A select group of judges appears determined to obstruct Trump’s policy agenda, a reality that cannot be overlooked.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a self-identified liberal, recently shared his insights on FOX News, characterizing this as a troubling instance of judicial overreach.
His argument is straightforward: the American electorate chose Trump, not a cadre of activist judges.
Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
HEMMER: Considering there are 650 district court judges nationwide, how do we reconcile the fact that one judge’s ruling can be countered by another’s? Does this not undermine the executive’s authority?
TURLEY: I believe there is a valid concern here. It’s akin to having a car where every passenger is tugging at the emergency brake; driving becomes nearly impossible. What we’re witnessing are judges issuing national injunctions, which even Supreme Court justices, including liberals like Justice Kagan, have criticized. She referred to it as madness that so many trial judges can impose such sweeping orders. Congress is now considering legislation to limit the power of lower court judges to do just that.
Therefore, I see merit in this argument. I believe the Trump administration will prevail in many of these legal battles. It appears that federal judges have overstepped their boundaries, encroaching upon areas designated for presidential authority under Article II.
Watch the clip:
Jonathan Turley: “I think that federal judges have overextended themselves. I think they have intruded into areas of Article II or presidential authority.”
Read what @JonathanTurley said: https://t.co/fXgpoMrmto pic.twitter.com/3Cx9SFK9Aa
— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) March 27, 2025
The public is growing weary of these judicial interventions. The electorate voted for Trump, and there is a palpable sentiment that judges should step aside.
