Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has been met with an unprecedented legal onslaught from far-left activist judges and radical groups determined to sabotage his administration at every turn.
These rogue judges—many appointed by Clinton, Obama, and Biden—have launched a relentless legal coup to undermine the will of the American people and prevent Trump from carrying out his constitutional duties.
Appearing on The War Room with Steve Bannon, Josh Hammer, Senior Counsel for the Article III Project, warned that what America is witnessing is no ordinary judicial activism—it’s a full-blown judicial insurrection.
So far this year, President Trump has faced 125 legal challenges in just two months.
The full list of 125 legal challenges remains active and is documented on the Just Security website.
The Constitution and historical precedent are clear: activist judges have no authority to interfere with the President’s executive powers. The Supreme Court settled this issue in Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), ruling that courts cannot restrain the President from carrying out his executive duties.
Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) – Presidential Discretion is Not Subject to Judicial Interference
In 1867, when President Andrew Johnson was tasked with enforcing the Reconstruction Acts—despite personally opposing them—Mississippi sued, asking the Supreme Court to stop him.
The Court unanimously ruled against Mississippi, stating that a president’s executive duties are beyond the reach of the judiciary.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing for the Court, distinguished between the president’s ministerial duties (which could be subject to judicial review) and executive/discretionary duties (which could not be interfered with by the courts).
Ministerial Duties (Subject to Judicial Review)
These are duties where the President (or an executive officer) has a clear legal obligation to perform a specific act in a prescribed manner, leaving no room for discretion. Courts can compel the performance of these duties through writs of mandamus.
Examples:
- Issuing a Commission
- In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall held that delivering a judicial commission was a ministerial duty. The courts could compel an executive officer (like the Secretary of State) to perform this duty.
- Processing a Pardon Application
- Enforcing a Congressional Appropriation
- Certifying Electoral Votes
Executive (Discretionary) Duties (Not Subject to Judicial Interference)
These are duties where the President has policy-based discretion, meaning courts cannot order or prohibit the exercise of such functions.
Examples:
- Pardon Power
- The President has absolute discretion to issue or deny a pardon under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Courts cannot force the President to grant a pardon.
- Commander-in-Chief Decisions
-
- The President’s military decisions, including troop deployments, orders to engage in combat, or withdrawal from treaties, are discretionary and not subject to judicial review.
- Foreign Policy and Treaty Negotiations
-
- The President has discretion over recognizing foreign governments (Zivotofsky v. Kerry), conducting diplomacy, and negotiating treaties. Courts cannot compel the President to engage in or alter diplomatic relations.
- Executive Orders and Policy Prioritization
-
- Decisions regarding enforcement priorities, such as prosecutorial discretion in immigration and national security (United States v. Texas)(United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950)), are generally beyond judicial interference.
- Appointments and Removals of Officials
-
- The President has discretion over firing executive officers (Myers v. United States). Courts cannot force the President to retain or remove an official unless removal is statutorily restricted.
Based on Mississippi v. Johnson and Marbury v. Madison, courts can only interfere with ministerial duties—tasks that are strictly procedural and leave no room for discretion.
However, the cases against President Trump involve his executive and discretionary powers, which are off-limits to judicial interference.
Despite this clear legal precedent, activist judges continue violating the Constitution by ruling against President Trump’s executive authority. If the Supreme Court refuses to intervene, it risks setting a dangerous precedent where radical judges hold more power than the elected President.
The judicial branch was never meant to govern the nation—that responsibility belongs to the executive and legislative branches, which are accountable to the people.
The judicial coup against Trump is an unconstitutional power grab that must be stopped before it dismantles our republic.
According to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, “Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch. Or to nullify the results of a national election. We either have democracy, or not.”
This is not just about Trump—it’s about protecting the Constitution, the Presidency, and the will of the American people. The Supreme Court must follow historical precedent and strike down these illegitimate cases. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
The post MUST READ: The Left’s Judicial Insurrection Against Trump Is a Constitutional Crisis — Here’s Why It Must Be Stopped appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.