In theory, judges are assumed to be the guardians of the U.S. Constitution, charged with interpreting the law impartially, honoring precedent, and ensuring justice is served without bias.

Yet, increasingly, rulings from the bench seem to depart not only from established legal norms but also from the constitutional principles judges are sworn to uphold.

Why does this happen? And why do so many judicial decisions today appear more driven by ideology than legal merit?

The Rise of Judicial Activism

At the heart of the issue lies a troubling transformation of the judiciary: from neutral arbiter to political instrument. Courts are increasingly seen not as interpreters of law but as agents of social change. The result? Rulings that prioritize perceived outcomes over legal integrity.

This shift reflects a broader philosophical change: the growing belief that any disparity between groups—whether racial, economic, gender-based, or otherwise—is, by default, the result of discrimination. This assumption, often unexamined, compels courts to intervene, even when the law offers no clear justification and the remedy imposes broader harm on society.

The Unwritten Rule of "Disparity Equals Discrimination"

Modern legal culture has embraced an unwritten but powerful rule: group disparities are inherently unjust and require judicial correction. Under this lens, power dynamics and historical grievances become the basis for legal action, even when the Constitution or statute law offers no such guidance. This reasoning often leads judges to bypass precedent, distort legislative intent, or even reinterpret the Constitution in ways that serve current ideological goals.

If a law is neutral on its face and equally applied but produces unequal outcomes across demographic lines, some courts now presume the law itself to be discriminatory. This presumption—rarely supported by robust evidence of intent or effect—encourages rulings that disregard the complex realities behind group outcomes and the trade-offs of judicial remedies.

If, for example, illegal alien gang members are disproportionately disadvantaged than well-situated citizens, this has to be because of some actual class-based conspiracy, systemic racism, white privilege, or unstated and unproven policy of discrimination. Therefore, they are owed the same constitutional rights as American citizens, including a presumption of innocence even if they are here illegally and have committed heinous crimes.

Precedent Becomes a Casualty

The principle of stare decisis—the idea that courts should follow prior rulings—anchors legal stability. But in the current climate, precedent is often sacrificed when it conflicts with the desired social or political outcome. Legal doctrines painstakingly developed over decades can be overturned or ignored in a single opinion, not because they were legally flawed but because they no longer align with a new moral vision embraced by the court.

This erosion has real consequences. It undermines public trust in the judiciary, fosters legal uncertainty, and damages the credibility of the courts as impartial institutions.

The Constitution as an Activist Tool, Not a Guardrail

Judges who once saw the Constitution as a boundary to be respected now often treat it as a tool to be molded. Instead of asking what the Constitution permits, they ask what it should permit—or demand—according to modern values. This results in constitutional interpretations that resemble policy platforms rather than legal rulings.

By prioritizing social theories over constitutional fidelity, courts risk doing actual harm to the very communities they claim to protect. Judicial intervention that forces outcomes can inflame divisions, undermine democratic processes, and encourage dependency on courts rather than community engagement or legislative solutions.

Real-World Examples of Judicial Overreach

Judicial overreach in immigration law, particularly concerning the deportation of criminal illegal aliens, has become a focal point of contention in recent legal and political debates. Critics argue that certain judicial decisions impede the executive branch's authority to enforce immigration laws effectively.

1. Deportation of Criminal Aliens to South Sudan

In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued a ruling halting the deportation of eight individuals, predominantly non-South Sudanese, to South Sudan. The judge determined that the Trump administration violated a court order by denying these individuals sufficient time to challenge their deportation and failed to assess whether they faced harm upon return. This decision was met with criticism from the administration, which labeled the ruling as an example of judicial overreach interfering with national security and foreign policy. The Washington Post+1New York Post+1

2. Use of the Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport individuals, including alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, to El Salvador. However, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, stating that the administration's use of this act lacked historical precedent during peacetime and bypassed necessary legal procedures. The administration's defense emphasized the need to address threats posed by these individuals, while critics viewed the judicial intervention as an overstep into executive authority.

3. Nationwide Injunction Against Student Visa Revocations

In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to revoke visas for approximately 6,400 international students under the Student Criminal Alien Initiative. The administration argued that these students had law enforcement contacts, but Judge White found that the government failed to provide evidence of criminal activity and that the revocations caused undue instability. This ruling was seen by some as an example of judicial overreach affecting immigration enforcement policies.

4. Judicial Intervention in Deportation of Terrorist Threats

In March 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order enjoining the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration argued that these individuals posed significant threats to national security, but the judge's decision to halt the deportations was criticized by some as an overreach into matters of foreign policy and national security.

5. Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstructing ICE

In April 2025, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested by the FBI on charges of obstructing an immigration arrest. The arrest followed allegations that she helped an individual evade ICE agents within her courthouse. The incident raised questions about the balance between judicial independence and cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The Consequences of Judicial Overreach

When judges take on the role of policymakers, they weaken the principle of separation of powers. Worse, they create a legal environment where outcomes matter more than process, where political alignment supersedes legal reasoning. This fosters polarization, encourages litigation as a tool of social engineering, and places critical questions in the hands of unelected officials rather than accountable representatives.

Communities suffer when the rule of law is replaced by rule by ideology. Legal clarity gives way to legal confusion, and respect for courts erodes. Most dangerously, the Constitution becomes a flexible instrument of power rather than a foundational charter of liberty and order.

Bottom line…

What’s needed is not a judiciary that retreats from tough questions or is rooted in the politics of the moment, but one that approaches them with judicial probity and humility. Judges must remember that their role is to interpret, not invent. They must resist the pressure to act as saviors in robes and return to being stewards of the law.

Only by restoring judicial restraint can we preserve the Constitution—and the communities it was designed to protect.

Until then, we are so screwed.

-- Steve