Dear Mr. President, Hands off the Judiciary

on Feb 11, 2025

SAN DIEGO -- Fonzie is about to jump the shark.

Presidents are not kings. It's amazing how many chief executives from both parties tend to forget that -- often at their own peril. The minute presidents start acting like royalty, their presidency is done.

President Donald Trump seems poised to go to war against an institution that chief executives should treat as sacrosanct and avoid messing with at all costs: the federal judiciary.

This week, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island said that the White House had defied his Jan. 29 order to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal grants. This marks the first time that a judge has accused the Trump White House of disobeying a judicial mandate. McConnell said his order had been "clear and unambiguous" and that it should have been complied with.

Taken by itself, this act of defiance by the Trumpistas could be seen as benign. Maybe it was a harmless oversight, or a one-off.

But this is the Trump administration we're talking about. With this bunch, there is usually something else going on.

In this case, we should view the Trump administration's defiance of this one judge as part of a bigger plan to challenge the entire federal judiciary and the entire concept of judicial review.

We could have seen that coming. Trump is the eternal CEO who is used to always being in charge. He doesn't like being told what to do. He likes even less being told what he can't do -- even by federal judges whose job description spells out this very role.

Besides, Republicans always claim to cherish the Constitution, right up until the moment where they wipe their feet on the founding document. For instance, Trump would like to use his Sharpie to excise the part of the 14th Amendment that grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil -- even if their parents are undocumented.

You really have to hand it to the Founding Fathers who had the foresight to peer into the future and realize the importance of dividing the government into three separate and equal branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The framers also understood the value of an independent judiciary. That's why they specified that -- in contrast to those in the executive and legislative branches who had to stand for election and reelection -- those who served as federal judges would have the job security that comes with lifetime appointments.

Conservatives complain about "judicial activism." Claiming to prefer a strict interpretation of the Constitution, they accuse liberal jurists of reading into the law in order to advance left-wing causes.

Today, those arguments seem dated. You see as much judicial activism on the right as you do on the left. The Supreme Court's recent decisions overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down affirmative action are prime examples of such activism.

And thank goodness that federal judges -- since they're appointed for life -- are not elected by the people. That's the whole idea. Imagine if judges had to worry about how the mob was going to react before handing down a ruling on a highly controversial subject.

Pick up a history book and turn to the chapter on the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. You'll see one case after another where federal judges issued desegregation orders and other intensely unpopular rulings despite being pressured, intimidated and threatened.

Note that Vice President JD Vance -- a graduate of Yale Law School who appears to be woefully unfamiliar with the Constitution or our system of checks and balances -- declared on social media that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

What an underachiever. Vance missed the whole point of having three branches of government in the first place, not to mention the role that judges are supposed to play in a constitutional republic.

Of course judges are supposed to "control" -- or, to use another word, limit -- executive power. They're the guardrails. That's the job given to them by the Supreme Court in 1803 in its ruling in Marbury v. Madison. That landmark case created the concept of judicial review, which makes plain that the courts bear the responsibility to make sure any law or executive order is in line with the Constitution.

Vance doesn't get it. If those who run the executive branch don't understand that simple concept, there is no way that any power they exercise could ever be called "legitimate."

Trump needs to stay in his lane and allow the judiciary to do its job. Our whole system of government depends on it.

========

To find out more about Ruben Navarrette and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.