Rogue Judges Are Turning Judicial Review Into Judicial Rule
Boasberg’s ruling is just the latest example of a judge substituting
his own political preferences for executive decision-making.
President Donald Trump made headlines this week by continuing deportation flights of illegal immigrants, including members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang, despite a federal judge’s ruling that attempted to halt the practice.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, issued an order barring the administration from carrying out deportations to El Salvador. The White House called the decision “lawless” and said the order was moot because the flights had already left and crossed into international waters. It has stopped further such flights for now.
Trump’s defiance is already being framed as an attack on the rule of law. But the real assault is coming from the courts themselves. For too long, judges have operated under the assumption that their authority is limitless, that elected officials must bow to their rulings no matter how far they stray from the Constitution. Boasberg’s ruling is not judicial review, but judicial rule — a clear case of a court attempting to override a core executive power in the name of politics.
For decades, American society has placed an almost sacred trust in the judiciary, elevating it above the elected branches of government. That deference has emboldened judges to expand their power, transforming the courts from interpreters of law into de facto rulers in black robes. The Constitution and Congress grant courts the authority to review executive actions, but not to dictate governance. When judges take issue with the legitimate exercise of executive power, they don’t defend democracy — they undermine it.
Boasberg’s ruling is just the latest example of a judge substituting his own political preferences for executive decision-making. Immigration enforcement is a core constitutional power of the executive branch. The president has the legal and constitutional authority to direct deportations and manage foreign relations. A district court judge does not.
Pattern of Judicial Overreach
This pattern of judicial overreach has become routine. A federal judge recently blocked Trump’s executive order clarifying birthright citizenship before full legal arguments could even be made. Another halted the administration’s directive to end federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, prioritizing ideology over executive authority. Courts have even interfered with Trump’s attempts to reform the federal workforce, treating personnel decisions as if they required judicial approval. At what point does judicial review turn into judicial rule?
This problem isn’t just about these issues or executive power — it’s about the broader politicization of the judiciary. When a judge blocks a policy because he personally opposes it, rather than because it violates the Constitution, he is no longer functioning as a neutral arbiter. That’s exactly what Judge Ana Reyes did when she turned a courtroom into a political spectacle, using a hearing on Trump’s military readiness executive order to mock the government’s legal arguments and ridicule a Department of Justice attorney’s religious beliefs. Instead of engaging in legal analysis, she signaled her disdain for the administration’s policy positions in open court. Judges like Boasberg and Reyes aren’t interpreting the law — they’re rewriting it.
Even the Supreme Court has recognized the dangers of this judicial overreach. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Chief Justice John Roberts warned lower courts that they do not have the authority to micromanage national security decisions made by the executive. Yet lower courts continue to ignore that warning, issuing nationwide injunctions based on political discomfort rather than constitutional law.
The media will cast Trump’s decision to ignore Boasberg’s ruling as reckless, lawless, or authoritarian. But what’s truly reckless is allowing the judiciary to continue seizing power it does not have. There is precedent for presidents pushing back against judicial overreach. Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in 1861 when Chief Justice Roger Taney attempted to block his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Andrew Jackson famously refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, arguing that the executive branch — not the judiciary — was responsible for enforcement. Both of those decisions were controversial. Both were necessary.
Far from an attack on the rule of law, Trump’s defiance of Boasberg is a necessary correction. The Constitution does not give judges an enforcement mechanism for their rulings. The executive branch is not bound by a lower court’s political ruling, especially when it directly interferes with a lawful executive function. The real threat to democracy isn’t an executive who enforces the law against a judge’s wishes. It’s a judiciary that believes it alone has the right to decide what the law is.
Boasberg’s ruling is a warning sign: If unelected judges can override national security decisions, block immigration enforcement, halt executive orders, and dictate policy based on their own ideology, then what meaningful power does the executive branch actually have?
This is the real authoritarianism creeping into the United States, not from the executive branch, but from a judiciary that no longer respects its own limits. To safeguard our democracy, each branch of government must function within its own jurisdiction, with executives leading, legislators legislating, and judges interpreting — not dictating — the law. It’s fitting that when a judge oversteps his bounds as Boasberg did this week, the executive would provide a necessary check.
