Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Federal Judges Are Begging Us to Pay Attention (Adam Bonica, Substack. Recommended by Joyce Vance)
https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/federal-judges-are-begging-us-to-snip-
Federal judges choose their words carefully. So when judges across the country begin using unequivocal language to describe executive actions, we're witnessing a departure from judicial norms. Judge Ana Reyes examined the military's ban on transgender service members and found it "soaked in animus and dripping with pretext," with language that was "unabashedly demeaning." When the administration terminated a collective bargaining agreement with TSA workers, Judge Marsha Pechman identified retaliation: "the Noem Determination constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers."
-snip-
Beyond these direct condemnations, federal judges documented something equally troubling: a systematic breakdown in the basic candor that the legal system requires to function. Judge Amy Berman Jackson's rebuke was devastating: "Saying something does not make it so. Nor does saying it 'repeatedly.'" This wasn't about a particular legal argument—it was about a litigation strategy built on repetition rather than evidence. In a separate case, Judge Jackson found the government's conduct was "so disingenuous that the Court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything."
Judges began questioning not just the trustworthiness of government lawyers, but their fundamental understanding of the law itself. Judge Leo T. Sorokin documented a stunning exchange: "At the motion hearing, the defendants doubled down on this point, brazenly claiming that 'dicta can be disregarded.' That position reflects a serious misunderstanding at best—and a conscious flouting at worst—of the judicial process and the rule of law." The government was arguing that it could simply ignore parts of judicial rulings it didn't like.
The separation of powers is Constitutional Law 101. Yet federal judges found themselves repeatedly explaining this fundamental principle to an executive branch that appeared determined to ignore it. Judge John J. McConnell Jr. confronted this directly when the administration froze congressionally appropriated funds: "The Executive's categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government." He spelled out the violation: "Here, the Executive put itself above Congress."
-snip-
Federal judges choose their words carefully. So when judges across the country begin using unequivocal language to describe executive actions, we're witnessing a departure from judicial norms. Judge Ana Reyes examined the military's ban on transgender service members and found it "soaked in animus and dripping with pretext," with language that was "unabashedly demeaning." When the administration terminated a collective bargaining agreement with TSA workers, Judge Marsha Pechman identified retaliation: "the Noem Determination constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers."
-snip-
Beyond these direct condemnations, federal judges documented something equally troubling: a systematic breakdown in the basic candor that the legal system requires to function. Judge Amy Berman Jackson's rebuke was devastating: "Saying something does not make it so. Nor does saying it 'repeatedly.'" This wasn't about a particular legal argument—it was about a litigation strategy built on repetition rather than evidence. In a separate case, Judge Jackson found the government's conduct was "so disingenuous that the Court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything."
Judges began questioning not just the trustworthiness of government lawyers, but their fundamental understanding of the law itself. Judge Leo T. Sorokin documented a stunning exchange: "At the motion hearing, the defendants doubled down on this point, brazenly claiming that 'dicta can be disregarded.' That position reflects a serious misunderstanding at best—and a conscious flouting at worst—of the judicial process and the rule of law." The government was arguing that it could simply ignore parts of judicial rulings it didn't like.
The separation of powers is Constitutional Law 101. Yet federal judges found themselves repeatedly explaining this fundamental principle to an executive branch that appeared determined to ignore it. Judge John J. McConnell Jr. confronted this directly when the administration froze congressionally appropriated funds: "The Executive's categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government." He spelled out the violation: "Here, the Executive put itself above Congress."
-snip-
Much more at the link.
Judge in the lower federal courts are trying to play a role that are not used to, trying to wake up the public to what's going on, while remaining true to their constitutional role.
— Joyce White Vance (@joycewhitevance.bsky.social) 2025-06-08T17:12:43.251Z
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
..of the law itself." 
And that is giving the government lawyers more consideration than deserved. They full well, understand the law; just intent on pushing the limits to please Trump. 