Here’s How Activist Judges Fought Trump’s Agenda In The First 100 Days

From blocking deportations of gang members to keeping men in women’s prisons, activist judges have taken up the mantle of leftist resistance during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Trump opened his second administration with a rapid series of executive orders aimed at reducing the size of government and addressing the crises spurred on by the Biden administration. Judges responded by issuing a record number of national injunctions blocking those orders. These injunctions have touched nearly every aspect of Trump’s agenda, leading conservatives to call for action from Congress and the Supreme Court to rein in activist judges.

“Over 77 million people decided to elect Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States,” South Carolina Republican Rep. Russell Fry, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Wire. “And the frustrating part of that is that in pursuing the policies that he campaigned on you got radical district court judges, who are not elected, who are not on a court of appeals or the Supreme Court, who are superseding the authority of the executive branch and imposing their own partisan views on this administration.”

Here are just a few of the orders federal judges issued to disrupt Trump’s agenda:

• Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the dismantling of the United States Agency for Global Media.
• Judge Indira Talwani said Trump could not end President Joe Biden’s parole program that let 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela into the country.
• Judge John Woodcock Jr. said that the Department of Agriculture could not freeze funding to Maine over its decision to let boys play in girls’ sports.
• Judge Edward Chen said the Department of Homeland Security could not revoke the protected status of 348,202 Venezuelans who were shielded from deportation by Biden.
• Judge Stephanie Gallagher said the Trump administration must facilitate the return of a suspected gang member from El Salvador who was deported.
• Judge William H. Orrick said Trump could not pull funding from sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration law.
• Judge Royce Lamberth said the Trump administration was not allowed to move male prisoners who identify as women from female prisons.
• Judges Benjamin Settle and Ana Reyes said the Defense Department had to allow people who identify as transgender in the military.
• Judge James Boasberg said Trump could not deport gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
• Judge Paula Xinis said Trump must return suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States.
• Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said Trump could not implement an executive order that requires voters to show documentation proving their U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot in federal elections.
• Judge Amir Ali said the Trump administration could not put a blanket pause on foreign aid funding.

Many of the judges issuing these rulings have strong ties to the Democratic Party. For example, Judge Indira Talwani has volunteered for and donated to prominent Democrat politicians, including former President Barack Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA). She blocked Trump’s efforts to revoke the temporary legal status of half a million migrants.

Judge Patricia Millett, who upheld the injunction blocking the Trump administration’s expedited removal of Tren de Aragua gang members, both donated to and volunteered for Obama’s presidential campaign. She gave more than $31,000 to Democrat politicians and the party itself from 2008 to 2012.

Judge James Boasberg, who has threatened the Trump administration over its use of the Alien Enemies Act for Deportation, has a history of anti-Trump rulings. His wife, Elizabeth Manson, has also been involved in partisan political activity and donated over $11,000 to Democratic candidates, federal data shows. Manson gave a combined $3,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America when the Democratic candidate was facing off against Trump in the 2016 election.

Rep. Fry told The Daily Wire that the judicial rulings pertaining to national security decisions were particularly troubling.

“Courts have been very hesitant to supersede the commander in chief authority of the president historically, until it comes to this president when you’ve got district court judges that think they know best,” he said.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire he believes many of the federal judges issuing injunctions against the Trump administration were “going far outside their jurisdiction and far outside their authority.”

He noted that a similar phenomenon took place during the first Trump administration, saying that the vast majority of the decisions were coming from judges appointed by Democrats. Von Spakovsky said that the ruling from Judge Ana Reyes mandating that transgender troops be kept in the military was especially egregious.

“I don’t think she’s qualified to be a federal judge given the vindictiveness and illogic of the decision that she issued,” he said. “She has no military experience whatsoever and yet she is telling the Department of Defense what their standards should be for us to have the most effective, most dangerous warriors in the world.”

Both Fry and von Spakovsky urged the Senate to pass Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) “No Rogue Rulings Act,” which would amend federal code to block solo federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. The proposal, which passed the House earlier this month, is now in the Republican-controlled Senate.

The proposal would allow for injunctions from a panel of three randomly-selected judges when the overarching case is brought by two or more states in multiple circuits and make room for appealing directly to the Supreme Court.

Fry said the No Rogue Rulings Act was a good first step, but that lawmakers should also look for other ways to practice oversight over the courts and look at utilizing the power of the purse. He also said he hoped Chief Justice John Roberts would act to rein in the courts.

Von Spakovsky said the court should issue guidelines to make clear that the power of district court judges is limited.

“The Supreme Court needs to act,” he said. “The next time they get a case before them with one of these nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court judge, they need to come down severely and very hard on that judge, explain to him why he or she is acting outside of their legal authority and jurisdiction, and frankly, put in some very tough, clear rules to tell these judges that they cannot do what they are doing.”

The Trump administration has already asked the Supreme Court to intervene in multiple battles with federal judges.

“This is no way to run a government,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a brief last month. “This Court should stop the ongoing assault on the constitutional structure before further damage is wrought.”