Our judicial system is drifting toward tyranny. For instance, on March 17, a U.S. District Judge (local judge) ordered the current administration to turn around aircraft carrying Venezuelan gang members (Tren de Aragua) being sent to a supermax prison in El Salvador. Apparently, the order came down when the aircraft was still in the air over international waters. If this type of order stands, then why can’t a judge order a U.S. Destroyer in the Red Sea to stop attacking Houthis rebels in Yemen? The current administration ignored the order because it came down while the aircraft was in international airspace, the assertion that the jurisdiction of the district judge does not cover international airspace, and that the aircraft was about to land and probably did not have enough fuel to return. The district judge argued that his verbal oral order had legal force. A signed order was delivered later. Most legal experts agree that a court order is in force only when signed by the judge and filed with the clerk’s office. Oral orders don’t count. Presently, the administration is adhering to the injunction, unlike the past administration, which planned to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on forgiving student tuition loans.

Lawfare (using the legal system to oppose political opponents) is alive and well. Leftist organizations, acting in coordination with judges, are abusing judicial power to push their ideology. Since they can’t win at the ballot box, they use the court system to attempt to get their way. Probably the most significant abuse of judicial power occurred when multiple lawsuits were brought against the current President to thwart his election effort.

According to scholarly writings of some jurists and attorneys, district judges ordering nationwide injunctions is an inappropriate use of judicial power. Others believe that nationwide injunctions are a way to block the federal agency (the President) from overreaching. In the past, district judges would avoid ruling on national events, but this has recently changed. According to the Harvard Law Review, Bush received six injunctions, Obama 12, and Trump (first term) 64. Presently, after only two months in office, there are over 127 injunctions attempting to stop the actions of the current President.

The Harvard Law Review has recognized the problem with nationwide injunctions and has suggested three ways to solve the problem. The first is to reform the court system so that district judges only have authority in their district, not nationwide. The second is the theory that the courts can be trusted to self-regulate their use of nationwide injunctions because they are well suited to impose self-disciplining rules.  The third recommendation is to require nationwide injunctions be handled by a panel of at least three judges. This would make it more difficult to go judge shopping since the other two or more judges could outvote a radical judge. Congress has ignored reforms of this nature.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress significant discretion in determining the structure and shape of the federal judiciary. In recent years, judges legislating from the bench have become a part of the legislative process, which is not their role. Most judges exercise judicial restraint, but a few go overboard in their rulings, showing extreme bias in favor of leftist ideology, which leads to judge shopping. Certainly, jurisprudence (the study, knowledge, or science of law) is under assault by this overuse of nationwide injunctions initiated by a minority of judges.  Judicial restraint is typically rooted in morality. However, in this day and age, morality is a value set that is subject to change without notice.