ARTICLE ONLY>PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNS EO THAT HE WILL IGNORE ALL LOWER COURT RULING UNTIL SCOTUS RULES ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTIVIST JUDGES - 5 mins. video to read.

ARTICLE ONLY READ BELOW - PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNS EO (EXECUTIVE ORDER) THAT HE WILL IGNORE ALL LOWER COURT RULING UNTIL SCOTUS RULES ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTIVIST JUDGES - 5 mins.
THE GELLER REPORT-3-12-2025.
.
THIS ARTICLE'S LINK TO HAVE ALL HOT LINKS AVAILABLE > https://gellerreport.com/2025/03/president-trump-signs-eo-that-he-will-ignore-all-lower-court-rulings.html/?lctg=26695698
.
THE GELLER REPORT - March 12, 2025
PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNS EO THAT HE WILL IGNORE ALL LOWER COURT RULING UNTIL SCOTUS RULES ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTIVIST JUDGES ATTEMPTING TO USURP EXECUTIVE POWER

Show more

Today activist judges

– Ordered the release of illegal migrants back into America
– Told the President of the United States he can’t revoke security clearances of George Soros funded law firm Perkins Coie

And yet, “Article II of the Constitution states that the executive power… pic.twitter.com/ePzVstSXBj

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 12, 2025

Under the precedents now being established by radical rogue judges, a district court in Hawaii could enjoin troop movements in Iraq.

Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch.

Or to nullify the results of a national election.

We either have democracy, or not.

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) March 13, 2025

Story continues below advertisement

BREAKING: Judge Tanya Chutkan just granted a request by Democrats to uncover the identities of DOGE personnel and also the "parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority.”

So now federal judges are aiding the woke mob in their effort to dox DOGE employees. RIDICULOUS! pic.twitter.com/Nzj14nlBPn

— George (@BehizyTweets) March 12, 2025

🚨NEW: Activist Judge demands Pete Hegseth retract statement on transgender individuals being disqualified from military service.

“Orders” retraction by Monday.

This is a joke, right? These judges really seriously need to be checked.

Pete should respond simply:

“No.”

🇺🇸

— Walter Curt (@WCdispatch_) March 12, 2025

BREAKING: LEFTIST FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TAKES OVER PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY REMOVING IT FROM @POTUS TRUMP!
The Judge Modified His Order Barring Enforcement Of Trump's EO On "DEI" Funding NOW APPLIES TO ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES, NOT JUST THOSE THAT ARE A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT. pic.twitter.com/4eVSxUChdq

— John Basham (@JohnBasham) March 10, 2025

LAWFARE: Democrat judges across the country are working with Democrat AGs and NGOs to either block/delay president Trump's EOs aimed at reducing fraud, abuse, and waste. This time it is Biden-appointed Judge Angel Kelley from MA ordering Trump to restore DEI funding to the NIH. pic.twitter.com/AnkRhxLhkX

— @amuse (@amuse) February 11, 2025

Here’s a partial list of leftist lawfare lawsuits against Trump. It’s madness.

🧵of current federal cases challenging Trump Administration actions with links to free docket at Courtlistener.
1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

2/ State of NY v. Trump, First Circuit Court of Appeals: Appeal from RI District Court case in which ~20 blue states challenged OMB Directive to freeze federal funding. https://t.co/g5zaYtQ2qR

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

3/ State of NY v. Trump, Rhode Island District Court, Lawsuit filed by ~20 blue states challenging OMB Directive to freeze federal funding. https://t.co/JyEWqo0lKM

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

4/ State of NY v. Trump, Southern District of New York, Lawsuit filed by 19 blue states challenging Trump Administration having access and giving access to DOGE of Treasury Dep't databases. https://t.co/AS1jNdSQDt

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

5/ American Fed. of Gov't Employees v. Trump, District Court of District of Columbia, Judge Nichols (Trump appointee): Lawsuit filed by federal unions challenging Trump Administration's USAID leave/funding decisions. https://t.co/bsWbPkP2iM

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

6/ Dellinger v. Bessent, District Court of District of Columbia, Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama appointee): Lawsuit by individual Mr. Dellinger challenging his firing as Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. https://t.co/vsxGJfy19D

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

7/ Global Health Council v. Trump, District Court of D.C., Judge Loren L. Alikhan (Biden Appointee): Lawsuit by slew of non-profits & ABA challenging USAID funding decisions. https://t.co/woPx5xc2Ea

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

8/ Pacito v. Trump, W. D.C. of Washington, Judge Jamal N Whitehead (Biden appointee): Lawsuit brought by several ind. plaintiffs seeking refugee protection for family & non-profits whose funding was cut, challenging freeze to refugee admission/funding https://t.co/nNgZJ95k9b

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

9/ Jones v. Trump, D.C. of D.C., Male prisoner challenging Trump EO that men are housed in male prisons even if they think they are women. Case frozen until filing errors corrected. https://t.co/sHU1MDPF8O

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

10/ State of Washington v. Trump, W. D.C. of Washington, Judge Lauren King (Biden Appointee): Lawsuit by several far left states & three "doctors" challenging Trump EO banning sterilization/mutilation & cutting funding. https://t.co/xxIbZJjwyG

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

11/ State of Washington v. Trump, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Appeal by Trump Administration challenging stay of birth right EO. https://t.co/b7AExUKXOf

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

12/ American Federation of Gov. Employees v. Ezell (Office of Personnel Management), D.Ct. Mass, Judge George A. OToole, Jr (Clinton appointee): Lawsuit by gov't unions challenging "buyout" i.e. "deferred resignation. https://t.co/E5ZJ7iZNHp

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

13/ Bellinger v. Bessent: Appeal to D.C. Court of Appeals from District Court injunction forcing Trump to reinstate Special Counsel to Special Counsel's office. D.Ct. docket is #6/6.5 above. https://t.co/pywsIPcvY9

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

14/ Orr v. Trump: Mass. D.C., Judge Julia E. Kobick (Biden Appointee): Litigation by several individuals suffering from gender dysphoria challenging Trump Administration's use of sex as passport identifying. https://t.co/geyaqny5K5

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

15/ Commonwealth of MASS. v. NIH, D.Ct. of Mass. Judge Angel Kelley (Biden appointee): 20-plus blue states challenging Trump Administration capping indirect costs for NIH grants at 15%. https://t.co/PWfF7vIQyf

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

16/ American Federation of Labor v. Dep't of Labor, D.Ct. of D.C., Judge John D. Bates (George W. Bush appointee): Lawsuit by unions and think tank challenging DOGE access to Department of Labor data. https://t.co/SjTtw1tkkT

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

17/ Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent, D.Ct. D.C. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton appointee): Lawsuit by labor unions challenging DOGE access to Treasury Dep't databases. https://t.co/EkW5pYpWpR

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

18/ Doctors for Amer. v. Office of Personnel Management, D.Ct. D.C., Judge John Bates (George W. Bush appointee): Lawsuit by organization representing doctors claiming Trump Administration's removal of gender identity "treatment" from webpage was illegal. https://t.co/UqyOUjNJ2L

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 11, 2025

19/ Storch v. Hegseth, D.C. D.Ct., Judge Judge Ana C. Reyes, (Biden Appointee), 25-00415: Lawsuit by 8 fired Inspector Generals against Trump Administration, claiming firings were invalid & seeking injunction putting back in charge. https://t.co/G9AF2wWvqc

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 13, 2025

20/ United States v. New York, N.D. N.Y, Judge Anne M. Nardacci, (Biden Appointee), 25-205: Trump Administration lawsuit against New York challenging "Green Light laws" that req. NY to tip off illegals to ICE asking for info. https://t.co/pPqSRXBykm

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 13, 2025

21/ Gribbon v. Musk, D.C. D.Ct., Judge Christopher Cooper (Obama appointee), 25-422: Several individual plaintiffs bringing class action against Musk & OMB & Treasury claiming violations of fed. law for access to PII. https://t.co/obTpisJhOK

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 13, 2025

22/ PFLAG v. Trump, MD DCt., Judge Brendan Hurson (Biden Appointee), 25-337: Trans-activist org. & individual trans patients/parents sue Trump Admin. challenging EOs threatening w/d funds for sterilization/mutilation. https://t.co/wjlPOvdcQL

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 13, 2025

23/ Grundmann v. Trump, D.C. D.Ct. (not yet assigned), 25-cv-00425: Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann challenges Trump's removal of her from the Board of Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann is a Member of the FLRA. Humphrey's Executor case. https://t.co/1V6z1RqHXO pic.twitter.com/3UqWyJJ7fb

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 13, 2025

24/ New Mexico v. Musk, D.C. D.Ct., (not yet assigned), 25-cv-00429: 14 blue states suing Trump, @elonmusk & @DOGE claiming violation of Appointments Clause & Ultra Vires action (in excess of statutory authority). https://t.co/nRW3WULE1R

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 13, 2025

25/ National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, D.C. D.Ct., Paul L. Friedman (Clinton appointee), 25-cv-00420: Lawsuit by unions against Trump claiming directive to agency to do RIF & providing deferred resignation violate separation of powers & RIF regs. https://t.co/KWDjK2n7Cq

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 14, 2025

26/ Nat. Treasury Empl. Union v. Vought, D.C. D.Ct. Judge Jackson (Obama) 25-00381: Lawsuit by union alleging OMB notice CFPB won't draw $ & freeze of work violates separation of powers. thwhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69624423/national-treasury-employees-union-v-vought/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 14, 2025

27/ Nat. Treasury Empl. Union v. Vought, D.C. D.Ct., Judge Richard J. Leon (George W.), 25-380: Union lawsuit CFPB for allowing Musk & DOGE access to computer systems w/ employee information, allegedly in violation of Privacy Act. Efficiency.”https://t.co/hoTHtFXu7k

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 14, 2025

28/ AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. DOS, (25-400), https://t.co/OCA3rynsDy Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden), (Joined w/ Case 7 above, Global Health): 2 Plaintiffs NGOs suing over Trump freezing/canceling of grants.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 14, 2025

29/ Nat. Treasury Empl. Union v. Vought, D.C. D.Ct. Judge Jackson (Obama) 25-00381: Lawsuit by union alleging OMB notice CFPB won't draw $ & freeze of work violates separation of powers. (Redo of #26) with link fixed. https://t.co/buHAwvz34q

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2025

30/ Dellinger v. Bessent, D.C. Cir., 25-5028: Second appeal by Trump challenging TRO entered (first challenged Admin. Stay) order reinstatement of Dellinger as Special Counsel. https://t.co/VbOfPOdBxR

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

31/ Does 1-26 v. Musk, Maryland D.C., 25-462, Judge Chuang (Obama): Lawsuit by 26 unnamed plaintiffs who are employees or contracts for USAID against Musk & DOGE alleging Appointment Clause & Separation of Powers claims. https://t.co/c6JLCXnJdL

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 17, 2025

Join in The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
2.8
Article Rating
Subscribe
Login
guest
66 Comments
Oldest
LiberalsSuck
LiberalsSuck
1 day ago

Let’s find out where these radical judges live then go demonstrate outside their houses like the left did to Kavanqugh’s (sp) house. What’s good for us is good for them!
49
Reply
Glee
Glee
1 day ago

About dang time! In fact, the Executive Branch needs to have a powwow between SCOTUS and the DOJ whereby the Executive Branch EXPLAINS that the three branches of government are SEPARATE and “EQUAL.” Therefore, if equal, the enumerated powers given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution and affirmed by precedence ARE NOT SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Period. If those powers have to be subjugated to the judiciary, then the Executive Branch is neither separate nor equal.

The constitution separated powers for a reason…to ensure balance. The Judicial Branch is overreaching and Trump is allowing the Executive powers to be eroded. That upsets the balance. He MUST stand firm.
67
Reply
Adam Selene
Adam Selene
1 day ago
Reply to Glee

Amen !!!
5
Reply
Garion60
Garion60
22 hours ago
Reply to Glee

But you also have to understand that there are FIVE morons on the SCROTUM who can’t COMPREHEND what the Constitution PLAINLY states. These are the women (includes ROBERTS and CAVE-IN-MORE), ESTROGEN-POSITIVE who make decisions based on “feelings” instead of the Constitution. These FIVE are also cowards and seditionists…if not outright traitors.
5
Reply
tHT
tHT
19 hours ago
Reply to Glee

And deport psychopath soros and his spawn who are behind the lions share of these nutbag judges appointments
2
Reply
Glee
Glee
1 day ago

He shouldn’t invoke SCOTUS. He should just declare these are Executive Powers assigned to the third “separate and equal” branch of government by the Constitution, and as such, are not subject to interference by the judiciary in the first place…not even SCOTUS. The end.
79
Reply
Tim Bo
Tim Bo
1 day ago
Reply to Glee

You are ABSOLUTELY correct. Why give Amy phony Barrett another shot to do her thing?
39
Reply
Patriot
Patriot
1 day ago
Reply to Tim Bo

Here is what I wish. All of these people like barrett who has been GITMOed, to stand on stage in a line and then rip their masks off in front of the American people. It isn’t always as it appears.
3
Reply
michael
michael
1 day ago

Those are some mighty activist judges you have there. Be a shame if something bad started happening to them…..
18
Reply
DethToBolshFilth
DethToBolshFilth
1 day ago
Reply to michael

Yes, that would be a shame. 🤔

(D)🔥👹🔫
6
Reply
danknight
danknight
1 day ago

Trump froze the funding to Democrats, terrorists, and our enemies. Pardon the repetition.

Trump has ‘laid off,’ ‘fired,’ or ‘retired’ tens of thousands of anti-American Democrat operatives.

Trump has resisted anti-White systemic racism for the first time since the Democrats switched from hating blacks (and Jews and Catholics) to hating Whites (and all Christians and pro-Americans.)

Btw – Democrats never stopped hating blacks, Jews, or Catholics – here’s the truth: They lied.

So now their Uncle Toms and Auntie Thomasinas, and other ACTUAL racists and bigots want to stop Trump.

Democrats’ six-decade long crime spree will come to an end if Trump succeeds.

G-d bless Mr. Trump – and G-d bless America.
25
Reply
Greg Miller
Greg Miller
1 day ago
Reply to danknight

The louder they scream the closer you know President Trump is to getting the corruption.
8
Reply
anon
anon
1 day ago

This should be open and shut, the constitution states that any ruling or law that is abhorrent to the constitution is null and void. With that stated, the supreme court might betray that which it is put in place to protect. they’ve already done it once. If that’s the case then we no longer live in a constitutional republic and live in a dictatorship of the judicial system.
16
Reply
Peter V
Peter V
1 day ago
Reply to anon

No, if they do that, then they have violated their oaths of office. Which would be evidence of ‘Bad Behavior’. Impeachment is only one means the Constitution affords for removing Justices & Judges. Bad Behavior is another means. Simply count a refusal to continue to uphold the oath they swore upon getting their appointment as a resignation from that appointment. Any action taken to fight their removal, take as an act of insurrection. You’ll only need to make an example of one.
2
Reply
para59r
para59r
1 day ago

This is a Trumpian two pronged approach to the problem. Trump goes to SCOTUS to have them rule on judges blocking the executive branch and now Trump is forcing judges to also run to SCOTUS to because Trump is not going to listen to them anymore with out a ruling. If they don’t go to SCOTUS Trump wins.
11
Reply
Big Jymn
Big Jymn
15 hours ago
Reply to para59r

Trump never said he was going to the SC. He said “until the SC rules otherwise”. If these judges don’t approach the SC; the SC can’t rule on it. Trump is free to go about his business without constraint; and his; along with the SC’s hands; are left clean.
2
Reply
Platinum Ghost
D
Platinum Ghost
1 day ago

I hope you all stocked up on Popcorn and soft drinks because this show is about to get righteous.
10
Reply
Dan
Dan
1 day ago

One very long tweet feed. Does anybody still write? When the author put this into words I can read, then I’ll look at it.
8
Reply
Shocked Johnson
Shocked Johnson
1 day ago
Reply to Dan

Don’t worry, you didn’t miss much… a claim about an EO signed with no video of it being signed and zero sources cited. Also, I couldn’t find hide nor hair of the story or proof of it elsewhere. The rest was a string of posts from X users.
2
Reply
Dave
Dave
1 day ago

These judges need prosecuted. They are not the President but are acting like it. Our Founding Fathers never intended for this to happen. The Supreme Court needs to end this lawfare now!
10
Reply
Joel A Mason
Joel A Mason
1 day ago
Reply to Dave

If the SCOTUS fails to act properly then we need to start impeachment processes. A proper end has to be made to this junk.
7
Reply
petunia
petunia
1 day ago
Reply to Joel A Mason

We the people can do nothing. Congress and Senate have to impeach. We only. Have the 2,nd amendment and have to start using it because this won’t stop. Be like BLM and Antifa except make the PB count.
3
Reply
vieirae
vieirae
1 day ago
Reply to petunia

Won’t work. You need a two-thirds majority to impeach, that just won’t happen.
But these judges themselves are not above the law. If their decisions break the law,
you’ve got them.
6
Reply
COLiberty
COLiberty
1 day ago
Reply to Joel A Mason

If SCOTUS fails to act properly, martial law should be invoked. President Trump shouldn’t have to spend his precious 4 years in office defending his (totally correct and lawful) decisions and actions from these lawless attacks. We the People will not stand for that.
3
Reply
Ruben
Ruben
1 day ago

I’m not finding this story confirmed anywhere else yet. Link?
7
Reply
Roark
Roark
1 day ago

This is a coordinated perfidious judicial conspiracy. The DOJ should look into whether there is evidence of command and control and coordination between the judges.

It’s too much for it not to be a judicial insurrection against the Constitution and the American people.
9
Reply
Commieobamie
Commieobamie
1 day ago

Bought Time!!! F all these Communists!
5
Reply
Adam Selene
Adam Selene
1 day ago

This is unacceptable and unconstitutional u Red the separation of powers. The Judiciary Branch can NOT overrule the Executive Branch and any “Judge” that thinks they have those powers must be immediately and unquestionably be disbarred and fired !!! Why do these idiots think as a Judge, they can ignore the Constitution?? If I were Trump, I would instantly dispatch Federal Marshall’s to arrest those incompetent and power hungry “judges” and hold them in custody !!!
7
Reply
The Mayor
The Mayor
1 day ago

If we had a conservative majority SC, Id have confidence that it would rule in favor of the president, not, the leftist political hacks that are issuing illegal rulings. But, Roberts and Coney Garrett have, too many times, demonstrated, that they are not conservatives. As a result, these 2 traitors may enable the demunists to stymie Pres. Trumps agendas, by siding with the 3 other demented demunists on the SC.
4
Reply
Greg Miller
Greg Miller
1 day ago

This EO is by far the best and most needed so far. These activist judges are popping up like a demented corrupt game of Whack-A-Mole and they need to be held accountable.
6
Reply
Sir Peter
Sir Peter
1 day ago
Reply to Greg Miller

Now whack ‘em
4
Reply
GME
GME
17 hours ago
Reply to Greg Miller

Absolutely agree. However, it seems the text of the EO itself isn’t available, at least anywhere my search engines have gone, so far.
2
Reply
Floridian
Floridian
1 day ago

This information is untrue. I posted the comment with the link to Federal Register – the list of ALL EOs, The comment is deleted.
1
Reply
Shocked Johnson
Shocked Johnson
1 day ago

Is this satire? It’s just a X-string of cases against the admin now, and a one sentence claim as the article with zero proof? Is this a joke?
uBlock Origin is what I will use to block this site from my browser, lol…. WTF geller report?!?
-2
Reply
keith
keith
1 day ago

Article 2…section 1…….article 3…….section 2………both confirm the constitutionality of the powers delegated to the executive branch……..only the SCOTUS can overrule executive orders, in times of good behavior……..
1
Reply
GME
GME
17 hours ago
Reply to keith

What clauses beneath these articles are you referring to specifically?

When one looks up the sections referenced, they each contain multiple clauses, the vast majority which do not pertain to the issue at hand.

It would be useful if you would specify which clauses you believe address the issue of Presidential Authority that exceeds the reach of any of the lower courts, and specifically gives such authority to review or pass judgement as to Constitutionality or lawfulness only to SCOTUS…

Thx…
Last edited 17 hours ago by GME
0
Reply
vieirae
vieirae
1 day ago

If an activist judge makes rulings that are unconstitutional against POTUS, that’s insurrection and
maybe even high treason. They should face appropriate punishment and be removed from the bench.
8
Reply
AMERICA FIRST
AMERICA FIRST
1 day ago
Reply to vieirae

SOUNDS FAMILIAR………….oh wait…………that is what the Democrats claimed the Jan 6th protestors did……..WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE to the contrary.

SO, IS TURNABOUT FAIR PLAY? It may be. Personally, I would GO AFTER EVERY ACTIVIST JUDGE THAT HAS GONE AGAINST OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION IN THEIR RIDICULOUS RULINGS AND ARREST THEM, AND HOLD THEM UNTIL WE CAN PROSECUTE THEM and then IMPRISON them.
Wanna bet THEY WILL BEG to make a DEAL and turn in those who BRIBED THEM to go against the laws of our land and our U.S. Constitution?????
3
Reply
Bill Halcott
Bill Halcott
1 day ago

Very good.
1
Reply
Sir Peter
Sir Peter
1 day ago

You have the Second Amendment. Use it NOW
3
Reply
ORRN31
ORRN31
1 day ago

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the SCOTUS to make the correct ruling.
6
Reply
Hardrock
D
Hardrock
1 day ago

Trump is STILL COMMANDER in CHIEF of the MILITARY RIGHT?
6
Reply
Stephen Honig
Stephen Honig
1 day ago

Trump is right, Biden ignored all rules and did what he wanted to do. Why is that bastard still alive?
4
Reply
Patriot
Patriot
1 day ago

Hopefully most of the American citizens have finally realized the dems/liberals HATE and do not care about the American citizen, and it is all about pushing their progressive communist agenda. America first. Wonder how many of these judges are increasing their net worth by taking millions of taxpayer dollars under the table and are pissed their cash cows are drying up. It is all about the money.
4
Reply
Glen
Glen
1 day ago

Yet Barack insame Obama institutes DACA which courts have said was illegal. Still let DACA stand without upholding any challenge.
4
Reply
Glen
Glen
1 day ago

The aim of democrats was to sue Trump administration over every action he takes. We saw this during his first term with border wall.
6
Reply
Rick Salvhus
Rick Salvhus
1 day ago

All of these judges should be stretching a rope.
5
Reply
Rev. Roy Trepanier
Rev. Roy Trepanier
1 day ago

Every rogue judge should be charged with Treason for interfering with the Governance of the land and hindering of the President and be removed from office after paying a huge fine, enough to bankrupt them and force them to get a job digging ditches to survive.
That’l learn them ! 🙂
Rev. Roy……….<
5
Reply
AMERICA FIRST
AMERICA FIRST
1 day ago
Reply to Rev. Roy Trepanier

EVIL always digs in their heels, distorts their face and continues being MORE EVIL than they already are. IT IS TIME THESE Demonic PEOPLE WERE ARRESTED AND SENT TO PRISON FOR TREASON AGAINST AMERICA(NS).
3
Reply
FU Grifters
FU Grifters
1 day ago

So, another clickbait false headline. There is no such order. All you’ve done is list federal court outrages. ConInc and MAGA clickbait headline grifters are the worst.
0
Reply
Rocky
Rocky
1 day ago

About time. The Supreme Court needs to clarify the situation immediately. Either we have a Constitutional Republic or we are Rule by unelected Judges in which case we can close the White House and disband the Executive Branch of government entirely.
3
Reply
Magvitum
Magvitum
1 day ago

How coincidental that the majority of those rogue so called judges are women! They think that they were given powers to rule the country! What about the three powers? I say, off with women in any kind of power!!! No wonder that they did not have anything to do with the formation of this country and its laws!!!
2
Reply
marlene
marlene
23 hours ago

One of the best articles on this most important topic – ever! (PS: I hit the rating stars but it didn’t seem to register)
0
Reply
Rachelle
Rachelle
21 hours ago

I can’t find anywhere else that Trump signed this EO.
3
Reply
George Mason
George Mason
21 hours ago

Do you have a date when Trump signed this EO and what the EO number is? I can’t find any other mention of this EO when I search for it online. Thanks !
3
Reply
TRM
TRM
21 hours ago

Trump trying to usurp judicial power. Blatantly unconstitutional.
-5
Reply
Snowedin
Snowedin
17 hours ago
Reply to TRM

You are WRONG as Usual. TDS has permanently affected you for the rest of your life.
2
Reply
Quincey lue
Quincey lue
20 hours ago

Why am I not reading this anywhere else but here??? Not true.
1
Reply
trackback
President Trump Signs EO That He Will IGNORE All Lower Court Rulings Until SCOTUS Rules on the Constitutionality of Activist Judges - Dr. Rich Swier
19 hours ago

[…] NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights […]
0
Reply
tHT
tHT
19 hours ago

They’re going to start a civil war
1
Reply
Big Jymn
Big Jymn
16 hours ago

Boy….I sure wish Chris Kyle was still alive. He’d know what to do.
Last edited 16 hours ago by Big Jymn
0
Reply
Photoman41
Photoman41
13 hours ago

This is madness. Its time to remove these activist judges from the bench and disbar them.
0
Reply
James P. Williams
James P. Williams
13 hours ago

That would be a good Executive Order. I however question it because I cannot find this Executive Order listed anywhere but here.
Last edited 13 hours ago by James P. Williams
2
Reply
Noel Pabillore Cuta
Noel Pabillore Cuta
10 hours ago

Legal Argument Supporting Trump’s Executive Order on Lower Court Rulings

President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) asserting that he will not adhere to lower court rulings until the Supreme Court rules on their constitutionality is legally justified under the Separation of Powers doctrine and constitutional authority granted to the Executive Branch.

1️⃣ The President’s Constitutional Authority to Execute Laws

✔ Legal Basis: Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the President, and Article II, Section 3 requires the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
✔ Precedent: The Supreme Court has ruled in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that courts have the power to review laws, but it does not give lower courts the ability to override Executive authority without final adjudication by SCOTUS.
✔ Key Point: The Constitution grants the President broad discretion in enforcing laws and resisting judicial overreach from activist lower courts.

2️⃣ Lower Courts Do Not Bind the Executive Branch Until SCOTUS Rules

✔ Legal Basis: The Judiciary Act of 1789 (28 U.S.C. § 1254) establishes that only the Supreme Court’s rulings hold national precedence; lower courts cannot dictate national policy.
✔ Precedent: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) upheld that the President has broad discretion in national security and executive enforcement, even when challenged by lower courts.
✔ Key Point: Lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions undermine executive authority, which the Supreme Court has warned against in cases like Department of Homeland Security v. New York (2020).

3️⃣ Executive Orders Can Restrict Judicial Overreach

✔ Legal Basis: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) clarified that courts cannot dictate executive actions unless Congress has explicitly restricted them.
✔ Precedent: Courts have ruled against nationwide injunctions by district courts, emphasizing that one federal judge should not wield the power to halt government functions nationwide.
✔ Key Point: SCOTUS has criticized excessive lower court interference in executive matters, reinforcing Trump’s right to defer compliance until a final ruling.

📌 Final Verdict: Trump’s EO is Legally Justified

🔹 The President has constitutional authority to execute laws without interference from lower courts (Article II).
🔹 Only SCOTUS rulings set nationwide precedents, not activist lower courts (Judiciary Act of 1789).
🔹 Courts cannot usurp executive power, as reaffirmed in Trump v. Hawaii and Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
🔹 Nationwide injunctions by lower courts undermine the balance of power and exceed judicial authority.

🔥 Reality Check: Trump is not ignoring the Constitution—he’s upholding it by ensuring activist judges do not override executive authority without Supreme Court review.
1
Reply
Captain Sensible
Captain Sensible
8 hours ago

What these judges are doing in clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The President has complete control and autonomy when it comes to the executive AND to some extent the military. Every one of these cases is being funded by ActBlue, Reid Porko Hoffman or one of their affiliates. They are a waste of time, on the upside we know which judges to impeach and disbar.
2
Reply
John Wilson
John Wilson
45 minutes ago

What is being missed in virtually ALL these “cases;” which you will also find via “Court Listener” are the financial disclosures of these activist judges which shows some of their funding (most have “investments” in, e.g., BlackRock and Vanguard among various “banks”)… and each of which whose spouses are typically, also involved up to their necks in NGOs (some funded by USAID) and likewise compromised. Follow the money…
.

Show less