Do Federal Judges Run the Country?

Recent district court rulings have generated controversy because of their impact on the ability of the president and the executive branch of the government to execute policy. We’ll discuss this in more detail later.

the Supreme Court ruled in  couple of these cases last week, but there’s many to go.

Here’s an old trial lawyer joke to start it off:

Sigmund Freud dies and goes to Heaven, where he is met by a frantic Saint Peter.

“Dr. Freud, we desperately need your help!”

“Why?” asks Freud. “What’s the problem?”

“It’s God. He’s having delusions of grandeur,” Peter replies. “He thinks He’s a federal judge!”

That humorous anecdote encapsulates a growing sentiment that federal judges wield an enormous amount of influence over the nation’s affairs.

The question is: Should they?

First some background on the federal court system.

There are 91 District Courts. Each state has at least one, some have more – up to four districts. There are 677 district court judgeships in the country. Each district has at least one judge. District court judges may also appoint magistrates and bankruptcy judges and others to handle specific cases of federal jurisdiction and responsibility encountered in the district.

The next layer up in our federal judicial system is Circuit Court. There are twelve regional circuits that exist to hear appeals of rulings by the district court judges located in the region. Normally a panel of three circuit court judges will hear and rule on appeals.

The creation and modification of district and circuit courts falls to our Congress. The Constitution gives the legislature that responsibility.

The final layer, and ruling, on any appeal or filing in the federal court system falls to the Supreme Court, which is created by our Constitution. The number of judges on SCOTUS is again up to Congress. It was set at nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since.

All federal judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate – for life.

The current controversy around a district court judge’s legal authority to issue injunctions against or reverse presidential executive orders deserves note.

District judges certainly can interpret constitutional issues, but normally on issues that originate in that district.

In addition, in districts with more than one judge, cases are supposed to be assigned at random.

Several weeks ago Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the planes flying Venezuelan gang member deportees to El Salvadore using the Alien Enemies Act, to turn around in mid-air and return to the US. He ruled that the 1798 law used is limited to countries with which we are at war. His logic continues that since Congress has not declared war, the law cannot be used to deport ‘alien enemies.’

The problem gets foggy around Congress ‘declaring war.’ It hasn’t formally declared war since WWII. Meanwhile we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan and other smaller conflicts – all funded by Congress.

The constitution’s verbiage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have to be considered a ” declaration of war.”

As I understand it, the US President also has the option to use military force internationally without receiving a formal declaration of war. But for this to happen, Congress is supposed to agree on a resolution to allow the President to use such power. Again, if Congress allows or approves funding, it could be argued that, de facto, it has passed a resolution for the ‘war.’

Add that the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, has been added to the list of global terrorist organizations and Judge Boasberg’s rulings, now to extend his injunction, become even more arguable.

That’s one example. There have been over 170 lawsuits that have been filed against President Trump’s EOs in district courts. It behooves Congress to consider clarifying legislation on whether all or at least some national issues might be better served by starting the process in panels of Circuit Court judges with some issues going directly to the Supreme Court.

It certainly is the judiciary’s role to interpret the Constitution and review the legality of executive and legislative actions. Those actions can shape public policy, influence social norms, and even alter the course of history, placing federal judges at the heart of some critical national decisions.

At the same time, the citizens want the balance and separation of power as outlined in the Constitution for the three branches of our government.

To get the Constitutional desire, perhaps we should have some defined issues considered by other than 677 district court judges acting alone – which in turn invites ‘judge shopping’ and extends the time for final resolution.

*****************

Have a great and prosperous week.

Hug somebody.

References:

https://spectator.org/shooting-blanks-from-the-bench/

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-federal-judges

SPIDER Bytes

This week’s trivia question is: What is the world’s most populated city? The answer to last week’s question re the athlete who has won the most Olympic medals: Michael Phelps. He is the most-decorated Olympian of all time, with 28 medals, 23 of which are gold. He also was the first athlete to win 8 gold medals at a single Olympics. In second place for career medals is Soviet gymnast Larisa Latynina, the winner of 18 medals. Next is Marit Bjørgen of Norway. With 15 medals in various cross-country skiing events she has the most medals in winter sports

While it was declared eliminated in 2000, measles is back. The largest outbreak has been reported in Texas, 500 cases, with two children dead. The disease is reportedly 95% preventable with 2 doses of the vaccine. While there’s no concrete evidence, one must wonder about the coincidence of so many illegal border crossings from all over the world in the last few years and the outbreak.

Oil prices fell below $60/bbl. at times last week. Those prices affect everything and have been headed down since late January. You saw gas prices decline.

I have reservations about “de-extinction.” The feat of Colossal Sciences Co. of Dallas to clone two dire wolves that have been extinct for 13,000 years creates a ‘giant’ predator that we don’t need on earth anymore. It went extinct for some ‘natural’ reason. Yes?

The markets were crazy again last week. Tariffs are making some investors anxious.

Have you noticed the climate change dogma has apparently fallen on quiet times? Now we hear the silence of the money pit drying up – dare I say from overly–warm “wolf” calls.

The courts made a lot of news on many cases last week, mostly siding with the defendant.

As expected, SCOTUS stepped in to a district court – Trump EO fiasco. It lifted DC District Judge Boasberg’s restraining order against the Trump administration’s deporting illegal alien criminals under a 1798 law. It also ruled the case should have been heard in Texas, throwing cold water on “judge shopping.” The specific admonition by SCOTUS was “stay in your lane.”