The federal district courts, increasingly weaponized by activist judges, have become epicenters of lawfare—strategic lawsuits designed to obstruct the policy agenda of President Donald Trump’s second term. These courts issue sweeping rulings, often based on flimsy legal grounds, that delay or derail executive actions on immigration, deregulation, and election integrity.
Congress, endowed with clear constitutional authority, must act to narrow the jurisdiction of these courts to curb their abuse. By leveraging Article III, historical precedent, and case law, Congress can rein in judicial overreach, as exemplified by recent rulings like those involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Venezuelan deportations. Such reforms would protect the Trump administration’s mandate from ideologically driven litigation orchestrated by activist law firms and organizations.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish and regulate “inferior Courts,” giving it broad discretion over their jurisdiction. Section 2, Clause 2 allows Congress to make “Exceptions” and “Regulations” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, a principle extending to lower courts. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Ex parte McCardle (1868), upholding Congress’s ability to strip jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals, stating that “the power to make exceptions…is given by express words.” This precedent confirms Congress’s authority to limit district court jurisdiction without breaching Separation of Powers.
Historically, Congress has tailored judicial scope. The Judiciary Act of 1789 confined district courts to admiralty and minor criminal matters, a far cry from today’s activist courts issuing nationwide injunctions. In 1875, Congress expanded federal question jurisdiction (28 USC § 1331), but it can just as easily contract it. By invoking Article III, Congress can restrict district courts from hearing cases that exploit vague statutory or constitutional claims to target Trump’s agenda, restoring judicial restraint.
Lawfare has surged, with plaintiffs forum-shopping for sympathetic judges to block Trump’s policies. These cases often hinge on expansive readings of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or dubious constitutional claims. For instance, in Texas v. United States (2015), a single district judge halted Obama’s DAPA program, setting a precedent for nationwide injunctions now weaponized against Trump. While occasionally justified, these injunctions are abused by activist judges, often appointed for ideological alignment, transforming courts into political battlegrounds.
Two recent cases illustrate this scourge. In Abrego Garcia v. United States (2025), US District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant initially reported as erroneously deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison despite a 2019 withholding-of-removal order. The Supreme Court upheld Xinis’s order unanimously, requiring the administration to act, though it sought clarification on “effectuating” the return due to foreign policy concerns.
Garcia’s legal team, led by Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center, alongside advocacy from CASA, framed the deportation as a due process violation even though Abrego Garcia received due process in an immigration court in the denial of his asylum application. Sandoval-Moshenberg leveraged Xinis’s court to challenge Trump’s immigration crackdown. This ruling, while mistakenly correcting an initially admitted error, exemplifies how district courts can issue intrusive orders that complicate executive action, fueled by activist law.
Similarly, in a Texas federal court, Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a temporary injunction in April 2025 halting the deportation of three Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abrego Garcia and due process concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigrant Justice Center, with attorneys like Lee Gelernt, spearheaded this challenge, arguing the administration’s “invasion” narrative at the border lacked legal grounding. This case underscores how district courts, prompted by well-funded advocacy groups, issue broad injunctions to thwart Trump’s deportation policies, often on speculative grounds.
But Congress can enact targeted reforms to neutralize lawfare.
First, it should amend 28 USC § 1331 to limit federal question jurisdiction, excluding cases challenging executive actions unless plaintiffs show direct, concrete injury. The Supreme Court’s standing doctrine in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) supports this, requiring “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized.” Codifying stricter standing rules would block groups like the ACLU or CASA from filing suits based on ideological opposition, as seen in the Venezuelan deportation case.
Second, Congress should ban district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, limiting equitable relief to the parties before them. The Supreme Court criticized this practice in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), noting that such injunctions “undermine the structural design of the federal judiciary.” Legislation could reserve broader relief for circuit courts or the Supreme Court, reducing the disruptive impact of rulings like Xinis’s in Abrego Garcia.
Third, Congress can strip jurisdiction over APA-based challenges to executive actions within the President’s constitutional authority, such as immigration enforcement. The APA’s judicial review provisions (5 USC §§ 701-706) are statutory, not constitutional, and thus amendable. Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) clarified that presidential actions are not inherently subject to APA review, providing a basis to exempt Trump’s policies from judicial meddling, as exploited in both Abrego Garcia and the Venezuelan cases.
Congress has a track record of curbing judicial overreach.
During Reconstruction, it stripped jurisdiction to protect civil rights enforcement, as seen in Ex parte Yerger (1868). The Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283) limited federal court interference in state criminal proceedings, prioritizing federalism. The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 restricted judicial review of deportation orders, upheld in INS v. St. Cyr (2001).
These precedents support Congress’s ability to limit district court jurisdiction to shield Trump’s agenda from lawfare by groups like the Legal Aid Justice Center or the ACLU.
Opponents may claim that restricting jurisdiction undermines access to justice or judicial independence. However, Article III subordinates lower courts to congressional oversight, and redirecting cases to higher courts or state systems preserves remedies without enabling activism.
Judicial independence demands fidelity to law, not ideological crusades. The Framers envisioned courts as neutral arbiters, not veto points for elected officials. Reforms would correct the overreach seen in cases like Abrego Garcia, where Xinis’s orders, backed by Sandoval-Moshenberg’s advocacy, intruded on executive prerogative.
Federal district courts, emboldened by activist judges and fueled by law firms like the Legal Aid Justice Center and organizations like the ACLU and CASA, have become instruments of lawfare, as evidenced by rulings in Abrego Garcia and the Venezuelan deportation case. These courts exploit vague statutes and unchecked equitable powers to obstruct Trump’s mandate.
Congress, wielding Article III authority and—supported by precedents like Ex parte McCardle and Lujan—can curb this abuse by tightening standing, banning nationwide injunctions, and limiting APA challenges. Such reforms would neutralize the judiciary’s role as a political weapon, ensuring that the will of the electorate, not unelected judges or activist lawyers like Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg or Lee Gelernt, prevails.
The time for congressional action is now to safeguard democratic governance from judicial tyranny. Inaction would be a prime example of how Republican majorities in the House and Senate mean absolutely nothing.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Selling Out Freedom To China For Cheap Crap
As a consumer nation, we must recognize the grave associated risks of buying China's third-rate, low-quality products, cheap in every sense. We’re sleepwalking into a nightmare.
Communist China’s totalitarian ambitions are a clear and present danger, aiming to reshape the world under its iron fist. The Chinese Communist Party isn’t just a rival; it’s a regime hell-bent on global dominance, crushing freedom with surveillance, censorship, and oppression. And we’re fueling our own demise every time we buy their cheap goods. Our addiction to low-cost Chinese products—phones, clothes, electronics—is bankrolling a system that seeks to bury us.
The CCP’s playbook is ruthless: flood markets with subsidized goods, hook us on their supply chains, and use the profits to expand their dystopian vision. Our outrageous trade deficit with China is a testament to our reckless dependence. Every purchase empowers a regime that runs a social credit system, jails dissenters, and commits atrocities like the Uyghur genocide. And remember, their control over 80% of rare earth minerals and critical industries like pharmaceuticals gives them leverage to choke us in a crisis. This isn’t just economics—it’s a strategic trap.
By chasing short-term savings and cheap prices—and can anyone deny that their products are junk that always fall apart or cease working in short order—we’re funding China’s Belt & Road, which has 140 countries in its debt grip, spreading authoritarianism worldwide. The CCP’s influence is eroding global democracy, 18 straight years on decline, fueled by Beijing’s support for tyrants. Our dollars strengthen their hand in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and beyond, making the fight for freedom bloodier.
We can’t keep subsidizing our own destruction. We, the American consumer, must break this addiction, even if it means higher costs.
We need tariffs. We need to reshore manufacturing and bolster alliances with free nations. The WTO must boot China from the organization for its trade scams and human rights horrors. This is a wake-up call: every Chinese product we buy tightens the CCP’s grip. We must act now, or we’ll wake up in a world where freedom is a memory, and China’s totalitarian shadow rules the world.
Share this post