For decades, conservatives have warned about the dangers of an activist judiciary overstepping its constitutional boundaries. With judges increasingly willing to substitute their own policy preferences for the law, the separation of powers that forms the backbone of our constitutional republic faces unprecedented strain.

Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on Fox News Sunday this weekend to address growing concerns about the Trump administration’s ability to implement its agenda in the face of judicial resistance.

When host Shannon Bream pressed Bondi about a potential “constitutional crisis” between the executive branch and the judiciary, Bondi flipped the script with a stunning revelation.

Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, his administration has been hit with an astonishing 170 lawsuits and 50 injunctions from courts across the country. This is an unprecedented legal onslaught against a sitting president trying to implement the agenda he was elected to pursue. Let’s be honest – this isn’t about “checks and balances.” It’s about obstruction, plain and simple.

From ‘Fox News Sunday’:

“Just since January 20th, we’ve had over 170 lawsuits filed against us. That should be the constitutional crisis right there, 50 injunctions,” Bondi told host Shannon Bream. “They’re popping up every single day, trying to control his executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax dollars should be allocated.”

This barrage of legal challenges isn’t simply the normal functioning of our judicial system. Indeed, it represents a coordinated effort to obstruct a duly elected president from fulfilling his promises to the American people.

The Whack-a-Mole Game Against Trump’s Agenda

The Attorney General didn’t mince words about the tactics being deployed against the administration.

“It’s basically a game of whack-a-mole with these District Court judges around the country who have a tremendous amount of power, they believe they do,” Bondi explained.

This judicial obstruction has impacted critical policy areas, from immigration enforcement to government spending. Just last week, federal judges blocked efforts to cut $11 billion in COVID-19, mental health, and substance abuse funding to states and even forced the return of an illegal immigrant who had been deported to El Salvador.

Perhaps most telling is the administration’s experience trying to implement its transgender military policy. As Bondi detailed, “In the district court, a district court in D.C. ruled against us on military readiness, meaning gender dysphoria, ruled against us. We appealed that to the circuit court and we won.”

That should have settled the matter. But it didn’t.

When One Court Says No, Activists Find Another

“The second we won, within minutes, Shannon, in California, they filed an identical lawsuit and we lost,” Bondi revealed. This pattern of “forum shopping” – seeking out judges known for liberal rulings – has become the left’s primary strategy for thwarting the president’s agenda.

Ask yourself: Why would the same case need to be filed in multiple courts if this wasn’t a coordinated attack?

A single district judge in California can effectively nullify a policy for the entire country, regardless of what other courts have ruled. This creates a troubling dynamic where unelected judges in coastal districts effectively hold veto power over policies supported by millions of Americans who voted for President Trump.

I can’t help but wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about a single unelected judge in California overturning policies supported by millions of voters across the heartland.

Defending Presidential Authority and the People’s Will

Despite these challenges, the administration has secured some important victories. The Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 to allow the president to temporarily suspend approximately $65 million in teacher training grants linked to controversial diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

These hard-fought wins demonstrate that when cases reach the highest court, the administration’s legal positions often prevail. However, the process of fighting through multiple lower court injunctions drains resources and delays the implementation of critical policies.

Throughout it all, Bondi has maintained that “The President is going to comply with the law.” The real question is whether activist judges will respect the constitutional limits of their own authority.

As Bondi emphasized, President Trump is “implementing that agenda at a rapid speed. None of us can keep up with him every single day.”

It’s clear the administration remains committed to fulfilling its promises despite unprecedented judicial resistance.

Key Takeaways:

• The true constitutional crisis is the unprecedented 170 lawsuits and 50 injunctions filed against Trump since January.
• Liberal activists are “forum shopping” by filing identical lawsuits in different jurisdictions until they find a sympathetic judge.
• A single district judge can effectively nullify national policies supported by millions of American voters.
• Despite judicial obstruction, the administration continues implementing its agenda with recent Supreme Court victories.

Sources: POLITICO, Daily Wire