(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Attacking federalists won't change the outcome [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-06-06
Federal district courts are pushing back against the Trump administration, and at least so far, they’re holding. During the month of May, as reported in Democracy Docket, federal judges dealt Trump an embarrassing 96% loss rate, agreeing with plaintiffs who challenged his overreach in 26 out of 27 cases.
Federal judges across the ideological spectrum concur that most of Trump's Executive Orders, along with official actions undertaken to effectuate them, exceed the scope of presidential authority, either by exceeding what Congress has explicitly authorized, or, in the absence of controlling legislation, by exceeding Article II authority.
Trump’s propaganda machine spins these losses as “judicial activism,” advancing Trump’s false narrative that adverse rulings have come fast and furious from ‘activist’ judges appointed by Biden and other Democrats. Trump media claim that these judges have acted out of partisan malice to ‘block President Trump’s agenda.’
But the data don’t bear that out. According to a recent analysis by Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford, judges are ruling against Trump consistently, regardless of political ideology. Overall, Trump has lost 72% of cases decided by Republican-appointed judges, compared to an 80% loss rate from Democrat-appointed judges. Given that facts and procedure vary widely by case, Trump’s loss rates of 72% and 80%, although remarkable, are too similar to support any inference of partisan bias.
Unprecedented losses reflect unprecedented presidential actions
Conservative analysts have advised Trump that he could better shield his agenda from judicial scrutiny by working through Congress instead of trying to govern through fiat. Legislation, after all, could achieve his same policy objectives. Given the abdication of duty on display from GOP legislators, that’s fairly sound advice—if Trump were willing to exert more effort than tweeting threats from the toilet, “his” legislators, holding both house majorities, would likely serve him well.
Other analysts, including Professor Bonica himself, interpret Trump’s judicial losses as pushback to his escalating attacks against the judiciary. Bonica believes that Trump’s attacks on the legal profession itself, including targeting judges and major law firms, triggered a defensive reflex. Since even partisan judges are loyal to the judiciary as an institution, Bonica writes, “When forced to choose between political allegiance and professional identity, many are choosing the latter.”
But I don’t see Trump’s losses as anything other than defense of the rule of law itself, something all judges take an oath to uphold. Trump’s efforts to expand his own authority are beyond anything our relatively young democracy has ever experienced.
The Constitution built limitations, including separation of powers, meant to check a rogue president of questionable sanity. Constitutional checks were designed to meet this very moment, and judges are putting them into play as intended, as Trump has already:
The only thematic consistency driving these acts is the goal of expanding Trump’s naked power, injury to the nation be damned.
Trump was triggered most by the tariffs ruling
Judicial pushback to these executive actions has been consistent, but the opinion that seems to have triggered Trump the most, at least so far, was the unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that struck down most of his tariffs, now stayed temporarily.
The CIT held that Trump’s broad tariffs usurped Congress’s powers based on supposed “emergency” powers. The CIT ruled that the 1974 Trade Act barred the president from using emergency powers in response to trade deficits, in part because trade deficits reflect many factors and many decades of policy decisions, refuting Trump’s “emergency” claim. The court found that Trump's use of emergency tariffs to gain leverage over other countries was not authorized by Congress, checking Trump’s attempt to confer unlimited powers on himself by recasting long-existing problems as “emergencies.”
The unanimous CIT decision, which Stephen Miller called “judicial tyranny,” and Karoline Leavitt called a “brazen abuse of power,” came from three appointees- one appointed by Reagan, one by Obama, and one by Trump himself.
Trump attacks the Federalist Society
In response to the CIT ruling, Trump also attacked Leonard Leo, the architect of the conservative judicial movement. Leo, who has long led the Federalist Society, is credited with stacking federal courts with conservatives including Trump’s own Supreme Court nominees Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett, all of whom voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, the number one, decades-long goal of conservative activists.
All three justices also gutted Chevon to block administrative expertise, and joined the legally infirm 2024 immunity opinion that enabled Trump’s current crime spree, paving the way for him to solicit gifts from foreign leaders, pursue private real estate deals with dictators, sell presidential access through a family Bitcoin scheme, and issue pardons for tax evaders and anyone who commits political violence in his name.
But a license to crime is not enough for Trump. Trump’s attack on Leo shows that he expects “his” appointed judges to give him carte blanche permission to decimate the Constitution, to so grossly expand his own power that he’ll never face legal accountability again. Calling Leo a “sleazebag” and “a bad person,” Trump projected his own animus onto Leo in trademark Trumpian fashion, claiming Leo “probably hates America.”
Leo brushed off Trump’s insults, essentially noting that with Trump, the Federalist Society got what it came for, what’s a little name-calling among friends? Trump now knows he was Leo’s useful idiot, the same thing he’s learning slowly—ever so slowly— from both Putin and Xi, the same thing he’s learning from much sharper negotiators on the other side of the ‘taco.’
As Trump rails against the power his originalist enablers hold over him, the bitter irony is that if it weren’t for Federalist Society judges, Trump would be in prison today instead of gleefully wrecking the country.
Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her columns are found @ Alternet, Chicago Tribune, Howey Political Report, Indiana Democrats’ Kernel of Truth, Inside Indiana Business, MSN, Out South Florida, Raw Story, Salon, Smart News, South Florida Gay News, State Affairs, and Windy City Times. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/6/2326137/-Attacking-federalists-won-t-change-the-outcome?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
