The Conversation
Judges have blocked the enforcement of a handful of the more than 60 executive orders Trump has signed this year, including birthright citizenship; gender affirming care; the federal grant freeze; DOGE access to government payment systems; closing the U.S. Agency for International Development; and reducing grant funding by the National Institutes of Health.
Last month, Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington called Trump’s birthright citizenship policy "blatantly unconstitutional” and later issued a nationwide preliminary injunction.
During a Feb. 6 hearing, the Reagan appointee said, "It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow."
In a post on X, John Eastman, the former Chapman University law school dean who backed Trump’s efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election, called the injunction "unbelievable." "Coughenour attacked President Trump for undermining the Rule of Law, then signed the PI without even mentioning any of the controlling precedent," Eastman wrote. "This is preposterous."
On Feb. 13, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts also issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order in a ruling that he said was “based on straightforward application of settled Supreme Court precedent reiterated and reaffirmed in various ways for more than a century by all three branches of the federal government.”
The Obama appointee also pushed back against assertions from the DOJ at a prior hearing that the century-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was “dicta” that the judge did not need to follow.
“At the motion hearing, the defendants doubled down on this point, brazenly claiming that ‘dicta can be disregarded,’" Sorokin wrote. "That position reflects a serious misunderstanding at best—and a conscious flouting at worst—of the judicial process and the rule of law.”
In a legal challenge to Trump’s grant-funding freeze, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island granted an emergency enforcement order on Feb. 10 after finding that federal agencies have violated his "clear and unambiguous" temporary restraining order.
"The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud," wrote McConnell, who was appointed by Obama. "But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO."
Last week in separate X posts, Musk said that "there needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” and “We must impeach judges who are grossly undermining the will of the people and destroying America. It is the only way.”
On Feb. 9, Vice President JD Vance said on X that “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.”
The Significance
For those opposed to the criticism of judges, it comes down to concern for the rule of law and safety of the judiciary. Some industry groups have spoken out in response to the Trump associates’ criticism of judges.
The American Bar Association said on Feb. 11 that "[t]hese bold assertions, designed to intimidate judges by threatening removal if they do not rule the government's way, cross the line. They create a risk to the physical security of judges and have no place in our society. There have also been suggestions that the executive branch should consider disobeying court orders. These statements threaten the very foundation of our constitutional system."
The association of the Federal Bar for the State of New Jersey said in a statement Monday that "More than 220 years ago, in Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court settled our country’s foundational structure of three co-equal branches of government, with the independent judiciary as the final arbiter as to the law of the land.”
The group said, “Those foundational principles are threatened when members of the judiciary are personally attacked or intimidated because of a decision they have rendered. Threats to impeach Article III judges for upholding the law compromise this country’s rule of law, and challenge the system of checks and balances which is a foundation of this country’s democracy.”
Another group, the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump’s calls for impeachment of Engelmayer were a “dangerous” and “groundless” demand. Richard Deane Jr., the president of the group, said “Just because you disagree with an opinion, to suggest that a judge is corrupt and that he or she should be impeached… particularly by someone who has a significant public position… fosters a distrust of the judiciary, undermines the rule of law and frankly exposes the judges to the risks of actual danger.”
