CONTENT
US Vice-President JD Vance has raised concerns over the growing power of federal judges to challenge executive decisions. His recent remarks highlight tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration, which faces over two dozen lawsuits challenging its policies.
Vance wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” signaling frustration over judicial rulings blocking elements of the administration’s agenda.
Judicial Blocks on Trump’s Policies
In a high-profile case, a federal judge recently blocked personnel from the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) from accessing sensitive US Treasury Department records. The ruling came after 19 state attorneys general filed lawsuits citing privacy concerns.
Other legal challenges against Trump’s policies include:
- Ending birthright citizenship
- Transferring migrants to Guantanamo Bay
- Establishment of Doge
- Offering federal workers buyout incentives
- Housing of transgender inmates
- Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military
- Ban on DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) initiatives
- Removal of independent agency leaders
These lawsuits highlight the legal resistance to Trump’s sweeping executive orders.
Reactions from Political Figures
Trump has strongly criticized the court rulings, calling them a “disgrace,” as reported by The New York Times. Meanwhile, Doge leader Elon Musk condemned the decision as “insane,” questioning how fraud and waste in government spending could be addressed without full oversight of federal financial records.
On the other side, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told ABC News that Trump’s cost-cutting measures, including cuts to USAID, could lead to “the most serious constitutional crisis the country has faced since Watergate.”
Former Representative Liz Cheney also responded to Vance, stating, “If you believe courts are exceeding their authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing.”
The Legal Argument and Constitutional Debate
The lawsuit against Doge’s access to Treasury Department data alleges that the Trump administration violated federal law by granting Musk’s team control over a payment system handling tax refunds and social security benefits.
In his defense, Vance compared judicial interference in executive matters to a judge dictating military operations or prosecutorial discretion, arguing that such actions would be unconstitutional.
The legal battle underscores an ongoing debate: Should courts have the power to block executive orders, or are they overstepping their role?
The Future of the Case
A federal hearing on Doge’s access to Treasury data is scheduled for Friday. If the ruling stands, it could set a precedent for judicial oversight of executive financial decisions.
The outcome may significantly impact the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, shaping the future of presidential authority.
