Checks and Balances: Trump, Allies Challenge 'Activist' Judges in Legal Feud

President Donald Trump’s legal battles are piling up faster than his tweets, with lawsuits against him surging well past the triple-digit mark less than three months into his presidency. Predictably, his supporters are questioning whether Congress or the White House can rein in what they perceive as judicial overreach.

Trump’s backers have particularly taken issue with so-called “activist” judges, including some eyebrow-raising critiques of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee herself. Barrett recently sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and left-leaning justices to uphold a lower court ruling that forced the Trump administration to unfreeze USAID funds authorized by Congress—a decision some conservatives saw as treasonous to their cause.

On another front, a federal judge blocked the administration from using a wartime law dating back to 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The administration, undeterred, reportedly sent hundreds of deportees to El Salvador anyway, despite Judge James Boasberg’s order to turn the planes around. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the move, claiming the plane had already left U.S. airspace and dismissing the judge’s order as baseless.

Congressional Republicans are also joining the fray. Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee didn’t mince words, calling judges who rule against Trump “political hacks” and suggesting their decisions belong “in my SHREDDER.” Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has floated the idea of removing judges who repeatedly oppose Trump’s agenda. Though Congress theoretically has the power to impeach judges, the two-thirds Senate vote required makes such actions highly unlikely, given the current partisan divide.

Judges themselves, unsurprisingly, aren’t taking kindly to Trump’s sweeping executive orders, which have included attempts to slash government personnel, halt billions in foreign aid, and even end birthright citizenship. U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell recently reminded everyone that “an American President is not a king” in a ruling reinstating a National Labor Relations Board member Trump had dismissed.

Constitutional experts argue that these battles over separation of powers aren’t new, but they’ve become sharper due to Congress’s lack of legislative productivity. When lawmakers focus more on campaigning than governing, the executive branch steps in to fill the void—and the courts step up to scrutinize those actions.

Some legal scholars are even suggesting radical measures to curb judicial power. Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule proposed cutting funding for judicial law clerks and legal personnel to make Congress’s “power of the purse” painfully clear. While intriguing, such a move seems unlikely given Congress’s track record of infighting and legislative gridlock.

The White House, for its part, has limited options under the Constitution. While presidents can appoint federal judges, they can’t fire them. Trump has shown he’s willing to defy court rulings outright, but such tactics risk undermining the historical deference typically given to the judiciary.

As Trump continues pushing boundaries, it’s clear the clash between the executive branch and the judiciary is far from over. Whether Congress or the courts will emerge as the ultimate referee in this ongoing legal saga remains to be seen.