In what has to be the most ridiculous op-ed the New York Times has run in a decade, the outlet’s editorial board perfectly channels Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown to celebrate judicial activism untethered from the law or facts.

The Constitution sets the framework for government, with Congress having the sole power to legislate (Art. I § 1), the President having the sole power to enforce the law (Art. II § 1), and Courts having the sole power to decide legal disputes among parties with standing (Art. III § 1). Courts are bound to respect these limits.

As the prescient Judge Robert Yates, a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, observed, the greatest danger to our nation would arise from courts engaged in judicial activism, substituting their desired policies for those of our elected officials, and assuming the power to legislate from the bench.

Image made using ChatGPT.

Yet Democrats, to stop the Trump administration from governing and Congress from effectively legislating, are engaging in lawfare on a scale never seen before. They are soliciting judicial activism in what, according to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, amounts to a judicial coup.

Here, House Speaker Mike Johnson details the partisan abuse:

Speaker Johnson: "67% of all nationwide injunctions in 100 years were against Trump — and 92% of those came from Democrat-appointed judges. The system's being abused to block his agenda." pic.twitter.com/bOp33MrIIG

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 14, 2025

Democrats are fighting every single act the Trump administration has taken to change course from the Democrat-controlled status quo. They do so by appearing before carefully selected judicial activists, most of whom are leftists but a few of whom are anti-MAGA RINOs.

Here are just a few examples of the judges the NYT editorial board chose to highlight:

The Supreme Court has already overturned many of these rulings, while others are in the process of appeal. Nonetheless, the NYT has mined each of these, and other radical cases, for the most outrageous single-sentence quotes that they could find, then put together in a pastiche that suggests it is the Trump Administration that is lawless.

This is just some of what the editorial offers:

DOGE and the firing of federal workers

Judges temporarily reinstated government watchdogs and thousands of federal workers who had been fired. This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could resume its mass layoffs.

Amy Berman Jackson, District of Columbia District

Appointed by Barack Obama

On the firing of the head of a watchdog agency:

“In sum, it would be antithetical to the very existence of this particular government agency and ... a constitutional license to bully officials in the executive branch into doing his will.”

Jeannette A. Vargas, Southern District of New York

Appointed by Joe Biden

On the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Treasury Department systems:

“This explanation is riddled with inconsistencies.”

Denise L. Cote, Southern District of New York

Appointed by Bill Clinton

On concerns that unauthorized DOGE employees could see personal data:

“The defendants’ Kafkaesque argument to the contrary would deprive the plaintiffs of any recourse under the law.”

Tanya S. Chutkan, District of Columbia District

Appointed by Barack Obama

On DOGE’s attempts to hire and fire federal workers:

“Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court.”

Reggie B. Walton, District of Columbia District

Appointed by George W. Bush

On the firing of two Democrats on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board:

“To hold otherwise would be to bless the president’s obvious attempt to exercise power beyond that granted to him by the Constitution and shield the executive branch’s counterterrorism actions from independent oversight, public scrutiny and bipartisan congressional insight regarding those actions.”

There is much more at the link. The only virtue of this appeal to 48 judges is to highlight how virulently the left and RINOs hate the American people and their chosen president. Otherwise, the editorial is one giant “s**t post.” It adds nothing to public understanding of the legal arguments; it only serves to grossly distort the legitimacy of the legal arguments that the Trump administration is making to support its policies.

The editorial reads like a dissent from Ketanji Jackson Brown, untethered from the law and, often, facts. It is a distillation of pure emoting because, somehow, she and the NYT think that is important.

DEI Hire Ketanji Brown Jackson: I Write Supreme Court Opinions To ‘Tell People How I Feel’https://t.co/PXV1OtAWWY

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) July 9, 2025