The first shots were fired this week in the war between the White House and the American judiciary.
As expected, the courts have moved to block Donald Trump’s disregard for the constitution and the rule of law and to nudge him toward legality.
Not so expected is the Republicans response: The threat of impeachment.
So far four judges have either been threatened with impeachment or have had articles of impeachment lodged against them in the House of Representatives. They are:
- Judge Paul Engelmayer issued an order preventing DOGE from accessing the federal payments system.
- Judge John Bates ruled that health agencies must restore data related to gender-affirming care,
- Judge Amir Ali granted a temporary restraining order that halted Trump’s 90-day suspension of foreign aid.
- Judge John McConell ordered the White House to lift a freeze on federal spending.
But the bulk of the White House’s venom has been saved for and directed against Judge James Boasberg. He had the temerity to challenge the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members to an El Salvadorean prison.
The deportation was wrong on so many counts. For a start, the deportees were suspected criminals. They had not been convicted in a court of law. Furthermore, the Alien Enemies Act allows for the deportation of citizens of countries with which the US is at war. America is not at war with Venezuela. Finally, the administration ignored the judge’s ruling not to land the deportees in El Salvador and to return to the US.
Trump has chosen his fight well. Immigrants are unpopular. Immigrants who are suspected members of a violent Venezuelan gang even more so. So, MAGA—and the Republican Congress—is standing four-square behind Trump.
“If the liberals want to fight us on issue of deporting violent criminals, “ said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, “then bring them on. We’re ready and waiting.”
Opposing the emotive issue of violent gangs is the rule of law. Suspected criminals are protected by the law from imprisonment or deportation until such time as they are convicted. And even then, there are laws against cruel and unjust punishment.
This, however, has not stopped Trump and his supporters. Boasberg and the other judges have been subjected to death threats. Anonymous pizza deliveries have been made to their homes with the message: “We know where you live.” Elon Musk and MAGA activist Laura Loomer have attacked Boasberg’s daughter. Ms Leavitt went after his wife. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the Bush appointee a “Democratic activist” and accused him of meddling in foreign security.
Trump, however, went the full distance by appending Boasberg“–a rogue judge”—to the list of judge to the to-be-impeached list.
That was too much for Chief Justice John Roberts whose job is to protect the rule of law and the constitution as well as to preside over the Supreme Court. In a clear rebuke to the president, he said: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The defeated Democrats are in disarray. A Republican Congress is supine. The courts are the only American institution left standing between the rule of law and Trumpian chaos. The battle lines have been drawn. The first shots have been fired. Battle has commenced.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".
4 Comments
As an observer of US politics, I find it deeply concerning that the US judicial system seems build around the practice of judicial shopping in which – in this case, Democrats – continually succeed in blocking presidential executive orders by lodging cases in courts where they know they are likely to be given favourable decisions. It may be true that Trump will eventually win when these cases are appealed – though judicial shopping usually goes for favourable district courts within favourable circuit court areas – but this process can take months, and even longer if cases have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The idea of an impartial court system is completely undermined by this practice.
I think the plaintiffs in many of these cases will be the Americam Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups rather than Democrats per se.
During the UK Brexit Debate in 2016 the Daily Mail published a headline “Enemies of the People” when three judges in the High Court of England ruled the UK Government would require the consent of Parliament to give notice of Brexit. The court had ruled on the question of whether the Constitution of the United Kingdom permitted the government to use the royal prerogative to invoke Article 50, or whether it would need to be authorised by an explicit act of Parliament to do so. The case had been brought by Gina Miller.
The UK Supreme Court blocked Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan in 2023 on the basis that there was a high risk of return to their countries of orgin.
While the plaintiffs prevailed in these cases against the government in the UK, there was a large swathe of public opinion in support of the government actions. This is the same problem for the courts in America that are fighting to uphold the rule of law against the blood lust of the Maga support base.
As with the Rwanda case in the UK, the US Supreme Court with itsmajority of conservative judges will be the last bastion for defence of the US constitution and American’s unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
All this time we were worrying about Trump and his acolytes being Fascists. But the whole time they were Far Right accelarationists. They want to be use the state as their weapon against their enemies and logjam the legal system to deny them the most basic rights.
In the UK judges are appointed by a non-partisan Independent judicial appointments commission. In the US, Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Appointments are for life.
State judges are either appointed by Governors or elected. Campaign finance plays a key role in judicial elections. The State of Wisconsin is currently holding an election for a vacant seat on the State Supreme Court. The political importance of these elections is demonstrated by Elon Musk’s intervention in the election in support of the Republican party candidate offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition in opposition to “activist judges,” (code for Democrat nominees) Musk group offers $100 to Wisconsin voters ahead of pivotal state Supreme Court election