https://bsky.app/profile/annsharon.bsky.social/post/3liderfg7ak25
A previous blog (November 12, 2024), titled “Resilience,” was posted a few days after President Trump won the November election. It emphasized the constitutional resilience of the American government system. That blog focused on the term limits of the executive and the legislative branches. It left out the judiciary. The role of this branch, during the first two months of the Trump administration, is now rising to be a focus. An important aspect of the role that the judiciary plays in the resiliency of the US government includes the election and tenure of judges. A short summary is included in the publication of the Center for Effective Government
(20240306_Centre_of_Effective_Government_Primer_SummaryPDF_ElectedVsAppointed.pdf), the beginning of which is cited below:
In the United States, the federal judiciary is composed of judges who were nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve life terms. In contrast, judges in state courts come to occupy their positions through a vast array of different procedures, and once in office, generally require additional procedures to stay there. The debate over whether judges should be elected or appointed hinges on a conflict between two competing ideals of judicial independence and accountability. Judicial independence is the belief that judges should be insulated from undue or improper influence by other political institutions, interests, and/or the general public. Independence is closely related to the idea of the rule of law: legal structures should be applied in a consistent and unbiased manner irrespective of the identity of litigants or judges. Pulling against judicial independence is the demand for accountability, the belief that public officials should answer to someone for their decisions in office.
I strongly recommend that readers read through the full publication.
The code of conduct required by the judiciary is summarized by the American Bar Association as the Model Code of judicial conduct:
ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct
(2020 Edition). The Model Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 7, 1990 and amended on August 6, 1997, August 10, 1999, August 12, 2003, February 12, 2007, and August 10, 2010. (Purchase hard copy)CANON 1
A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.CANON 2
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.CANON 3
A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.CANON 4
A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
With the Trump administration winning majorities in the November election of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency (a trifecta) and gaining the majority vote, the judiciary became the critical battlefield.
The legal war is described by the two NYT articles, key paragraphs of which are cited below:
A Quick Guide to the Lawsuits Against the Trump Orders
The legal war over President Trump’s blizzard of executive actions is intensifying, with new lawsuits and fresh rulings emerging now day and night.
Judges are already making their mark: As of Saturday, eight rulings have at least temporarily paused the president’s initiatives. Other cases have not been decided. No matter the initial rulings by judges, many decisions are likely to be appealed, and some might reach the Supreme Court in the months to come.
The dozens of lawsuits fall into four main categories.
Here’s what you need to know:
Why Federal Courts May Be the Last Bulwark Against Trump
More than 40 lawsuits filed in recent days by state attorneys general, unions and nonprofits seek to erect a bulwark in the federal courts against President Trump’s blitzkrieg of executive actions that have upended much of the federal government and challenged the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.
Unlike the opening of Mr. Trump’s first term in 2017, little significant resistance to his second term has arisen in the streets, the halls of Congress or within his own Republican Party. For now at least, lawyers say, the judicial branch may be it.
“The courts really are the front line,” said Skye Perryman, the chief executive of Democracy Forward, which has filed nine lawsuits and won four court orders against the Trump administration.
In addition, what appear to be solid constitutional standings such as birthright citizenship, are now being challenged:
Feb 6 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday accused Donald Trump of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain as he declared an executive order that the Republican president signed seeking to curtail birthright citizenship to be unconstitutional.
There was applause in the courtroom after U.S. District Judge John Coughenour extended an order he had issued two weeks ago temporarily blocking Trump’s order from being implemented into a nationwide injunction lasting indefinitely.
The battle became not only issue-oriented but personal:
United States President Donald Trump has doubled down on his criticism of a federal judge, calling him “radical left” for blocking the deportation of Venezuelan migrants, as his administration ramps up rhetoric against the courts.
Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of putting the US at risk. “We don’t want vicious, violent, and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers, in our country,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has criticised calls to impeach Judge Boasberg, but that has not stopped Trump from attacking the judge. The US president lashed out at Roberts as well, suggesting the Supreme Court itself was compromised by political bias.
The personal vendettas targeted not only specific judges who have ruled on present issues but also extended to revenge against judges who ruled against him between his two presidential terms:
As Donald Trump aggressively seeks revenge against multiple foes in the US, he’s waging a vendetta using executive orders and social media against judges, law firms, prosecutors, the press and other vital American institutions to stifle dissent and exact retribution.
Legal scholars say the president’s menacing attacks, some of which Trump’s biggest campaign backer, the billionaire Elon Musk, has echoed, are aimed at silencing critics of his radical agenda and undercut the rule of law in authoritarian ways that expand his own powers.
“Trump’s moves are from the authoritarian playbook,” said the Harvard law school lecturer and retired Massachusetts judge Nancy Gertner. “You need to delegitimize institutions that could be critics. Trump is seeking to use the power of the presidency to delegitimize institutions including universities, law firms, judges and others. It’s the opposite of American democracy.”
The fear of hostile presidential power has encouraged many to capitulate without a fight:
Feb 21 (Reuters) – The American Bar Association will temporarily suspend enforcement of its diversity and inclusion standard for law schools.
The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted on Friday to halt enforcement of its current standard until August 31 while it reviews a pending proposed revision to the rule.
All of these battles came on top of the expanding role of the judiciary in deciding the blame for climate change-related natural disasters (see blogs June 13, 2023 and July 23, 2024 on needed prerequisites). See Figure 2 for the expanding climate change litigations.
Figure 2 – Global climate litigations (Source: Nature)
In August of last year, prior to Trump’s second term, the International Court of Justice got involved:
This is where the entry of the world’s highest court could be a game changer. In the next few months, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial organ in The Hague, the Netherlands, will begin hearing evidence on two broad questions: first, what are countries’ obligations in international law to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, and second, what should the legal consequences be for states when their actions — or failure to act — cause harm?
By the time this blog is posted, I will be giving a talk to law school students, trying to map my experiences to their prospective experiences after graduation. To have them leave class with a smile, I don’t intend to mention that according to Bill Gates their whole profession (and most others) will disappear shortly after their graduation.
They might find some remedy for this issue (or a postponement) by moving to Europe.
Stay tuned.