It Is Time To Arrest Activist Judges To Restore Constitutional Balance And Judicial Accountability

It Is Time To Arrest Activist Judges To Restore Constitutional Balance And Judicial Accountability

In the United States, the separation of powers is not merely a suggestion—it is the foundational principle that prevents any one branch from usurping the authority of another.

The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are co-equal, each with defined roles under the Constitution. Yet, in recent years, a troubling trend has emerged: activist judges who issue rulings that effectively override executive authority, particularly in matters of national policy, immigration, and even in national security.

These actions, when they deliberately encroach on the President's constitutional prerogatives, are nothing less than judicial overreach that dives headfirst into sedition—a coup from the bench. Arresting such judges for these transgressions would not only hold them personally accountable or at least force them to have skin in the game of they choose to take these actions but also compel the broader judicial system to self-correct, reinstating the rule of law over personal ideology.

Sedition, historically understood through laws like the Sedition Act of 1918 or modern interpretations under 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (seditious conspiracy), involves conspiring to oppose the government's lawful authority by force or unlawful means. While judges operate within the judiciary, their oaths bind them to "support and defend the Constitution" (Article VI), not to rewrite it or nullify the executive's Article II powers.

Consider scenarios where federal district judges issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders on border security or foreign policy, like we see them doing currently on tariffs. The President, as head of the executive branch and Commander-in-Chief, has explicit authority over immigration enforcement (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1103) and national defense as part of the operation of national security.

When a single judge halts these policies across the entire nation—based on partisan interpretations rather than clear constitutional violations—they elevate their courtroom to a super-legislature or super-executive. This isn't interpretation; it's usurpation, a theft of power.

Historical precedent supports viewing such actions as a form of coup. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court struck down President Truman's seizure of steel mills, affirming that the executive cannot act against Congress. Conversely, when judges block duly elected presidents from executing laws passed by Congress, or inherent executive functions, they invert this balance.

The Framers, in Federalist No. 78, warned that the judiciary is the "least dangerous" branch precisely because it lacks the "sword" of the executive or the "purse" of Congress—it wields only judgment. Activist rulings that impose policy nationwide weaponize their judgment into a de facto veto over the elected branches, subverting the democratic process.

Arresting judges who engage in this overreach would enforce accountability where impeachment—the Constitution's primary check (Article I, Sections 2 and 3)—has proven ineffective. Impeachment requires congressional action, which is paralyzed by partisanship and political maneuvering.

Only 15 federal judges have been impeached in U.S. history, with eight removed, mostly for corruption rather than ideological overreach. Sedition charges, prosecuted by the Department of Justice under the executive branch, offer a swifter mechanism.

Evidence of sedition includes:

• Deliberate misrepresentation of authority: Claiming a district court's ruling binds the entire executive, ignoring Ex parte Young (1908) limits on injunctions.

• Coordination with external actors: Leaked communications or patterns suggesting judges align with political groups to thwart elections (e.g., post-2016 travel ban blocks).

• Refusal to recuse in biased cases: Violating 28 U.S.C. § 455, yet proceeding to issue sweeping orders.

• 
  

Such arrests would mirror historical actions against officials abusing power. For instance, during the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested judges like Chief Justice Roger Taney after Ex parte Merryman (1861) challenged executive authority. Though controversial, it preserved the Union.

In modern terms, the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) or sedition statutes justify intervention if judicial actions incite lawlessness or paralyze governance.

The left cries "assault on judicial independence and scream "fascist" all over social media," but independence is not impunity. The Constitution demands fidelity, not activism. Accusations of intent do not justify violations of law and judicial limits. Arrests would target only those whose actions meet the legal threshold for sedition—conspiring to overthrow lawful authority—not mere disagreement with rulings.

Beyond individual accountability, arrests would trigger a cascade of reforms within the judicial system, addressing the heinous acts of activist overreach.

High-profile arrests would signal that the bench is not above the law. Lower courts, aware of potential consequences, would hesitate before issuing extraterritorial injunctions. Data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts shows a spike in nationwide injunctions from 1–2 per presidency pre-Obama to over 60 under Trump. Arrests would reverse this trend and force judicial process to once and for all put to bed the argument of legality of committing these actions, encouraging deference to higher courts or Congress.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, led by the Chief Justice, would face pressure to enforce ethics codes (Code of Conduct for United States Judges) more rigorously, maintaining accountability. This could include mandatory recusal guidelines, limits on injunction scope (as proposed in bills like the Injunction Reform Act), and training on separation of powers. Circuits with patterns of activism—e.g., the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate of ~80% by the Supreme Court—would scrutinize their own dockets.

With judges arrested, Congress might finally act on reforms like judge-shopping bans or splitting overgrown circuits. The executive could appoint Article III judges committed to originalism, balancing the bench over time. The Supreme Court's recent curbs on injunctions (Labrador v. Poe, 2024) provide a blueprint; arrests would accelerate adoption.

Bar associations and law schools, often incubators of activist ideology, would confront the professional risks. This cultural shift would restore public trust in the judiciary, which Gallup polls show has plummeted to ~40% approval amid politicization.

Leftists accuse that arrests threaten judicial independence, risking executive tyranny and committing "fascism". Yet, the alternative—unchecked judicial tyranny, historically, is the first steps taken towards actual fascism and is far more dangerous. The Framers designed checks and balances for this reason. Executive enforcement of sedition laws against rogue judges is a check, not tyranny or fascism. International examples, like Israel's judicial reforms curbing an overreaching supreme court, show that bold action will realign systems without collapse.

Moreover, arrests need not be widespread—target the most egregious cases—to effect change. Due process would apply; grand juries, trials, and appeals ensure fairness.

Arresting activist judges for seditiously claiming authority superior to the Presidency is not radical—it's restorative. It holds individuals accountable for betraying their oaths and forces the judiciary to purge the cancer of overreach. The result is a humbled, self-correcting branch that interprets laws rather than makes them, preserving the Republic's delicate balance. When the judiciary attempts to be the entirety of government, this drastic measure is the only way to prevent a judicial coup from becoming permanent. The Constitution demands no less. The future of this nation hangs in the balance.