orders are not meant to clarify executive powers but are designed to hobble my Administration in effecting the changes that the American people expressed through my election. I also hope that Congress will support this Executive Order and pass legislation that more clearly defines Judicial powers in their rulings about Executive and Legislative actions. Such legislation will hopefully restore the balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government.

I, therefore, am directing all Executive Departments and Agencies, as well as all Executive Officers and Advisors, to disregard these judicial orders as being extraconstitutional and thus null and void. It is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court will reign in the extraconstitutional actions of these judges. It is also my sincere hope that Congress will support this Executive order, for if judges believe that they can usurp Executive powers, it is not a step too far to believe that they can usurp Legislative powers.

The following are the Judicial orders that I have declared null and void under this Executive Order:

• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hopefully, this will force all parties to face and resolve the Constitutional issue of Judicial powers over the Executive and Legislative Branches.

03/26/25 The Agony of Indecisiveness

Kurt Schlichter has written an interesting article, “The Agony of John Roberts”, in which he examines the dilemma that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts finds himself in with regard to the current judicial overreach of District and Appellate Court judges. He begins this article by stating:

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in.”

As I have written in my recent Chirps on “03/21/25 Men (and Women) in Black Robes”, “03/21/25 Reign in the Rouge Judges”, “03/08/25 A Stunning Supreme Court Ruling”, “02/26/25 Federal Judicial Powers”, “02/14/25 An Unconstitutional Supreme Court”, and “02/12/25 Current Resistance and Obstructionism”, our current judiciary has devolved into partisan Lawfare initiated by Progressives/Leftists, who want to achieve their political goals and policy agendas through Judicial activism, as they have not been able to achieve their goals and agendas through the ballot box. Most egregious is their propensity to file unserious lawsuits with hopes of finding favorable judges that will issue Injunctions or Temporary Restraining Orders against President Trump’s lawful actions. This is being done in the hopes of impeding the agenda for which he was elected, and it is the judges who do so that are responsible for this indecisiveness of Chief Justice Roberts.

Mr. Schlichter concludes his article by stating:

“A decision point is coming. Decisive action by the Chief Justice could save the judicial branch by restoring the judicial modesty that preserves the respect of the other branches. If only we could be confident that John Roberts was wise enough to do it.”

Such indecisiveness must come to an end, and Chief Justice Roberts must be forced to take decisive action against overreaching judges. The best way to force this decisiveness may be for President Trump to take decisive actions, as I suggested in my Chirp on “03/nn/25 Executive Order Restraining Judicial Powers”. For when decisiveness confronts indecisiveness, indecisiveness often crumbles into nothingness. We need a decisive judiciary to preserve our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", but we also need a strong Presidency to protect our society from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and to effectively and efficiently manage the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency. Let us hope that wisdom prevails on all sides, but such wisdom seems to be lacking in our current hyper-partisanship politics and society.

04/03/25 Reigning In the Judges

In my collected Chirps on Judicial Restraint, I lament how District and Appellate Court Judges have stepped outside the boundaries of their duties and responsibilities by encroaching upon the prerogatives of the Presidency. This is a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine of the Constitution and needs to end. In these Chirps, I have suggested that the Supreme Court consider limiting the jurisdiction of judges or the President issuing an Executive Order declaring that such judicial rulings are unconstitutional and thus null and void. I also suggested that Congress take action to limit these judges from overstepping their boundaries.

Columnist Rachel Alexander has written an excellent article, “What Can be Done About the Corrupt Progressive Judges Destroying the Rule of Law?” in which she discusses the efforts within Congress to reign in these judges. As she states in this article:

“For the first time in many years, a real movement is emerging among Republican leaders to do something about the corrupt progressive judges trampling on the Constitution and the rule of law, ignoring existing laws and precedents. It’s all finally coming to a head with a handful of far left rogue judges issuing injunctions preventing President Donald Trump from doing his job, usurping the powers of the executive branch.”

And:

“The problem has become so bad that The Babylon Bee satire site published an article titled ‘Trump Leaves Presidency To Become Even More Powerful District Court Judge.’”

Let us hope that Congress passes legislation that reigns in these judges, but I expect that Democrat Party Leaders will do all they can to stall, neuter, or block such legislation, as Judicial Overreach seems to be their main tactic to oppose the Trump Administration.

04/04/25 Law Enforcement and Judicial Virtue

In my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America", I discuss the importance of virtue in governmental affairs. Sadly, such virtue seems to be lacking in the most important area of government, the judicial process. From law enforcement to judges, we have seen an appalling lack of virtue over the last few decades. From the "The Weaponization of Government" to "Judicial Restraint", virtue has not played any part in their words and deeds.

Their motivations seem to be for the advancement of their political goals and policy agendas rather than to ensure "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All of this has occurred with the encouragement, support, and guidance of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that they are acting virtuously and that whatever means they employ to obtain their virtuous goals is acceptable. But the ends never justify the means, as such a belief always leads to despotism then tyranny.

The efforts of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to root out this lack of virtue in the ranks of their personnel are commendable and should be supported by the American people. Other Secretaries and Directors within the Federal government also need to take action against their personnel who have been involved in these unvirtuous actions. Such actions are not retaliation nor revenge, but retribution against those government officials in the Biden Administration who willfully violated the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of any American. The excuse of these personnel that they were just following orders is unacceptable, as just following orders has led to some of the most horrendous violations of human rights in history, as I have examined in my Chirp on "02/19/25 Just Following Orders". Additionally, any Executive Officer or Advisor who has engaged in these unvirtuous actions need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for violating the rights of Americans under “18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

We also need Congressional action to root out or restrain unvirtuous actions by judges, as they have the Constitutional authority to do so under Article III of the Constitution. The American people should support Congress in these efforts, for judges, who are supposed to be the last bulwark against the infringement of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights by the government, do more and more lasting damage to the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans and to America than any other branch of government when they act unvirtuously.

Such Executive Branch and Congressional actions against the unvirtuous are to be expected to be opposed by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as most of these unvirtuous actions were undertaken by Democrats in their attempts to obtain and retain power, and judicial overreach appears to be the only tactic they have to oppose President Trump. Alas, such a tactic is not only injurious to Americans but to the Constitution, as it upsets the Executive powers of the President and the Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. However, such Executive Branch and Congressional actions are what is best for America and Americans.

04/12/25 The Audacity of District Court Judges

The audacity of District Court Judges in issuing rulings on Presidential authorities can be highlighted in an absurd historical parody.

A District Court judge could rule that The Civil War was not a “war”, as only Congress can declare war, and war can only be declared against a foreign enemy. Thus, any action by the Federal government is but a Federally armed effort to put down a rebellion against the lawful authority of the Federal government in the States that illegally declared succession. Therefore, no presidential war powers, only presidential law enforcement powers, could be utilized against the States or rebels.

A District Court judge could also rule that the President must follow all appropriate laws regarding the criminal and civil rights of those in rebellion, including the destruction, damage, or forfeiture of their property (including slave property), and that Due Process of Law should be given to the rebels in all Federal actions against them. Such a ruling would require warrants for their arrest and/or for the seizure of their property to be issued, and a trial and judgment against them would be required before any Federal action is taken against them.

A District Court judge could also invalidate the Emancipation Proclamation as unconstitutional, as the President had no Constitutional authority to free the slave property of those in rebellion. They could also rule that the slaves freed by Union troops be returned to their owners, as the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision stated that it "deprives citizens of their [slave] property without due process of law".

It is expected that the lawyers for the states who declared secession and the lawyers for the individual rebels would file their lawsuits in district courts that were part of the rebellious states and had judges sympathetic to their cause. The appeals of the rulings of these lawsuits would eventually make their way to the same Supreme Court that issued the Dred Scott decision, where it was expected that an ambiguous and divided decision would be made by the Supreme Court Justices.

It was also expected that such Due Process would be as expeditiously accomplished as possible within the judicial system, but such Due Process could take several months or years to come to a final judicial decision. Until such time as a final decision of the Supreme Court was delivered, Federal actions against the rebellious States and individual rebels would be of a limited and constrained nature.

Such is the absurd situation is that we are now experiencing, where District and Appellate Court Judges make rulings against President Trump and his Administration on matters of Presidential authorities.

04/16/25 No Rogue Judicial Rulings

The ‘No Rogue Rulings Act or NORRA’ was Introduced in the House of Representatives on 02/24/2025 and passed by the Yeas and Nays of 219 – 213 on 04/09/2025. This act limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions. Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court. It is a simple and understandable one-page act that should be supported by all Americans.

However, this bill was opposed by all Democrats in the House, and It is expected that the Senate Democrats will also oppose this bill through the use of a filibuster. A filibuster which is an effort to stymie the will of the majority of the members of Congress and to thwart the will of the electorate for the changes in government that they elected President Trump to institute, as I have Chirped on “04/nn/25 Majority Rules”.

Their opposition to this bill is because judicial Lawfare appears to be the only means that they can oppose President Trump, and this bill would make judicial lawfare much more difficult. But such judicial Lawfare is an assault on the Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches which were carefully constructed by our Founding Fathers to help preserve our Constitutional Liberties and Freedoms. Thus, the Congressional Democrats' opposition to this bill allows for the continued infringement of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All by rouge judges.

As I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint", judicial restraint is a serious problem in modern America. It is a problem that needs to be addressed and resolved through legislative, executive, and Supreme Court judicial actions. The NORRA legislation is a good first step to correct this situation, and it should be passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. To do otherwise is to allow for the reign of rouge judges over America.

04/24/25 Judicial Interpretation Should Not Be Judicial Rule

With the many judicial rulings on President Trump’s illegal immigrant deportation efforts, it now appears that judges are making the law up. If the judge cannot cite the stature and the sub-clauses of the stature that specifically state what they are ruling upon, then they are making it up. Many excuse their efforts under the label of “Judicial Interpretation” or “Judicial Discretion”, but in reality, it is judicial rule and judicial lawmaking.

In my new Article, “Judicial Interpretation Should Not Be Judicial Rule”, I examine this issue and its use in the case of illegal immigration. From the time of the Constitutional Convention through the adoption process of the Constitution and throughout our Constitutional Democratic republic, the issue of judicial restraint has bedeviled America.

This issue has come to the forefront of the question of illegal immigration, and it is endangering America and Americans' lives and safety. Regarding the issue of Judicial Restraint in the current illegal immigrant deportation issue, judicial restraint has disappeared from activist judges. Rather than rule on the basis of the law, they are interpreting the law to suit their own predilections.

As I concluded in this article, it is my personal opinion that if an immigration or appellate immigration judge rules that someone is in America illegally, then the President has the authority to deport them to their country of origin at his will. If an immigration or appellate immigration judge rules that someone is in America illegally and a member of a criminal organization or terrorist group, then the President must immediately deport them to a country of his choice. Also, if an illegal immigrant has been found guilty of a crime, then after they have served their sentence, the President must immediately deport them to their country of origin. In all of these cases, the ruling of an immigration or appellate immigration judge is all the Due Process that an illegal immigrant is entitled to before they are deported.

As I have Chirped on "03/25/25 Executive Order Restraining Judicial Powers", it is time for President Trump to confront these judges and assert his Constitutional powers to deal with illegal immigrants. It is also time for Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices to stop being indecisive and rule for Presidential powers and authorities to deal with illegal immigrants, and reign in these rogue judges, as I have Chirped on, "03/26/25 The Agony of Indecisiveness".

04/29/25 To “Facilitate”

In a Supreme Court of the United States decision on April 10, 2025, “Kristi NOEM, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Kilmar Armando ABREGO GARCIA, et al.”, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must facilitate the return of Mr. Garcia to America, “The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” A strange decision, as Johnathan Turley has written in his article “A Writ of “Facilitation”? Court Issues Curious Order in the Garcia Case”, in that “in the order, the Court ordered the government to “facilitate” the return without stating what that means.”

This “facilitate” ambiguity has led to much dissension on both sides of the issue. What is meant by “facilitate”, and what fulfills the “facilitate” court order? Attorney General Pam Bondi has suggested that they will facilitate the return of Mr. Garcia by having a plane fly him back to America if the government of El Salvador releases Mr. Garcia to American custody. For their part, the government of El Salvador has declared that they have no plans to release Mr. Garcia to American custody.

I would like to suggest a compromise. As a one-time goodwill gesture to President Trump, El Salvador will escort Mr. Garcia to the gates of the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, which is American territory (thus, he is back in America). The U.S. guards will then escort Mr. Garcia to a room in the embassy, where an immigration judge, a court stenographer, and a public defender will adjudicate Mr. Garcia’s case. The immigration judge would then vacate the previous judgment of Mr. Garcia, hold a new hearing, and, I would expect, would then order Mr. Garcia to be deported. The U.S. guards would then escort Mr. Garcia back to the gates of the embassy and turn him over to the El Salvador authorities, who would then escort him back to their prison.

Accordingly, this compromise should meet all the legal requirements to “facilitate” Mr. Garcia’s return and to afford him his Due Process rights under the illegal immigrant statutes.

04/30/25 Here We Are Again

In Jonathan Turley’s latest column, “Here We are Again”: Federal District Courts Piling on Injunctions to Stop Trump”, he states:

“Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California.

Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term.

When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.

Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden’s term.”

He ends his column by stating:

“The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed “here again,” but this is not a good place for anyone.”

My only comment about this article is how should President Trump de-escalate his actions if his actions are within his presidential powers. To which I would say to Professor Turley, No—the de-escalation must come in the Judicial branch, either from a Supreme Court decree or by Congressional legislation as I have Chirped on “04/16/25 No Rogue Judicial Rulings”.

05/10/25 A Dred Scott Decision in Modern America

The Dred Scott decision was of an enslaved African American man who, along with his wife, Harriet, unsuccessfully sued for the freedom of themselves and their two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott decision". The Scotts claimed that they should be granted freedom because Dred had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal, and laws in those jurisdictions said that slave holders gave up their rights to slaves if they stayed for an extended period.

In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 (7 Democrat against Scott, 2 Republicans for Scott), finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. This decision was a major catalyst for the Civil War, and upon hearing about this decision, future President Lincoln stated that this decision would not stand.

Today, in modern America, we are facing another Dred Scott moment. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on May 15 on a momentous question: What is the extent of lower court judges’ power to block a president’s policies nationwide? If the Supreme Court decides that lower court judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions, then the Balance of Power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches will forever be changed in America. Lower court judges would assume some Presidential authorities under the cover of this decision, and they could direct the President to initiate or end Presidential actions at their discretion. The meaning of the first sentence of Article II. Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” will be altered to include, with the approval of judges. This would mean that judges have the de facto power to override executive policy decisions, and a judge would essentially be setting policy that rightfully belongs to the President.

There is no doubt that Presidents need to work within the boundaries of their executive authorities and powers, and not infringe on the Constitutional and Civil Rights of Americans. The doubt is in who decides what the boundaries and infringements are, and how much judges can determine if the boundaries have been exceeded and/or infringements have occurred. If judges take an expansive view of their judicial power, then they shrink the powers of the presidency and thwart the will of the people as expressed in elections. If they take a narrow view of their judicial power, then our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" could be endangered by a President overextending their authorities and powers. In American history, contentious policy issues were often resolved by conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches of government, with minimal intervention by judges. It was only in the latter part of the 20th century that judges became more involved in these policy conflicts by issuing rulings that required actions or inactions of a President.

One also wonders whether, under the logic of a lower court judge issuing nationwide rulings, they could issue rulings against the Legislative Branch to do or not do something at the judge’s discretion. In either case, if the Supreme Court allows lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, then they are declaring that judges are actually Lords, as I have written in my article "Judges, Not Lords". Lords that are unelected and unresponsive to the will of the electorate. This is why their decision would be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision, as it will displace government of the people, by the people, and for the people, with a government of the judges, by the judges, and for the judges.

05/26/25 In Memorial for an Ideal

On this Memorial Day, we should not only remember those who gave their life for our country but also for the reasons for which they gave their lives. Our Liberties and Freedoms, along with our American Ideals and Ideas, are the reasons for which they fought. Therefore, in memoriam of their sacrifice, we must always keep these reasons in mind as we navigate the future course of America. Today, in modern America, we have many threats against America for which they gave their life. Some external threats and many internal threats that could change the course of America beyond which they imagined they had so nobly sacrificed for.

Alas, perhaps the most insidious threat to America comes from within our government. This is the threat of rouge judges who believe that they have the final say in government. In this, they usurp the Balance of Powers in the Constitution and impose their will on the Presidency and Congress, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint". Hence, they are ruling as if they were Lords over the Executive and Legislative branches of government, as I have written in my Article on "Judges, Not Lords".

Thus, the death of Judicial Restraint keeps rolling along. These rouge judges claim that they are just trying to preserve the Rule of Law, protect Due Process, and constrain Presidential overreach. However, in these attempts, they are not properly protecting the right of all Americans to live a peaceful and secure life. In this, they seem attached to the letter of the law without regard for the spirit of the law, and this attachment without regard leads to injustice in America. Such injustices have led many (and perhaps most) Americans to distrust the judicial system, be aggravated by rouge judges and their rulings, and become exasperated in being unable to correct this problem. This is a significant problem for America, as no society dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms can long endure if the populace has no faith in their judicial system.

However, there is a more nefarious reason for their rulings—Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). In their TDS, they are trying to thwart the policy agendas of the Trump Administration, which the American people elected Donald Trump to enact. Thus, they are thwarting the will of the people, as expressed in the last election. They are also engaging in Judicial Lawfare against President Trump, which is a perversion of the law. So long as President Trump is acting constitutionally, they have no power to intervene. Their pretenses that President Trump is acting unconstitutionally are based on the flimsiest and most contrived legal reasoning that offends the common sense of the American people. Accordingly, Congress should consider removing them from office under the doctrine of The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials who Violate their Oath of Office or are In Dereliction of Duty to the Constitution. To do otherwise is to subject the American people to more nonsense from rouge judges and to endanger the right of all Americans to live a peaceful and secure life.

On this Memorial Day, let us remember the reasons for which they gave their life for their country and correct the course of America to fulfill those reasons. A good first step would be to remove rogue judges from their office and reform the judicial branch to keep judges within the bounds of their duties and responsibilities. Otherwise, the sacrifice of their life to preserve and protect our Liberties and Freedoms, along with our American Ideals and Ideas, will have been in vain.

06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part I

In my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint", I lament how District and Appellate Court Judges have been issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s policy decisions and Executive Orders. In the recent Supreme Court CASA ruling, the Supreme Court was deciding “Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.”

In a 6-3 Decision (Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting), Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, stated:

“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

Justice Barrett also responded to Justice Jackson’s dissent:

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law. 

JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

In the first quote, standing or locus standi, is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Thus, judges may only issue relief to the individual parties named in the lawsuit. A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. Class action lawsuits are subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are more restrictive and difficult to file than an ordinary lawsuit. Consequently, a nationwide injunctive relief must be the result of a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it may be possible for the opponents of President Trump to try to institute a class action to obtain nationwide injunctive relief, but it is less likely that they will be able to do so.

The second quote is highly unusual in a Supreme Court ruling. It essentially excoriates Judge Jackson for her lack of legal reasoning, and this excoriation was concurred with by the other justices in the majority. Many legal commentators have noted that other Supreme Court rulings have also taken issue with Judge Jackson’s opinions, and this ruling confirms their frustration with her opinions.

Judge Jackson was a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) appointment by President Biden, and many legal scholars noted at the time that she did not have the legal gravitas for serving on the Supreme Court. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, “The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson”, the fears of these legal scholars have been justified. This is yet another poor decision by President Biden, but this decision will haunt us for a long time, as she is young enough that she may serve on the Supreme Court for decades. What a shame for America and a good example of why it may be necessary to remove judges who rule outside of the law and the Constitution.

06/30/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part II

In my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint", I lament how our judges have been ruling outside the bounds of the Constitution and statutory law. This situation has become so egregious that in the recent CASA ruling, the Supreme Court addressed this problem, as I have written in my previous Chirp on “06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary - Part I”. Let us hope that judges take to heart the CASA ruling and confine their rulings to the Constitution and statutory law. Alas, I do not expect this to happen.

Thus, the question remains what can be done about judges who are ruling beyond the scope of their duties and responsibilities. Article III of the Constitution is about the Federal Judicial Branch duties and responsibilities, with Section 1 defining the courts as:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

The term “good Behaviour” has never been clearly defined, and there are many interpretations of what good behavior means. The Constitution Annotated website article, “Good Behavior Clause Doctrine”, is a good reference on this topic. In the past, the only way a judge was removed was by Congressional impeachment, which rarely occurred, and has never been done for a judge issuing rulings beyond the scope of their duties and responsibilities. In today’s hyper-partisan Congress, I do not expect that any Congress would impeach a judge for their rulings outside of the scope of their duties and responsibilities.

However, Article I of the Constitution, which defines the Legislative Branch of the government, has a means for the Legislative Branch to remove a Congressperson or Senator for disorderly behavior. Section 5 of Article I of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

In this spirit, I would recommend that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to add to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution the following:

“The Supreme Court may, with the Concurrence of two thirds of the Justices, remove a judge for improper jurisprudence.”

By having the Supreme Court Justices remove a judge, it would eliminate politics from their decision and only focus on legal jurisprudence for the removal of a Judge. Such a power of the Supreme Court would also give judges pause to ensure that their rulings are within their duties and responsibilities and the scope of Constitutional and statutory law.

07/11/25 Well, That Didn’t Take Long

In my Chirp on “06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part I”, I wrote that in regard to the Trump v. CASA, Inc. decision about judges issuing nationwide injunctions or Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO):

“A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. Class action lawsuits are subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are more restrictive and difficult to file than an ordinary lawsuit. Consequently, a nationwide injunctive relief must be the result of a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it may be possible for the opponents of President Trump to try to institute a class action to obtain nationwide injunctive relief, but it is less likely that they will be able to do so.”

Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about a "potentially significant loophole" in the Supreme Court's decision to curb universal injunctions, and now his warning is hanging over current lawsuits involving President Donald Trump. Alito said in his concurring opinion in Trump v. CASA that:

“Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements. Of course, Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of “nationwide class relief,” and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.

Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party standing and class certification would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision. Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools. I do not understand the Court’s decision to reflect any disagreement with these concerns, so I join its decision in full.”
- Justice Samuel Alito, in Trump v. CASA, Inc

Thus, class action lawsuits and lawsuits brought by states leave room for judges to hand down injunctions that, in practice, would function the same way a universal injunction does. It should be remembered that many Executive Orders impact entire classes of people and organizations. Consequently, it is possible for a judge to declare an Executive order a class action and subject it to a class action lawsuit, which would allow them to issue universal injunctions.

This has recently happened when US District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued a nationwide order stopping the enforcement of an Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship. This was done by granting the litigants class action status to their lawsuit, even after the US Supreme Court placed restrictions on the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions.

Another tactic that is starting to be utilized is District Court Judges issuing injunctions that encompass only their district:

“Fox News has learned that LA federal judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (Biden appointee), has written a tentative decision that sides w/ the ACLU & plaintiffs over the Trump administration & will potentially block DHS from carrying out arrests at Home Depots, car washes, etc. in the LA area.

Sources who have reviewed Judge Frimpong’s tentative decision tell us her order will block ICE and Border Patrol from relying on race, Spanish speaking, location, and type of work when making immigration arrests.

Additionally, DHS will be blocked from conducting stops of suspected illegal immigrants unless the agent has a reasonable suspicion that there is a violation of immigration law. “

This judicial ruling has the impact of directing law enforcement on how to enforce the law, giving the judge executive powers. Alas, such directions also make it very impractical to enforce the law, thus effectively nullifying a law. While this ruling only impacts one judicial district, I expect other judges in other districts to follow suit, and if they are successful in a half dozen or more districts, they would have a nationwide impact. This is another example of an Imperial Judiciary, which is what Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned about in the CASA decision, which severely curtailed a lower court’s ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

These actions by District Court judges are a means to circumvent the Supreme Court decision in the Trump v. CASA ruling. These judges are, therefore, in defiance of the Supreme Court's intentions, and they are acting as Imperial Judges. And it did not take them very long to do so. Consequently, a Constitutional Amendment is necessary for the Supreme Court to have the ability to remove a defiant judge, as I have Chirped on "06/30/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part II".