When Judges Overstep: Understanding the Threat of Judicial Activism

Following sweeping electoral losses, the left is doubling down on judicial activism—not by legislating, but by issuing rulings that resemble executive actions. Judges have issued orders on controversial issues—from gender policy and nonprofit direction to restricting access to presidential records—prompting a nationwide debate over the proper role of the judiciary.

Here’s how the framers envisioned the balance of power, and how each branch can respond:

Judiciary: Lower courts should self-correct overreaches. If they don’t, appellate courts or even the Supreme Court must reverse them—but only when brought before it.

Executive: History shows that presidents—Lincoln, Jackson, and even Obama—have at times resisted judicial overreach to uphold executive authority. The article notes that Trump has stated he would not defy unconstitutional court orders, placing responsibility on the judicial and legislative branches.

Legislature: Congress has powerful tools to check the courts:

• Power of the Purse: Freeze or reduce judicial branch funding (while maintaining judges’ salaries).
• Structural Reforms: Reorganize federal circuits, limit court jurisdiction, impose sunsets or add judgeships, and restrict nationwide injunction authority.
• Oversight: Investigate judicial misconduct and, in extreme cases, impeach judges—even rulings-based removals are historically precedent.

Ultimately, the article urges the Supreme Court to police its own branch before congressional intervention becomes necessary. Read full article here