Is It Time For Congress To Dismantle The Federal Courts and Recreate Them?

Even a single Supreme Court Judge can't issue an order that affects the whole country. How can a single inferior court district judge do so?

So many of the President's plans now, are being blocked by courts. If the courts are going to be the ones shaping policy, does the President wish he could have just become a judge, instead? - Peter Doocy, FOX News

These laws have already been granted to the President by the Constitution and by previous laws passed. If these judges want to be the Secretary of State, or if they want to be the President, they can run for that office themselves. - White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

U.S. Constitution, Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (emphasis mine)

The Constitution created three equal branches of government, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Judicial referring to the Supreme Court. Inferior courts created by Congress are not included! Furthermore, Article III of the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court of the Judicial Branch the power of judicial review of the actions of the other two branches! The Supreme Court created that power out of thin air by itself!

The Constitution DID NOT give the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review, even though law students are brain washed into thinking it did! Yet they can't tell you where! - Mark Levin, JD, (Jurist Doctor), Constitutional Attorney

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - The first act of judicial activism

That only took twelve years!

The Constitution was ratified on Sept. 17, 1787. The additional ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, ratified December 15, 1791.

References in History.com, Britannica.com etc., will tell you the Supreme Court "created" judicial review when in actuality, the Supreme Court was forbidden to "create" anything at all, let alone the authority to oversee the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches. Yet the Supreme Court determined it had the power to decide cases concerning the Constitutionality of Congressional or Executive actions, and when it deemed them unconstitutional, overturn them! When Chief Justice Marshal ruled Section 13 of the 1789 Judicial Act violated Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, he is the one who actually violated the Constitution by going outside his Article III boundaries!

Thomas Jefferson of the Republican party, (NOT the Democrat/Republican party), beat John Adams of the Federalist party in a Presidential election so brutal and mean spirited they would not speak again for many years. Marbury was a Justice of the Peace named by Adams in his rush to pack the courts with Federalists that did not have his commission signed off by the previous Secretary of State, John Marshall. Now President Jefferson directed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to seat Marbury. Marbury ran to his friend, now Chief Justice, John Marshall, and filed a suit. Marshall and Jefferson were bitter rivals, and Marshall came up with an ingenious and devious unconstitutional solution ordering James Madison to seat Marbury.

President Jefferson directed Secretary of State Madison to ignore the order!

Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. - Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME ll:50

Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question. - Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:215

Fun fact: As per Article V of the Constitution, Only 2/3 the Legislative Branch or 2/3 of the legislatures of the states have the power to amend the Constitution! So how and why has this been allowed to stand?

What does the Congress created Federal Judiciary consist of?

For a complete description of each, click here.

Congress possesses substantial authority to regulate how the federal courts exercise judicial power, albeit subject to certain constitutional limitations.

The Courts of Appeals

There are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals which sit below the U.S. Supreme Court. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals.

The District Court

The nation’s 94 trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right. Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.

The 94 U.S. District courts contain 677 district judgeships authorized by Congress. Of these 667 are permanent judgeships and 10 temporary judgeships.

These are the judges who think they actually have authority that covers more than their district and unconstitutionally issue national injunctions that they delusionally expect obeyed.

There are also two special trial courts. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs laws. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government.

The Bankruptcy Courts

Each of the 94 federal judicial districts also has a bankruptcy court. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases involving personal, business, or farm bankruptcy. This means a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in state court.

Article I Courts

Congress created several Article I, or legislative courts, that do not have full judicial power. Unlike the Article III courts, these legislative courts were created by Congress under its power under Article I of the Constitution. Article I courts are the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the U.S. Tax Court. In contrast to the judges of the Article III courts, judges of the legislative courts are appointed to fixed terms rather than life.

How far does an inferior court judge's authority extend?

Only as far as their title says. For example, James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That is the extent of his authority! This does not give him authority to call back planes over international waters or expect oral orders, which are nothing unless written down, to be followed by anyone, even in his sphere of authority. And definitely not the authority to think he, a mere inferior district court judge created by the power of Congress, has more power than a single Supreme Court Judge to issue an order that affects the whole country! In addition, his daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for an “immigrant” rights non profit that would directly benefit. Boasberg had an absolute obligation to recuse himself and should face sanctions for not doing so.

“Partners in Justice removed Boasberg’s biography page from its website after her father was assigned to the Alien Enemies Act case.”

By the way, Boasberg was the judge who presided over the FISA Court issuing warrants during the absolutely debunked Trump Russian Collusion scheme. He let Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI agent who pled guilty to lying to the FISA Court, get away with merely probation.

And he is not the only inferior district court judge who overstepped their authority by a longshot.

The judicial coup against President Donald Trump has been nothing short of remarkable. It’s also incredibly disturbing. Unelected crackpot district judges are far exceeding their authority, trying to dictate to the executive on matters of policy they have zero bearing on. - Matt Vespa, Townhall

Matt goes on to point out two standouts in particular, Judges William Fletcher and Lucy Koh, who all by their little selves, decided President Trump, head of the Executive Branch, is not permitted to fire federal employees. Who are these egomaniacs?

Fletcher is a Clinton appointee “who was woke before the left made it into a daily war cry.”

Besides his opining that capital punishment is essentially racist, he ruled in 2025 that those in ICE detention must be afforded minimum wage. It gets better: Judge Fletcher called Remain in Mexico “baseless” and “illegal” in 2019. He’s been heavily involved with this aspect of immigration—all of which has been a horror show. As for Judge Koh, she was very much a COVID lockdown judge, which became a point of contention during her confirmation hearing. Judge Koh rejected a proposal by some religious leaders to hold Bible studies in their homes, which the Supreme Court eventually overturned. So, we got a pro-invasion judge and another who feels the same way and is also a bit iffy on religious and free speech grounds.

Courtesy Associated Press

This Associated Press article goes on to name the judges, detail the lawsuits and the participants.

Fun fact: In his first 100 days, President Trump, through activist judges, has outrageously had 328 lawsuits filed against him and his administration. The FULCRUM article goes on to emphasize the enormous cost attached to the American taxpayer, considering “the average hourly rate for lawyers in the U.S. is $341 and a mere $462/hour for attorneys at law in Washington, D.C. (Clio Report, 2024).” The author asked his elected representatives for the cost to him and other taxpayers for this lawfare and has gotten no response to date.

From Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” on the powers of the President

By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority, and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political.

Supreme Court Justice Kagan on the danger of nationwide injunctions, (during the supposed Biden administration)

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Back in 2022, Justice Kagan made her thoughts very clear on nationwide injunctions:

During her remarks on Wednesday in a conversation with Northwestern Law Dean Hari Osofsky, Kagan took a notably hostile and forceful stand against a practice that hasn't generated much public debate but has roiled the legal community in recent years: individual U.S. District Court judges blocking federal government policies nationwide.

Executive branch officials from the Biden, Trump and Obama administrations have all complained about their major policy initiatives often being hamstrung by a single judge.

"This has no political tilt to it," Kagan said, taking aim not only at the sweeping injunctions but at the transparent "forum shopping" by litigants filing cases in courts they think will be friendliest to them.

"You look at something like that and you think, that can't be right," Kagan said. "In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."

Fun fact: A nationwide injunction, since it theoretically is supposed to apply to the whole nation is akin to issuing a law, and only the Legislative Branch can make laws! Further, there is no statutory basis in law for an injunction that affects parties not involved in the lawsuit! There is not even a single Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution that would permit a Federal District Judge to issue a nationwide injunction!

So why has Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts not spoken up to stop this nonsense but instead admonished President Trump for saying Judge Boasberg should be impeached? He wants to stay on the DC cocktail circuit, perhaps?

In addition, there is the possibility of competing rulings on injunctions from different judges that would really add to confusion and further misinterpretation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

Plaintiffs in these cases could legally file a class action suit. Why don't they?

Because they couldn't fulfill the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 23 regarding Class Actions. The first hurdle are four conditions to qualify for class treatment:

(a) Prerequisites:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

There are additional requirements after these.

A recent Supreme Court ruling limiting judges’ authority

The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, relates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirement for environmental impact statements (EIS) in infrastructure projects supported by the federal government.

The Supreme Court ruled "NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion of the court.

"Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness," the opinion continued.

Yet it is permissible to second guess the President, head of the Executive Branch, who has authority over all the agencies, ‘under the guise of judicial review’, to incessantly block his every action which the Constitution gives him absolute authority to perform?

Only Congress can repair or completely rebuild the Federal Courts

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appears to have no intention to rein in his underling federal judges even though there is no Constitutional basis or Supreme Court ruling to justify nationwide injunctions.

Congress created the federal courts and there is historic record of it abolishing federal courts. In 1913, Congress eliminated the Commerce Court. In 1982, Congress abolished the Article III Court of Claims and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and basically changed them into the Article I Court of Federal Claims and the Article III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If federal courts are outright abolished, there is the pesky problem of judges having a lifetime appointment “during good behavior”, with the misconception that judges can only be removed by impeachment. “The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but nowhere does it say they can only be removed through impeachment. And since their appointment depends on “good behavior”, nothing in the Constitution prohibits federal judges from being investigated and convicted of malfeasance, and consequently, being removed. And there is certainly plenty of “bad behavior” to go around, knowing that not punishing bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior! Congress also has “the power of the purse” and can cut back or defund courts completely when they go rogue. Congress knows it has the power.

Do they have the guts and fidelity to their oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic”?

In this free and happy country no man is so great as to be above the law. The laws are supreme; to them all persons, from the President of the United States to the poorest and the meanest beggar, must alike submit. This is our glory. Let every youthful American exult that he has no master but the law; let him mark the man who would change this happy state of things as the enemy of his country; and above all let him remember that as soon as he himself breaks the law, he becomes himself that enemy. Whoever violates the law helps to weaken its force, and, as far as he disobeys, does what in him lies to destroy it: but he who honors and obeys the law strengthens the law, and thereby helps to preserve the freedom and happiness of his country. In some governments it is held that "the king can do no wrong", here we know no king but the law, no monarch but the constitution: we hold that every man may do wrong; that the higher he is in office, the more reason there is that he be obliged to answer for his conduct; and that as a great officer, if treacherous, is a great criminal, so he ought to be made to suffer a great and exemplary punishment. - Aurthur J. Stansbury, “The Pocket Catechesism of the Constitution”, 1828

Even back in the day, only a small portion of the public had even basic knowledge about the Constitution. A book meant to educate young people at the time containing 333 questions and answers about how their government was formed and how it operated. I offer it and a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to paid subscribers.

.