Trump Isn’t Defying The Courts, He’s Defending The Constitution

On March 7, I argued in The Federalist that President Donald Trump should ignore a Supreme Court that would allow lower courts to refuse to uphold the Constitution and instead encroach on executive authority. Recent new encroachments prove my point. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has blocked the EPA from terminating $14 billion in climate grants awarded by the Biden administration, funds now sitting in a Citibank account. Judge Ana Reyes has ordered the military not to enforce Trump’s ban on trans-identifying service members.

These rulings are not mere disagreements, as Chief Justice John Roberts claimed last week when he rejected Trump’s call to impeach a judge who ruled against his deportation policy. They are direct assaults on the president’s constitutional power. I urged Trump to defy such orders then, and I stand by that now — Trump must confront the courts!

Since Jan. 20, a pattern of politically motivated judicial overreach has emerged. Chutkan’s decision overrides Trump’s executive authority to redirect the EPA, preserving Biden-era spending. Reyes’ ruling interferes with his control over military policy, a domain the Constitution assigns to the president and the president alone. In February, a Rhode Island judge forced the release of frozen federal funds, and multiple courts blocked Trump’s efforts to end funding for so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors.

These single district judges, often appointed by past Democrat administrations, issue nationwide injunctions that halt the president’s agenda. This is not judicial review — it is judicial governance. Roberts’ call for “normal appellate review” ignores the reality: Unelected judges are hijacking executive policies in the name of judicial review, and while appeals wind through the courts, executive action stalls, sometimes for years.

Justice Samuel Alito has warned of this for years. In his Obergefell dissent, he criticized courts for imposing policy under the guise of constitutional rulings. In Trump v. United States, he argued with the majority that judicial overreach undermines the president’s ability to fulfill his duties. These latest district court orders bear out his concerns.

They do not check executive power — they seize it, substituting judicial preference for the president’s constitutional role. Article II gives Trump, not judges, authority over federal agencies and the military. When a single judge blocks presidential policy, that judge has assumed far more power than the Constitution provides under the separation of powers.

History offers precedent. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus despite court objections, asserting executive necessity over judicial interference. Trump faces a similar moment. He should disregard Chutkan’s and Reyes’ orders, allowing the EPA to end those grants and the military to enforce his ban.

Roberts’ statement — that impeachment is not the answer to “disagreement” — misses the issue. These are not disagreements over law; they are attacks on Trump’s Article II powers. If Congress will not curb this overreach through impeachment — and with a divided Senate it likely cannot — the president must step in.

Trump was elected to dismantle the bureaucracy and strengthen the military, not to be handcuffed by judges. Each injunction undermines that mandate, replacing the will of voters with the dictates of unelected judges. Waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve these cases risks years of paralysis — too long when you’re choking on tens of trillions of dollars in debt and a massive bureaucracy, and the future of the executive branch is at stake.

Trump should defy these rulings now and force a constitutional confrontation. This is not about defying law — it is about defending the Constitution and the authority it grants the president no matter who is president. The American people expect Trump to do the job he promised. In an unprecedented fashion, he is doing just that.

The courts have an important constitutional role to fulfill. But it’s not to play president.

Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.