The U.S. Supreme Court handles a limited number of cases each year, typically around 80. Yet, in recent years, the sheer volume of appeals has ballooned, putting the court in a difficult position as it struggles to manage its docket. Meanwhile, the increasingly aggressive actions of district court judges have become a significant factor in the broader battle for judicial supremacy.
One such incident occurred recently when Judge Theodore D. Chuang barred a key Trump pick, Jeremy Lewin, from becoming Deputy Administrator of USAID. Lewin, a former member of the Trump campaign team, had been selected by the administration for the position, but Judge Chuang intervened, ruling that Lewin’s loyalty to Trump disqualified him from serving. What’s more, when government lawyers requested clarification, the judge denied their request and warned he could expand the ban if the administration attempted any workarounds.
This move by Judge Chuang has sparked a renewed debate over judicial overreach. With the court system now acting as the de facto HR department for the federal government, the implications of such decisions are far-reaching. Instead of allowing the executive branch to handle its staffing decisions, individual judges are increasingly inserting themselves into political matters, sidelining the elected branches of government. The broader question remains: Can the judiciary continue to assert this kind of power, or will it face pushback from a public weary of court overreach?
This concern dovetails with the ongoing challenges the Supreme Court faces in managing its caseload. While only around 80 cases are typically heard each year, many of those cases are becoming more politically charged. The rise of judicial activism, combined with the crowded nature of the appellate process, has made it increasingly difficult for the Supreme Court to act as the final arbiter on key issues. In fact, the current pace of judicial intervention means that the high court is unlikely to review all the appeals related to the MAGA agenda before 2028, leaving the country at the mercy of an activist judiciary that has taken an ever-larger role in shaping policy.
The ramifications of these trends are profound and far-reaching. With the judiciary’s power expanding, the role of the Supreme Court has become more crucial than ever. If individual district court judges continue to block presidential appointments and shape policy, it may be years before the Supreme Court can even attempt to intervene, raising the specter of judicial supremacy overtaking the other branches of government.
Sources:
https://x.com/Cernovich/status/1903141316336197958
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1903104787551490326
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/23/judges-trump-court-rulings