No President Is Above the Law: Why Judges Can Overturn Unconstitutional Orders
Introduction
Recent statements by political figures like Karoline Leavitt and Donald Trump have raised alarming claims about presidential power. Leavitt, President Trump’s press secretary, has suggested that federal judges are “abusing their power” by blocking the President’s executive orders, even calling it a “constitutional crisis”. Donald Trump himself has implied that judges shouldn’t have the authority to interfere with his directives.
This is big. It matters. And yes, it’s a little messy. But that’s where the good stuff is. Ready to explore? Our special Perplexity AI page is your backstage pass—no walls, no limits, just pure discovery to help you protect democracy. Click. Ask. Uncover. Insight awaits.
This narrative is not only false – it’s dangerous. America’s democracy is built on a Separation of Powers system precisely so that no single branch of government, including the President, can operate without oversight. Misleading the public into believing that a president’s executive orders are above judicial review undermines the rule of law and edges us toward autocracy.
In reality, federal judges absolutely have the legal authority – and indeed the duty – to review and overturn executive orders when those orders violate the Constitution or federal law. This isn’t judicial “activism” or partisanship; it’s how our system of government was designed to function. Understanding why the judiciary can check executive power is critical for every American voter. Let’s break down how Separation of Powers works, how judicial review applies to executive orders, and why misinformation from people like Leavitt and Trump must be called out to protect our democracy.
Karoline Leavitt currently serves as the White House Press Secretary under President Donald Trump. She shares misinformation on a daily basis.
Note- Crying ‘judicial activism’ when a court stops unconstitutional power grabs is like calling the ref biased after fouling out— Here’s my message to Leavitt: If the Constitution and law keep getting in your way, maybe the problem is you and your boss.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Review
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created three coequal branches of government – the Executive (President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (courts) – each with distinct powers. This Separation of Powers is fundamental to preventing tyranny. Checks and balances mean each branch can limit or review the actions of the others. Congress can pass laws, but the President can veto them; the President can issue orders, but the courts can strike them down if unlawful; and judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring each branch has a say in the composition of the judiciary. This design forces cooperation and lawful conduct, so no branch (and no individual) becomes too powerful.
A key component of this system is judicial review – the power of courts to assess whether laws or executive actions align with the Constitution. In 1803, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall decided *Marbury v. Madison*, a landmark case that established the judiciary’s role as the interpreter of the Constitution. Marshall famously wrote that “it is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” In plain terms, this means if the government (even the President) does something that conflicts with the Constitution, the courts have the authority to declare that action invalid. Judicial review has been a bedrock of American law for over two centuries, ensuring that presidents cannot act as judges of their own powers.
Importantly, judicial review is not about judges inserting personal views; it’s about upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Federal judges take an oath to defend the Constitution, just as the President does. When an executive order is challenged in court, judges examine whether the order falls within the President’s legal authority and respects constitutional rights. If it doesn’t, then blocking or overturning that order is not “meddling” or “abuse” – it is exactly what the judicial branch is supposed to do. No president is above the law, and it’s the judiciary’s role to say so when necessary.
The Legality of Overturning Executive Orders
Executive orders are directives issued by the President to manage operations of the federal government. While they have the force of law within the executive branch, they are not legislation and cannot violate existing laws or the Constitution. Every executive order must trace back to some lawful authority – either powers granted directly by the Constitution or powers delegated by Congress through statutes. If an executive order oversteps those bounds or conflicts with higher law, it is illegal, and courts can nullify it.
History provides many examples of courts invalidating or halting unlawful executive actions. Judicial review of executive orders is a well-established practice, not a novel insurgency. Consider these notable cases:
- Truman’s Steel Mills Seizure (1952): During the Korean War, President Harry Truman issued an executive order to seize control of steel mills to avert a strike, claiming it was necessary for national defense. The Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer firmly struck down that order. The Court held that Truman had no constitutional or statutory authority to take over private industry, famously reminding that the President’s power must stem from either Congress or the Constitution. This landmark decision drew a clear line: even in a crisis, the President cannot act contrary to law, and the judiciary will say so.
- Trump’s Travel Ban (2017): When President Donald Trump first tried to bar entry to the U.S. from several predominantly Muslim countries by executive order, federal courts intervened. Judges issued injunctions blocking the ban’s enforcement, citing serious constitutional concerns (such as religious discrimination) and statutory conflicts. The administration was forced to revise its policy more than once. This example shows that courts can and will pump the brakes if an executive order appears to violate fundamental rights or exceed the President’s delegated powers. (Ultimately, a narrowed version of the travel restrictions was upheld by the Supreme Court, but only after the judicial branch ensured the policy was legally defensible.)
- Obama’s Immigration Actions (2015-2016): President Barack Obama attempted to implement a program called DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) via executive action, which would have provided temporary legal status to millions of undocumented parents of U.S. citizens. A federal court found this action likely exceeded the executive’s statutory authority and issued an injunction blocking the program. The Supreme Court effectively affirmed that block (in a 4-4 split) in 2016, leaving the executive action dormant. This was a Democratic president’s initiative stopped by the judiciary because the rule of law outweighed policy desires. It underscores that judicial review of executive orders is not a partisan weapon – it is applied to presidents of both parties when they overreach.
- Biden’s Eviction Moratorium (2021): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control (under direction of the Biden administration) extended an eviction moratorium to prevent renters from being evicted. While the goal was addressing a public health crisis, the Supreme Court found the administration had gone beyond the authority Congress gave. In August 2021, the Court struck down the extended moratorium, emphasizing that if a policy has major economic and political significance, it requires clear authorization from Congress. In short, the President could not unilaterally continue a sweeping policy without legislative approval, and the judiciary stepped in to uphold that principle.
- Mass Federal Employee Firings Blocked (2025): Just this year, an instructive example unfolded. In an effort to dramatically shrink the federal workforce, President Trump issued an order resulting in the firing of thousands of federal employees – many of them still in their probationary period – across multiple agencies. In early 2025, a federal judge reviewed the mass firings and found them unlawful, ordering the administration to reinstate those employees. The court determined that the executive action violated civil service laws and due process rights that even the President must respect. This recent ruling reinforces that executive orders are absolutely subject to judicial review. When an order goes beyond what the law permits – whether it’s an immigration policy or a personnel purge – the courts have not only the authority but the responsibility to intervene.
These examples (spanning decades and presidents) illustrate a core principle: Executive orders do not grant the President king-like authority. If an order contradicts the Constitution or oversteps legal bounds, judges have every right to overturn or block it. In fact, the judiciary is often the only thing standing between an overzealous president and the erosion of individual rights or the rule of law. Far from being “unelected rogue judges,” those who strike down unlawful executive actions are acting as guardians of the Constitution. They ensure that presidents honor the laws that Congress has passed and the rights the Constitution guarantees to all of us.
Misinformation from Leavitt and Trump
Either Leavitt and Trump do not understand the Constitution’s separation of powers (which is alarming in itself), or they do understand it and are intentionally sowing doubt about the legitimacy of our courts.
Karoline Leavitt and Donald Trump’s recent suggestions that judges have no say over executive orders are either deeply ignorant or willfully misleading. Leavitt’s claim that it’s a constitutional crisis” for district court judges to block President Trump’s orders gets things exactly backwards. It would be a far greater constitutional crisis if judges did not step in when a president violates the law. The Constitution’s checks and balances are working as intended when a court blocks an unlawful order. To portray that as an abuse of power is to flip American civics on its head.
Donald Trump has a history of bristling at judicial oversight. He has disparaged judges who rule against him as “so-called judges” or “activists,” and he often suggests their motives are purely political. Most recently, he and his allies have characterized judges issuing nationwide injunctions (stopping his policies countrywide) as part of a partisan “resistance.” Let’s be clear: federal judges rule against presidents of all stripes when the law requires it. Calling a judge “activist” doesn’t change the fact that the judge may be faithfully applying the Constitution. By demonizing the judicial branch, Trump and Leavitt are peddling a narrative that the President’s will should trump the law – a truly dangerous proposition.
There are only two explanations for their statements: Either they genuinely do not understand the Constitution’s separation of powers (which is alarming in itself), or they do understand it and are intentionally sowing doubt about the legitimacy of our courts. The latter is especially corrosive – it primes the public to distrust any ruling that curtails presidential power, and it suggests the President can simply ignore the courts. History provides chilling warnings about this. If a president convinces enough people that judges have no authority, he might attempt to defy court orders. That path leads to a constitutional crisis where the rule of law breaks down. It’s the kind of scenario we see in authoritarian regimes, not in the United States – and it’s exactly what our founders tried to prevent by establishing an independent judiciary.
The misinformation spread by Leavitt, Trump, and their allies erodes public understanding of how our government works. Many Americans without legal training might not immediately know that executive orders are subject to review. When they hear a confident assertion that “no judge can overturn the President’s order,” they might believe it – unless we push back with facts. That’s why it’s crucial to challenge these false claims publicly.
If left uncorrected, such rhetoric could give a president political cover to abuse power unchecked. It could also discourage ordinary people from seeking justice in court when their rights are trampled by an executive action – people might wrongly assume the courts can do nothing. In a healthy democracy, no leader gets to operate beyond accountability. We must not let anyone normalize the idea that the President is beyond the law’s reach.
Conclusion
Federal judges play a critical role in upholding our democracy and protecting constitutional rights. When they review and overturn executive orders that violate the law, they are doing exactly what the Constitution envisioned – preventing the concentration of power in any one branch. The recent rhetoric from Karoline Leavitt and Donald Trump, claiming that judges have no right to check the President, is not just a legal misunderstanding; it’s an attack on the foundations of constitutional government.
Every American, whether a legal expert or a casual voter, should understand this key takeaway: Separation of Powers is not optional or partisan – it’s the safeguard of our freedom. The judiciary’s oversight of executive actions is a feature of our system, not a flaw. Misinformation that says otherwise should not be ignored or excused. It should be met with a firm reminder that we are a nation of laws, not of one man’s will.
In the end, preserving our democracy requires respecting all the guardrails the founders put in place. That means respecting court decisions even when they frustrate a president’s agenda. It means valuing truth over convenient political narratives. And it means remembering that our Constitution endures only as long as we insist that no president – and no branch of government – is above the law.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
This post is free.
But free doesn’t build the future.
Independent journalism only works when people like you choose to lean in—not just with attention, but with support.
If this work matters to you, today’s a great day to take the leap.
$5 a month. $50 a year. For you or gift to a friend.
A small investment in something bigger than all of us.
