Dakota Beacon

A select number of federal district judges have overextended themselves by intruding into areas of presidential authority. Their nationwide orders, or injunctions, toyed unacceptably with our legal system. The term “select” is consistent with “judge shopping,” the allocation of major cases to rogue federal district judges predisposed to blocking President Trump’s policies.

The American people are neither legal experts -- nor are they stupid. They see with eyes wide open. What corrupt progressive judges are doing now to block presidential authority they rehearsed using similar challenges hiding election fraud in recent years. Making up legal reasoning to justify judicial activism with “legalese” mumbo jumbo resulted in “legislating from the bench.” Whatever became of constitutional separation of powers?

A serious movement has emerged in congress to correct this degraded legal activity. A list of possible remedial actions follows.

  -- Congress could impeach and hold trials on rogue judges. This would be possible, but impractical. While only a simple majority of the House must vote to impeach, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict. Only 15 federal judges were ever impeached. Of those, only 8 have been convicted and removed by the Senate.

  -- Congress could cut the funding for judicial officers and courts that openly defy precedent to impose partisan restrictions on the executive branch. This action would have a limited impact but maximum risk of being challenged and overturned.

  -- Another idea suggested by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis which bears some merit would have Congress take away from district judges the authority to rule on specific issues such as immigration matters and executive orders.

  -- Two very promising Congressional actions would limit federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Two pieces of legislation have been offered that would do this. In the House, California Republican Darrell Issa introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025. The bill passed the House and was enrolled in the Senate the next day. In the Senate, Missouri Republican Josh Hawley sponsored the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2025. Both bills would limit a judge’s orders to that judge’s jurisdiction and not nationwide.

  -- On a similar note, the Fair Courts Act of 2023 was introduced into both the House and Senate in the last session of Congress and died for lack of action. The law would have restricted “forum shopping” or “judge shopping,” a subset of our current experience with lawfare. The measure begs to be reintroduced in this congressional session.

  -- Require bonds for injunctions (mentioned in an earlier edition of The Passing Scene). Trump’s administration can 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.

For all these proposals there remains a larger problem. How do we enforce proper checks and balances on the judiciary within our Republic? This is not a new challenge. Following his term as president, Thomas Jefferson still wrestled with the issue. Judges must be held unaccountable. Where are the checks and balances besides the impeachment power? There are appellate remedies, but what about disciplining rogue federal judges when their rulings flout the letter and spirit of the law? These were Jefferson’s regrets. With Congress today we may be about to do what Jefferson could not.

The following illustration highlights the need for reform. One jurist, District Court Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, if he were truly honest, would have recused himself long ago from any case on President Trump’s immigration executive orders. He has a conflict of interest. Boasberg has family ties to illegal alien gangs. His daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for Partners for Justice, a 501(c)(3) organization offering criminal illegals and gangbangers legal advice.

Surely there must be a constitutional way of controlling such scalawag behavior.

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