Headline Roundup • March 21st, 2025
Courts vs Trump: Does The Judiciary Need More Political Authority or Less?
Summary from the AllSides News Team
As President Donald Trump faces numerous court challenges over deportations, Department of Government Efficiency actions, and executive orders, the powers of the executive and judicial branches have clashed. What role should the judiciary play?
The Case for Less Political Authority: The Federalist's (Right bias) John Daniel Davidson argued the executive branch should win the clash. “Federal judges think they can overrule the president and ignore the will of the American electorate whenever they want on whatever matters they choose.” He added, “What all this amounts to is an attempted takeover of the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch — a judicial coup d’état.” An UnHerd (Center) writer issued a similar caution, “The judiciary, to some activist judges, is like a third branch of the legislature, jumping in to impose their own political — rather than legal — opinions on the elected branches.”
The Case for Increased Political Authority: A guest writer for the New York Times Opinion (Left) argued that the solution lies in increased checks and balances from the legislative branch. “The central problem isn’t that the courts have upheld legally dubious actions, or even that the White House is openly defying adverse rulings. Rather, it seems that chaos and disruption are themselves key to President Trump’s objective.” By the time litigation is over, the damage will be done, he stated. “To be fully effective, many of our legal rights depend upon not just judicial remedies, but also political ones. That entails both new legislation and far more aggressive oversight from members of Congress welcome to changing the partisan political environment, and reasserting checks and balances against the other branches of government.”
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission.
Featured Coverage of this Story
The Trump administration is framing a legal fight over flights deporting alleged gang members as a constitutional showdown pitting the vast power of the executive branch against a judiciary determined to thwart it.
The clash with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., which could be headed to the Supreme Court, has emerged as an early top test case for the president’s sweeping assertions of executive authority.
The second Trump administration appears to have learned some lessons from the first. For instance, even when courts eventually strike down the administration’s policies, there are tactics that can keep those policies in effect long enough to do quite a bit of damage.
The courts can do only so much when the goal of imposing a policy isn’t to win as much as it is to break things and, as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in “The Great Gatsby,” to “let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
APK/Wikimedia Commons CC By-SA 4.0
At this point it’s not too much to say that the federal judiciary has plunged us into a constitutional crisis. The fusillade of injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by district court judges in recent weeks against the Trump administration — on everything from foreign aid to immigration enforcement to Defense Department enlistment policy to climate change grants for Citibank — boggles the mind.
More nationwide injunctions and restraining orders have been issued against Trump in the past month that were issued against the Biden administration in four years. On Wednesday...
AllSides Picks
Headline Roundup
British Teen's Death Sparks Protests, Split Media Narratives on Race and Policing
June 4th, 2026
.webp)
Headline Roundup
Trump Names Bill Pulte Acting Intel Director, Media & GOP React in Mixed Fashion
June 3rd, 2026
