Each week, the Law.com Barometer newsletter, powered by the ALM Global Newsroom and Legalweek brings you the trends, disruptions, and shifts our reporters and editors are tracking through coverage spanning every beat and region across the ALM Global Newsroom. The micro-topic coverage will not only help you navigate the changing legal landscape but also prepare you to discuss these shifts with thousands of legal leaders at Legalweek 2025, taking place from March 24-27, 2025, in New York City. Registration is now open.
The Shift: The Justice System Is Under Threat—That’s Where the Consensus Ends
Politicians, judges and attorneys seem to agree that the judicial system and constitution is facing a crisis. They just can’t agree on who is responsible for it.
Some judges issuing temporary restraining orders and injunctions on the president’s executive actions, such as freezing grant funding and denying birthright citizenship, have found that the policies might have violated the U.S. Constitution.
Yet, according to the White House, judges are at fault for any constitutional breach. During a Feb. 12 briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back against reports that there is a constitutional crisis at the White House. “The real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump’s basic executive authority. We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law.”
On Elon Musk’s social media platform X, the billionaire tech CEO and Trump adviser called U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York—who granted a temporary restraining order barring Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing U.S. Treasury Department payment systems—“a corrupt judge protecting corruption” who “needs to be impeached NOW!”
In response, members of the legal industry have voiced their concerns about how the rhetoric threatens the safety of judges.
During a Feb. 6 hearing, the Reagan appointee said, “It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.”
In a post on X, John Eastman, the former Chapman University law school dean who backed Trump’s efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election, called the injunction “unbelievable.” “Coughenour attacked President Trump for undermining the Rule of Law, then signed the PI without even mentioning any of the controlling precedent,” Eastman wrote. “This is preposterous.”
On Feb. 13, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts also issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order in a ruling that he said was “based on straightforward application of settled Supreme Court precedent reiterated and reaffirmed in various ways for more than a century by all three branches of the federal government.”
The Obama appointee also pushed back against assertions from the DOJ at a prior hearing that the century-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was “dicta” that the judge did not need to follow.
“At the motion hearing, the defendants doubled down on this point, brazenly claiming that ‘dicta can be disregarded,’” Sorokin wrote. “That position reflects a serious misunderstanding at best—and a conscious flouting at worst—of the judicial process and the rule of law.”
In a legal challenge to Trump’s grant-funding freeze, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island granted an emergency enforcement order on Feb. 10 after finding that federal agencies have violated his “clear and unambiguous” temporary restraining order.
“The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud,” wrote McConnell, who was appointed by Obama. “But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.”
Last week in separate X posts, Musk said that “there needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” and “We must impeach judges who are grossly undermining the will of the people and destroying America. It is the only way.”
On Feb. 9, Vice President JD Vance said on X that “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
For those opposed to the criticism of judges, it comes down to concern for the rule of law and safety of the judiciary. Some industry groups have spoken out in response to the Trump associates’ criticism of judges.
The American Bar Association said on Feb. 11 that “[t]hese bold assertions, designed to intimidate judges by threatening removal if they do not rule the government’s way, cross the line. They create a risk to the physical security of judges and have no place in our society. There have also been suggestions that the executive branch should consider disobeying court orders. These statements threaten the very foundation of our constitutional system.”
The association of the Federal Bar for the State of New Jersey said in a statement Monday that “More than 220 years ago, in Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court settled our country’s foundational structure of three co-equal branches of government, with the independent judiciary as the final arbiter as to the law of the land.”
The group said, “Those foundational principles are threatened when members of the judiciary are personally attacked or intimidated because of a decision they have rendered. Threats to impeach Article III judges for upholding the law compromise this country’s rule of law, and challenge the system of checks and balances which is a foundation of this country’s democracy.”
Another group, the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump’s calls for impeachment of Engelmayer were a “dangerous” and “groundless” demand. Richard Deane Jr., the president of the group, said “Just because you disagree with an opinion, to suggest that a judge is corrupt and that he or she should be impeached… particularly by someone who has a significant public position… fosters a distrust of the judiciary, undermines the rule of law and frankly exposes the judges to the risks of actual danger.”
Want to know more? Here’s what we’ve discovered in the ALM Global Newsroom:
The Forecast
Both politicians and jurists are demanding action. Several House Republicans have signaled that they will introduce articles of impeachment against federal judges who blocked Trump’s policies, according to a Feb. 14 report from The Hill.
Meanwhile, judges and legal associations are calling on attorneys to take a stand. The Connecticut Bar Association leadership implored its members to shut down baseless claims of corruption and lies about the judiciary branch.
“Change happens with every election; it is a constant,” the CBA statement said. “So, too, is the need for an independent judiciary, guided only by the rule of law. Our system of government simply does not work without it… As loudly as we may speak in support of a particular political position, we must speak even more loudly in defense of the independence of the judge who must adjudge the legality of that position.”
In this era of distrust and of institutions, former Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher said it’s more important than ever for attorneys to advocate for the third branch of government.
Alaina Lancaster is the editor in chief for litigation, Law.com. Contact her at [email protected].