U.S. President Donald Trump mimics a weightlifter while he speaks at a dinner he hosts for Republican Senators at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., February 7, 2025.,
President Donald Trump has gone after judges for opposing his wishes on matters ranging from his attempts to seize control of elections to his hush money trial. Now a conservative is arguing that this is not merely the lashing out of an angry politician; it is a grave threat to democracy.
“It should be obvious by now that Trump is not thankful for an independent judiciary, which he views as an illegitimate obstacle to his policy agenda and personal whims,” wrote Reason’s Jacob Sullum on Sunday. “That much is clear from his over-the-top denunciations of recalcitrant judges and justices, whom he habitually accuses of political bias or cowardice, sometimes recommending their impeachment. It is also clear from the arguments that Justice Department lawyers have made in court, especially during Trump's second term.”
Sullum added, “Again and again, Trump's legal representatives have argued that the courts have no business reviewing his decisions or, at the very least, owe him the sort of deference that would allow him to do pretty much anything he wants. They have staked out that position in cases involving issues such as Trump's tariffs, his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, his National Guard deployments, his retaliation against political opponents, and his plan to replace the East Wing of the White House with a huge, gaudy ballroom.”
He continued, “Trump's resistance to judicial review goes beyond criticizing the reasoning or conclusions of judges who rule against him. It amounts to a frontal assault on the rule of law and the separation of powers.”
After elaborating on Trump’s attempts to intimidate judges in terms of immigration, the National Guard, tariffs and the ballroom, Sullum concluded that “as the audience at the D.C. Circuit hearing recognized, Trump's assertions of unreviewable authority are breathtaking. By trying to cut the courts out of the picture painted by the Framers, he aims to undermine a crucial safeguard against tyranny.”
Sullum has previously called out Trump’s alleged abuses of the legal system, such as in an April editorial for Reason in which he blasted how Trump’s acting attorney general Todd Blanche uses Trumpian language in legal briefings.
Defending the ballroom, Blanche argued — and Sullum criticized him for arguing — that “the 535-word opening paragraph continues in that vein, averring that the National Trust's leaders ‘suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS,’ and noting that they ‘are represented by the lawyer for Barack Hussein Obama, Gregory Craig.’”
He added, “Then Blanche brings up the attack at the Washington Hilton, saying that ‘narrow miss,’ which ‘marks the third assassination attempt on President Trump since 2024,’ confirms ‘what should have already been obvious: Presidents need a secure space for large events.’ Given that reality, he argues, ’his Court's injunction stalling this Project cannot defensibly continue.’ It is ‘intolerable,’ ‘unsustainable,’ and ‘indefensible’ —a trifecta worthy of Jackie Chiles,’ the famously unethical attorney from the sitcom ‘Seinfeld.’”
