Judicial Overreach

What Happens If Unelected Judges Shape National Policy?

The Maryland Case and Its Larger Implications

The recent decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen to throw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s federal bench highlights a critical constitutional concern. While the ruling itself made headlines, the deeper question is this: what would happen if unelected judges across the nation began using their rulings not just to interpret law, but to alter national policy?

Separation of Powers at Risk

Our Founders designed a careful balance of power:

• Congress writes the laws.

• The Executive Branch enforces the laws.

• The Judiciary interprets the laws.

This balance prevents any one branch from dominating the others. But when judges step into the policymaking arena, they risk upsetting this equilibrium. The judiciary, unlike Congress or the presidency, is not directly accountable to the people. Federal judges are appointed for life to protect impartiality, not to become architects of national policy.

The Dangers of Judicial Activism

Judges ensuring that laws comply with the Constitution is their proper duty. But there is a vast difference between upholding the Constitution and using the bench as a political tool. If courts begin consistently striking down executive actions or legislative measures based on ideology rather than law, the judiciary effectively becomes a shadow government.

Imagine if every federal judge across the country issued rulings designed to block or redirect policy. The executive branch would be paralyzed, voters’ will would be nullified, and conflicting rulings could leave the nation in chaos. Such activism undermines not only the authority of the president but the faith of the American people in the judicial system itself.

Judicial Independence vs. Judicial Power

There is value in independence, but independence must not morph into unchecked power. Judges are not elected, nor are they mandated to impose their vision of governance. Their authority rests solely on their fidelity to the Constitution. When judges exceed that role, they not only overstep their bounds but also risk delegitimizing the very institution they represent.

Conclusion: Restoring Balance

Criticism of the judiciary is not the greatest threat to democracy—judicial overreach is. If unelected judges assume the role of policymakers, the delicate balance of powers collapses, and the people lose their voice in how the nation is governed. The judiciary must remember its role: not to govern, not to legislate, but to interpret the law faithfully under the Constitution.