Article III of the United States Constitution makes one remedy for judicial tyranny as plain as language can make it.
“The judicial Power of the United States,” Section I of Article III begins, “shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
With that plain language undoubtedly in mind, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida took to the social media platform X Wednesday morning to offer a historically plausible solution to the problem of inferior federal judges who have insisted upon “sabotaging” President Donald Trump’s popular agenda.
“Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place,” DeSantis wrote.
Moreover, the governor noted that congressional Republicans dropped the ball on this issue.
“The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress?” DeSantis added.
Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place.
The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by “resistance” judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress? https://t.co/OscAkpXgeo
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) March 19, 2025
Then, in a follow-up tweet, the governor offered practical advice about how to sidestep Senate Democrats.
“Attach it to a ‘must pass’ bill…,” DeSantis wrote.
Attach it to a “must pass” bill…
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) March 19, 2025
Of course, that part of the equation makes DeSantis’ remedy far less plausible.
After all, as they showed during last week’s debate over a government shutdown, Democrats do not recognize “must-pass” bills. And this time, not even Democrat Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer would help Republicans eliminate liberal courts.
Still, Republicans must make these sorts of arguments regardless of their prospects for legislative success. If nothing else, they bring before the public mind the constitutional fact of judicial inferiority.
As the Constitution indicates, Congress has no power over the Supreme Court. Nor should it. If it did, it would violate the separation of powers.
Nonetheless, Congress’ power to “ordain and establish” inferior courts also necessarily means the power to abolish said courts.
To put it another way, the Constitution, not Congress, created the Supreme Court. Thus, only the sovereign people, by amending the Constitution, could abolish the highest court.
Do you agree with Ron DeSantis?
The Constitution, however, did not create the inferior courts. It merely authorized Congress to do so, which means that Congress also could abolish those courts. And it should make that attempt in order to crush the current judicial insurrection.
For instance, on Saturday the politically, constitutionally, and morally inferior U.S. District Judge James Boasberg demonstrated the hubris of unchecked judicial tyranny when he presumed to order the Trump administration to return to America a pair of deportation flights filled with more than 250 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, whom Trump had ordered deported after invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Neither the president nor congressional Republicans have an obligation to yield to Boasberg’s usurped authority.
In fact, the entire spectacle calls to mind the early days of the American republic.
President Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1800 so alarmed the hitherto ruling Federalists — the establishment of their day and, ironically, the authors of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — that they viewed the judiciary as a bulwark against the Jefferson administration’s populist-inspired and ultimately successful efforts to radically shrink the size and scope of the federal government.
“[I]f we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy,” Jefferson wrote in 1802.
With that spirit in mind, Republicans in Congress (not the Republicans of today) took aim at the Federalist-dominated judiciary. Among other things, they used the Judiciary Act of 1802 to eliminate 16 judgeships.
All of this re-entered the public mind in recent days.
On Sunday, in fact, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich made this very point about the Jefferson Era.
“Those upset by the emerging dictatorship of district court justices behaving as though they were president should read the Judiciary Act of 1802,” Gingrich wrote on X. “Jefferson and his party completely revised the court system and abolished a series of federalist judges they deemed illegitimate. A warning to the current out of control judiciary.”
Those upset by the emerging dictatorship of district court justices behaving as though they were president should read the Judiciary Act of 1802. Jefferson and his party completely revised the court system and abolished a series of federalist judges they deemed illegitimate. A…
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 16, 2025
Former GOP congressional candidate Michael Cassidy agreed.
“The Judiciary Act of 1802 (signed by Thomas Jefferson) eliminated and restructured several federal courts over partisanship concerns. The old judges lost their seats. The Republic didn’t collapse when that happened. Perhaps something to consider once more,” Cassidy wrote Wednesday on X.
The Judiciary Act of 1802 (signed by Thomas Jefferson) eliminated and restructured several federal courts over partisanship concerns. The old judges lost their seats. The Republic didn’t collapse when that happened. Perhaps something to consider once more.
— Michael Cassidy ✝️ 🇺🇸 (@MichaelCassidy) March 19, 2025
God does work in mysterious ways, so it stands to reason that the present judicial tyranny could trigger meaningful reform.
After all, the American people elected Trump not primarily to lower costs, but to restore a constitutional republic. And frequent references to the Constitution, which judicial tyranny necessitates, will help turn public opinion in the right direction.
In short, when Americans actually read Article III of the Constitution, they cannot help but draw the same conclusions that DeSantis and Gingrich did, and they will draw those conclusions regardless of whether or not DeSantis’ specific recommended strategy bears legislative fruit.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
