Former President Donald Trump’s incessant war on the rule of law has brought havoc to the courts. Judges are receiving threats and harassment as they challenge his administration’s illegal and unconstitutional policies. This adversarial environment has ground to a new dark turn after Trump’s latest executive order and social media tirades against judges and the judiciary.
In a recent post on Truth Social, Trump used inflammatory and racist rhetoric to rail against judicial rulings that have stopped his administration’s efforts. He lashed out at judges who ruled against his policies. In particular, he targeted U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg by name. Howell issued a decision stating that an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, violated several amendments of the Constitution. At the same time, Boasberg’s ruling provided temporary relief from deportation to Venezuelan immigrants accused of connections to gangs.
Unfortunately, since taking office, Trump’s administration has focused on issuing more than 100 executive orders. As a result, many of these orders have been successfully challenged by advocates in the courts. Legal experts point out that, with orders such as these, judges across the political spectrum have temporarily halted or outright blocked many of these orders. This includes judges appointed by Trump’s own administration. Legal experts, legal historians, and former judges roundly denounce the former president’s attacks on members of the judiciary. They make the case that his incendiary rhetoric made a climate conducive to violence against judges and their families.
“These attacks foment a climate where the safety of judges and their families is at high risk,” – ex-federal judge John Jones.
It is not only specific judges Trump is trying to intimidate. He is even abusing the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members more swiftly. Under existing legal protections, migrants slated for targeting would have to be given three weeks’ notice and a chance to challenge their deportations. This measure has been under fire. Judicial appointee Fernando Rodriguez’s record clearly shows he is in favor of rulings that stop using this act to deport people.
The now-indicted former president’s last administration was bogged down in numerous farcical legal challenges. More than 200 lawsuits were brought against its zero tolerance policy towards immigration, political revenge against law firms, and slashing agency spending. Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general, has had a hand in fostering an extremely hostile environment for judges. She is not alone — MAGA movement members are on this path as well.
“Shameful expressions of authoritarian attacks on the rule of law,” – ex-prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig.
Trump has pursued, and sometimes succeeded, in strong-arming judges who were ruling against him. He’s suggested that his allies retaliate against judges whose rulings they don’t like. His social media posts have called Boasberg a “radical left lunatic.” He’s impeached Boasberg, raising the battle between the executive and judicial branches to a whole new level.
This dangerous pattern of behavior has alarmed legal experts and advocates, who fear for the integrity and safety of our judicial system. Gertner, another former judge, remarked on Trump’s tactics, stating: “It clearly was intended to intimidate other judges. There was no justification for it whatsoever.”
The ongoing narrative of Trump’s administration includes accusations of pushing legally dubious cases and attempting to smear those who rule against them. Legal analysts have noticed a deterioration in the legitimacy of court cases against this current federal administration. This increase is the direct result of adopting this strategy.
“Now judges are increasingly presented with Trump administration emissaries who are poorly prepared to assist courts and who stand by when their leaders respond to adverse decisions by personally attacking judges,” – Daniel Richman.
Richman focused on the growing lack of credibility that the government has in court. These steps are the most responsible for this drop. The repeated attacks of judicial decisions as part of a political vendetta have poisoned the well of public perception, Jones contended.
“The constant mischaracterization by Trump and his allies of judicial rulings as political in nature, together with their false, vituperative and ad hominem attacks on individual judges who make them, skews the public’s perception of the work of the federal judiciary,” – ex-federal judge John Jones.
Despite these hurdles, the onslaught of the administration’s agenda from Trump’s administration pushes on with intensity and fervor. Trump recently asserted in a Truth Social post that judges are obstructing efforts to deport criminals from the United States. He stated: “Can it be so that Judges aren’t allowing the USA to deport Criminals, including Murderers, out of our Country and back to where they came from? If this is so, our Country, as we know it, is finished!”
Legal experts warn that these types of statements only serve to exacerbate the rift between executive and judicial branches. Both Dent and Wallace blasted Trump’s handling of the bill as him being “throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.” This would indicate that the majority of cases his administration brought had no clear legal basis.