Here’s Why the Era of Lawless Leftist Judges is Likely Ending Soon

PJ Media ^ | 20 Apr 2025 | Matt Margolis

[Rummyfan]

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on one of the most significant legal power plays in recent memory: whether individual federal trial judges can continue issuing nationwide injunctions that derail national policy. The high court’s move could mark a turning point in the Trump administration’s effort to rein in what it sees as activist judges stifling the will of the elected government.

John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and former Justice Department official, broke down the issue during an appearance on Fox News, where he explained the gravity of the situation and why the Supreme Court is now stepping in.

“This is about who controls all those… and there’s about 675 federal trial judges spread out all over the country,” Yoo said. “And some of them have been bringing the federal government, bringing President Trump’s agenda to a screeching halt, even though they don’t have anybody, say, who works for the government or any of the illegal aliens or any of the spending in their own courtrooms.”

In recent years, liberal activists have filed lawsuits in strategically chosen jurisdictions where they know they’ll find a sympathetic judge. The result? Leftist district judges, with no direct connection to the underlying policy or parties involved, have been able to issue injunctions blocking Trump administration directives nationwide—from immigration enforcement to federal spending priorities.

[Rummyfan]

Let's hope so. Otherwise we can just do away with the legislative and executive branches.

[Ann Archy]

Don't bet on it.....

Democrats are LAW-LESS because Republicans are BALL-LESS!

[Singermom]

I DO NOT CARE how they FEEL abt an issue. I want them to evaluate an issue ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

If you want to play ACTIVIST then resign from being a JUDGE.

[FlingWingFlyer]

We’ve got to defund the Supreme Court first.

[Dr. Franklin]

If SCOTUS doesn’t reign this crap in, Congress will need to act and limit district court judges’ jurisdiction, require a panel of three judges or more to invalidate laws or EO’s, etc. SCOTUS knows it needs to do something.

[Dogbert41]

As things stand, Trump may as well go back to Florida and enjoy the rest of his life. The Republic has been destroyed. Thank God for Jesus. He’s coming soon with a rod of iron to make things right.

[Regulator]

“require a panel of three judges or more to invalidate laws or EO’s”

Obviously you know that was the case prior 1972.

Like other bad stuff that happened after that, it’s clear that older limits had value and need to be restored.

Chesterton fences and all that.

[TexasGator]

“We’ve got to defund the Supreme Court first.”

---

Section. 1.
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.

[Deaf Smith]

Once upon a time when G Bush was president, a Federal Circuit Court would make a ruling and msm would go on the air and explain that the ruling was only effective for that Court’s district.

[Starboard]

“SCOTUS knows it needs to do something.”

*************

All depends on what the Gang of Five wants. I wouldn’t want to bet on them doing anything positive.

[alstewartfan]

Either the era of America or lawless judges is ending soon. 🙄

[sjmjax]

I agree. Don’t count on it. We’ve seen the direction our court system has been trending. Including the Supreme Court.

[Paladin2]

“Obviously you know that was the case prior 1972.”

who and what made this change?

[JZelle]

Wishful thinking is all we have left.

[Dr. Franklin]

Obviously you know that was the case prior 1972.
Like other bad stuff that happened after that, it’s clear that older limits had value and need to be restored.
Chesterton fences and all that.

The original idea of the common law was that the search for justice was like the search for a lost child. The more people who went searching, the more likely they would find justice. For this reason, cases on appeal would have as many judges as possible to give their opinion of the law to be decided by a jury. The federal constitution ended the old common law jury system. The same concept applies to any case. A single judge is more likely to get the law wrong than a panel. The bigger the panel, the more likely they get the right result.

Unfortunately, the modern judicial system is dominated by the a single trial judge whose role is shape the outcome with procedural rulings. Since the trial judge is so powerful, savvy lawyers search for the judge most likely to favor their case. Having cases of national importance handled by a multijudge panel ads a bit of randomness to the process and reduces forum shopping by litigants.

[iamgalt]

When?

[TonyM]

CONGRESS needs to do something!

[cnsmom]

The left knew how horribly they had to rig 2020 so this has been their 4 year focus cause they knew they’d never beat DJT.

[DoughtyOne]

Sadly, I agree.

Our side often jumps ship to help the Leftists.

Leftists NEVER jump ship to get our agenda passed.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Agree