Dakota Beacon

Lower tier federal judges are inserting themselves into the executive policy making process. Federal judges who ruled against President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions are notably Democrat appointees.

Some have been activists, others steeped in Democrat politics, and one clerked for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. They have something in common. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump’s policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other efforts.

Federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions ordering the executive branch (meaning Trump) to halt proceedings on various executive actions.

Those who bring charges against President Trump’s executive actions engage in the practice of “forum shopping” – a type of lawfare. They opt for the greatest legal benefit in court. Forum shopping searches for the best spot in the US where liberal judges are most likely to be sympathetic to the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiffs can then flood the court system with cases. An advantage to flooding the zone is that the US Supreme Court only hears about 75 cases per year.”

Here are a few of the several judges named by Fred Lucas from The Daily Signal.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island blocked Trump’s attempted funding freeze for numerous federal grants to nongovernmental organizations. This 2010 Obama appointee contributed $60,000 to Democrat candidates. McConnell also favored removing Trump from Rhode Island’s 2024 ballot.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Biden, imposed a restraining order on Trump’s funding freeze. AliKhan was previously on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and also served as the D.C. solicitor general.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia, another Biden appointee, imposed a restraining order to prevent the spending freeze on foreign aid disbursed by the USAID. Ali contributed $1,500 to Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of the District of Maryland, an Obama appointee, blocked Trump from conducting immigration raids and arrests at churches. During much of Obama’s time in office, Chuang was the deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York stopped DOGE’s access to Department of Treasury records. Biden nominated Vargas, a former New York federal prosecutor, in 2024. Vargas clerked for then-U.S. 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor from 2001 to 2002.

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead of the Western District of Washington State blocked Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions. Biden nominated Whitehead in 2023. During the Obama administration, Whitehead was the senior trial attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland, a 2021 Biden appointee, sided with teachers’ unions to block DOGE from accessing information from the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education.

U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington, another Biden appointee, temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s restrictions on federal funding for “sex change” treatments for minors.

What can Trump do? Trump can move to deter frivolous litigation in federal courts. His DOJ via Pam Bondi can enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

The device this Rule employs is mandatory. A party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order must provide a dollar security that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is WRONGLY issued. Security deposited is not optional.

Trump’s resurrected policy is that it will “demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” He instructed the heads of executive departments and agencies to ensure that they make this request to the courts every time.

Failure of the plaintiff to follow Rule 65(c) mandating a security deposit results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief. Judges who substitute their values, facts, and decision-making for that of the duly elected president may circumvent this rule by demanding smaller amounts of security or by finding that the issue cannot be reduced to dollars and cents. Should they try to skirt Rule 65(c), they will have a hard time explaining their position to the Supreme Court.

Trump has a long history of winning court cases -- far more than he loses. In the end, Democrats may regret their lawfare. When Trump wins at the circuit court or Supreme Court level, the Dems will have to live with the precedents they created through the court system.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).