JTFMax:
WASHINGTON – The United States judiciary, long a bastion of robes and restraint, is now the unexpected main character in America’s political dramedy – and it’s giving the nation’s most headline-hungry president a serious case of legal heartburn.
The latest act? A federal judge iced the administration’s tariff blitz — a sweeping attempt to hit practically every foreign good with a 50 percent surcharge, especially from Europe. For a moment, the global economy exhaled. Then, faster than you could say “appeals court,” the decision was reversed, and the tariffs were back in play — but only until June 9. If this feels like international finance is being decided via ping-pong match, you’re not wrong.
And there’s a lot at stake — nearly $68 billion in tariff revenue this year alone, enough to make even the most stoic trade official sweat through their Brooks Brothers.
But tariffs are just one front in what’s becoming a legal siege on Trump 2.0. Judges have become the de facto editors of the president’s second-term script, redlining entire sections. Visa bans? Paused. Birthright citizenship repeal? Argued at the Supreme Court. Harvard’s 6,800 foreign students held in limbo over campus protests? Temporarily spared by a federal injunction that sent deans and dorms alike scrambling for answers.
Harvard University President Alan Garber greets students on the day of Harvard University's 374th commencement in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as 6,800 international students look on.
Even the proposed dismantling of the Department of Education and the legendary Musk-led public servant purge — billed as an “efficiency drive” and executed with Tesla-speed — has hit a wall of restraining orders and reversed terminations. Sanctuary cities, meanwhile, remain defiantly unsanctimonious, their funding still intact.
The backlash from Trumpworld has been predictably volcanic. From rally stages to Truth Social, the refrain is clear: the judiciary is “out of control” and acting as an unelected opposition party. But the data has a funny way of echoing the rhetoric — 67 percent of all federal injunctions against presidential actions in the past century have occurred during his time in office. Statistically speaking, the courts seem to be the one branch getting cardio from the Constitution.
Jonathan Cristol, a political scientist turned reluctant court drama analyst, summed it up with dry precision: “So far, the administration has recorded more legal defeats than successes. And unfortunately, we’ve already seen instances where court orders are simply ignored — particularly in immigration cases.”
Despite the courtroom setbacks, the administration’s strategy appears to be one of patience and attrition. With a Supreme Court tilted six-to-three in its favor, the ultimate plan is to run the legal gauntlet and let the final ruling be cast under the marble dome of judicial destiny.
It may not stop the agenda. But it’s certainly turning every policy into a high-stakes episode of Law & Order: Executive Intent.
\ 
Comments