Federal District Judges Running The Executive Branch: Even Justice Jackson Draws A Line

November 08, 2025  Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

The first nine months of the President Trump’s second term have seen repeated instances of a Federal District Court judge temporarily enjoining some action of the administration, only to have the Supreme Court stay the injunction while the litigation proceeds. Examples of this pattern of events have occurred in cases involving such things as funding rescissions, staff lay-offs, and deportation procedures.

A recurring feature of this pattern has been dissents from the three liberal Supreme Court justices — Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson — who would have left the temporary injunctions in place during the pendency of the litigation. Justice Jackson, in addition to joining the other two liberal justices, has also issued several individual dissents strongly criticizing her conservative colleagues for vacating temporary injunctions from District Courts.

The question of whether the administration gets enjoined while litigation proceeds, versus an injunction getting issued only at the conclusion of full litigation, is very consequential. Full litigation of any one of these cases through a District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court, could take four years or more — in other words, the entire presidential term. If a temporary injunction gets put in place by a District Court judge when the case starts, and then litigation proceeds for four years with that injunction in place, that would mean that the Trump administration never gets to implement its policy at all during its term in office — even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that Trump had the authority to implement the policy all along. With enough of these temporary injunctions, the entire Trump administration could be tied up in knots, and prevented from doing much or even most what it was elected to do.

The past week has seen two more instances of the pattern play out. But notably, in one of the cases that reached the Supreme Court on Friday November 7, the District Court injunction proved too much even for Justice Jackson. In that case Justice Jackson herself issued an administrative stay of the District Court’s temporary injunction.

The first of these two cases to reach the Supreme Court this week was Trump v. Orr. This case involves a Trump first-day (January 20, 2025) Executive Order that directed that the federal government would only “recognize two sexes, male and female,” and further directed the State Department to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.” Seven “transgender” individuals challenged the Executive Order, and their case came before District Judge Julia Kobick in the District of Massachusetts. On June 17, Judge Kobick issued a temporary injunction, barring the federal government from implementing the new policy. The Justice Department then went to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to stay Judge Kobick’s ruling. On September 19, the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on November 6. There is a four paragraph unsigned opinion on behalf of the six conservative justices, followed by a 12 page dissent from Justice Jackson, in which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined.

The remarkable thing about this case is that there was no statute from Congress that the plaintiffs said the administration was violating. The policy to allow passports matching “gender identity” rather than biological sex was nothing more than a policy of the State Department, which had changed a previous policy of the State Department that had been consistent with the Trump administration position. The majority opinion dispatches with the plaintiffs’ argument in a few sentences, notably this one:

Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.

Justice Jackson meanwhile works herself up into some high dudgeon:

[S]enseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.

Justice Jackson’s dissent never discusses the issue that the practical effect of the result she asks for would be to have a lone District Judge in Massachusetts running the State Department passport-issuance process for the four years of the Trump presidency.

But then the very next day, November 7, a case came to Justice Jackson that crossed even her line for what a District Judge ought to be able to do. The case is Rollins v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches, and involves the question of whether the federal government must “fully fund” the SNAP (food stamp) program during the current government shut-down, despite lack of congressional appropriations for the program.

The Rhode Island Council of Churches brought their case in the District of Rhode Island, and got themselves before the Chief Judge of that court, noted partisan John McConnell. For those unfamiliar with Judge McConnell, before President Obama appointed him to the bench he was a partner of the Motley Rice law firm, one of the lead counsel in the massive tobacco litigation that ended in a $240 billion settlement in 1998. McConnell’s total personal compensation from that litigation has not been disclosed, but Legal Newsline reports that in connection with his Senate confirmation he revealed that he would get continuing payouts of between $2.5 and $3.1 million per year from 2011 to 2024 (after he was on the bench!) and that his total payout from the settlement was “perhaps as much as” $78 million. McConnell has also tussled with the Trump administration in previous litigations.

The Council of Churches brought its case in late October, as the government shut-down continued and it looked like the food stamp program would run out of money in early November; and as the days wore on, it looked like the money would run out on November 7. According to the government’s emergency motion to the Supreme Court:

[A]fter 5 p.m. last night [November 6], [Judge McConnell] ordered the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to cover the SNAP shortfall by transferring billions of dollars that were appropriated for different, critical food-security programs—such as the National School Lunch Program—within a single business day (i.e., by tonight).

The Justice Department managed to get itself to the First Circuit (where no stay was immediately issued) and then to the Supreme Court by 9 PM on November 7. Here is another brief excerpt from the Justice Department’s application to the Supreme Court:

The district court’s ruling is untenable at every turn. The court demanded that USDA find some, any, way to fund SNAP, treating the program essentially as a mandatory entitlement. But the SNAP statute is explicit that SNAP benefits are subject to available appropriations, and it states plainly that SNAP payments shall not exceed the funds appropriated for the program. . . . As USDA explained, pulling billions of dollars from the Child Nutrition Programs would jeopardize those programs’ ability to fully operate this year—putting at risk critical food-assistance initiatives relied upon by millions of children every day, and raiding a program that Congress did fund to instead extend one that Congress has not funded.

Apparently this one was too much even for Justice Jackson. According to SCOTUS Blog, at 9:17 PM yesterday, Justice Jackson issued an administrative stay, staying Judge McConnell’s order until the First Circuit has time to consider whether it will issue a stay pending appeal. (And if it doesn’t, then presumably the government will immediately be back at the Supreme Court again.)

There still is that pesky “appropriations clause” of the Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” We’ll see if that rather clear language can stand up to the emotional arguments being made.

In the United States, we are the country where our iconic national holiday, now approaching, celebrates how brave pioneers were able to come to an uncharted wilderness and figure out how to feed themselves. And yet somehow now we have some 42 million people, about one person in eight, dependent on government handouts and supposedly at risk of starvation if the handouts don’t arrive on time. Really, it is shameful.

The Judiciary is Out of Control: SCOTUS

By Rich Kozlovich

I have a massive number of drafts in my files, and I try to organize them topically by way of gazettes, and that included the judiciary, which is out of control.  On April 13th I published My Judiciary Gazette, organized by - resistance to Trump, judicial corruption and lawfare, immigration, judicial overreach, DOGE, hiring and firing, control of funding, purging the deep state bureaucracies including the military, tariffs, and I keep adding updates.  This is like a daytime nightmare that lingers and grows.  So, I've decided to separate all of this, starting with SCOTUS.

You will find there are only two real justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.  Three are outright leftist political hacks and four are seriously confused legal hacks, including Chief Justice Roberts.

1. Update, 4/26/24:  Caught! Supreme Court fails to rein in radical judges, damages its own credibility, report charges
2. Update, 4/23/25  This Supreme Court Justice is 'either the dumbest or most evil member,' analysis warns
3. Update, 4/20/25: Supreme Court Pauses Trump Admin’s Deportations of Venezuelan Migrants
4. Update, 4/20/25: SCOTUS Could Sell Our Nation Out This Summer
5. Update, 4/19/25: Supreme Court Blocks Deportation of Alleged Venezuelan Gang Members for Now
6. Update, 4/19/25: Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denies appeal from Mexican family seeking asylum from cartel violence 
7. Update, 4/19/25: Some Familiar Supreme Court Justices Joined Libs in Blocking Further Deportation Flights
8. Soaring Eagle: Trump Gets 3rd Straight SCOTUS Win!
9. Supreme Court Rules Trump Admin Must Facilitate Release of Deported Man from El Salvador Prison
10. Major victory from SCOTUS in Trump deportation case
11. SCOTUS: You’re Fired 
12. BREAKING: Supreme Court Orders US to Facilitate Return of Alleged El Salvadoran
13. SCOTUS Order Requiring Deported Man to Be Returned to U.S. Has Interesting Details on Authority of Courts 
14. Sotomayor Sounds Call for Judicial Independence
15. Democrat-Appointed Federal Judges Are the Big Losers at Supreme Court This Week
16. Supreme Court Blocks Reinstatement of Fired Federal Workers for Now 
17. The Supreme Court affirms Justice Boasberg lacked jurisdiction over Trump’s deportation decision under the Alien Enemies Act
18. SCOTUS Blocks Lower Court Order for the Trump Admin to Rehire Thousands of Fired Federal Workers 
19. John Roberts is the Judas of the Judiciary
20.  Chief Justice Roberts Should've Kept His Mouth Shut  
21. Justice John Roberts Rebukes Trump for Suggesting Impeachment of Judge in Deportations Case 
22. Captain Ahab, meet Chief Justice Roberts
23. The Agony of John Roberts
24.  The Supreme Court Must Recognize That The Executive’s Great Powers Also Mean Smaller Powers 
25. Amy Coney Barrett's 'Trojan Horse'
26. A victory for the presidency 
27. AOC to File Articles of Impeachment Against SCOTUS
28. Trump Asks Judge Merchan to Toss Guilty Verdict After SCOTUS Immunity Ruling
29. Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking 
30. The Supreme Court’s decision about presidential immunity is good and good for Trump
31. Bill Barr Rips Through Justice Sotomayor's Hysteria Over the SCOTUS Presidential Immunity Ruling
32. Justice Jackson Is Panicking About the End of the Administrative State
33. Jack Smith's Case Against Trump 'Gutted' After SCOTUS Rules on Immunity 
34. SCOTUS Rules on Trump's Immunity From Prosecution
35. How the Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity Could Impact Trump Case
36. Legal Bureaucrats Infect the Supreme Court 
37. Chuck Schumer’s absurd attack on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision 
38. Leftwing pundits are very confused about the SCOTUS’s immunity ruling; I suggest they read the Constitution
39. Yes, the Supreme Court got it right

Is it any wonder the public's trust in the Judiciary is plummeting? 

 

 

The American Judiciary is facing a crisis of confidence as public outrage swells over federal judges’ repeated interventions in President Donald Trump’s agenda.  In just the past few days, rulings blocking foreign aid freezes, personnel shakeups, and terrorist deportations have sparked a firestorm, with social media erupting in accusations of bias, corruption, and judicial overreach.  At the center of the storm: Chief Justice John Roberts, whose rare public statement today defending the courts has only deepened the divide.............

If Congress doesn't step and and put this to a stop, we're fast reaching the Jacksonian solution, they make their judgement, now let them enforce it.