We may think we live in a democracy, which comes from the Greek words “demos” (people) and “kratos” (rule). But with one federal district judge after another attempting to stop President Donald Trump from carrying out his policies, it’s starting to look more like a “krytocracy,” or rule by judges.
Look at the litigation tracker from the organization Lawfare and you’d think it was from Trump’s first 100 months, not first 100 days. Here’s a small sample of what his administration is being challenged on: deporting criminal or terrorist-supporting aliens; freezing federal funding to avoid fraud and waste; giving federal employees a voluntary early severance package; DOGE (too many times to go into); making senior civil servants more accountable to the president; and dismantling federal agencies that no longer serve the national interest.
Some of the cases on the tracker seem to be meritless efforts to tie the Trump administration down with process and run out the clock. They should be dealt with swiftly, in the national interest, to let the president do what he was elected for. Let the people then judge for themselves and vote accordingly.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
But a few of the cases will decide the kinds of crucial questions that emerge from time to time as the tectonic plates of our democratic republic shift. For instance, should the president be able to manage federal agencies to carry out his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed?” If not, and courts can mandate who he hires and fires, how he spends the money allocated to the agencies under his purview, and even what foreign and military decisions he makes, then we really are in a krytocracy—imposed by activist lawsuits and judicial coups.
A second vital question to the survival of our country is on immigration. One test case is Mahmoud Khalil, who arrived on a student visa around 2022 and apparently became a legal permanent resident last year. Since Oct. 7, 2023, he has been at the center of anti-Israel campus protests and disruptions at Columbia University.
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to deport Khalil for national security and foreign policy reasons. Activists who believe that noncitizens should be free to preach the destruction of Western civilization or support terrorism sued the government to let him stay.
And when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement flew a couple hundred illegal alien gang members to El Salvador where they will be held safely outside the U.S., another lawsuit by the ACLU (the “A” stands for “American,” you’d be amazed to learn) resulted in a temporary restraining order (that was too late to have effect) by a federal judge to keep them here, too.
I think most Americans agree that the president of the United States should be able to remove foreigners who hate our country or victimize our citizens. If lower-level judges don’t agree, I hope the Supreme Court sets them straight—fast.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that “67% of all of the injunctions in this century have come against … President Donald Trump.” Sadly, if not surprisingly, 92% of these orders came from judges appointed by Democrat presidents.
I say sadly because I studied history, law, and international relations and, having lived in eight countries and visited maybe 80, I know the value of the rule of law.
In ancient Greek times, Thucydides told a story where the Athenians went to the tiny island of Melos and told them something like, “We outnumber you 100 to 1, and this is the way it’s going to be.” The Melian Dialogue taught that the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.
Things were no different in the Middle Ages, where fort main (French for strong hand) was the rule: You want someone’s wife or land, you take it—unless he can stop you. In the feudal order, might made right.
Then came the revenge of the nerds—the triumph of a rules-based rational order over brute strength. It came slowly to Europe and North America, as monarchies ceded power to elected governments and courts defended the established rights of citizens, not subjects.
In America, the Constitution sets out the powers of the three branches of government. The courts are there to referee disputes about where the lines are, not to act as a second executive branch.
Some of the lawsuits against the Trump administration pose valid questions that we must settle so that we can move on with these policies, one way or another. But those decisions should be made on the specific legal questions at issue in each case, not on ideology or politics of the judges hearing them.
It should not be possible to guess who appointed a judge just by reviewing his or her last few decisions. We must not accept the proposition that judges are there to do the bidding of whoever gave them their robes instead of to interpret and uphold the laws, regardless of personal bias and their own policy preferences. The president does policy, not judges.
The sooner the Supreme Court rules on the limits of injunctions, restraining orders, and other lightning bolts thrown by a few dozen mini-me Zeuses of the federal district courts, the better. This country has some big work to do, and our president, following the agenda he was elected to fulfill, can’t do it while being second-guessed and hobbled at every turn.
The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more.
Read Other BorderLine Columns:
The Sanctimony of ‘Sanctuary’ Cities
Yes, Every Noncitizen in the US Should Register
English
Français
Deutsch
Italiano
Español