Judges are expected to be neutral arbiters of the law, not partisan commentators or political combatants. Increasingly, certain parts of the judiciary are abandoning this standard. In their zeal to oppose President Trump, some judges have adopted inflammatory language drenched in political animus, threatening the credibility of the judiciary.
Consider the behavior of Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Last fall, in AAUP v. Rubio, Young did not merely criticize a policy; he launched a personal tirade against Trump. “I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.”
He even cited a remark from his wife, who said Trump “ignores everything” and “keeps bullying ahead.” The judge went on to deride Trump’s “hollow bragging” and political “messaging.”
Of course, none of that has anything to do with the law.
Another example of this type of rhetorical flourish came from a March 2025 decision in Wilcox v. United States, in which Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia launched into a scathing critique of Trump, declaring: “A president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.”
This is not legal reasoning; it’s political theater. We don’t need the judiciary to analyze the president’s social media trolling.
The latest instance of this trend came at the end of January in a case about the immigration detention of a man and his 5-year-old son. In an order, Judge Fred Biery of the Western District of Texas included the following:
“Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned. Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of the arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation. But that result should occur through a more orderly and humane policy than the one currently in place.
“Philadelphia, September 17, 1787: “Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?” “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Biery then included a picture of the boy and Bible passages under his signature for good measure.
The New York Times applauded this blatant politicization of the court with an article titled, “In Under 500 Words, a Judge Weaponized Wit to Free the Child Detained by ICE.” Former president Barack Obama enthusiastically stated, “Here’s a useful reminder of what our federal courts SHOULD be doing to uphold our constitutional tradition.”
It is worth noting that this judge was caught liking anti-Trump posts on LinkedIn and ranting about a former law clerk.
The rhetoric from these judges belongs on the pages of The Nation, not in a federal judge’s ruling. Unfortunately, some judges have treated their courtrooms as stages for political grandstanding.
This behavior is not merely unbecoming; it’s dangerous. When judges speak like political pundits, they corrode their credibility as independent interpreters of the law. When they do so habitually — and the frequency is increasing — they threaten the constitutional order they are sworn to uphold.
Rather than focusing on the substantive legal arguments raised, these judges go on tirades about democracy and how much they dislike the president. The legal merits are drowned out by ideological messaging.
Ironically, progressive voices have spent years accusing “conservative” judges of politicizing the courts. These commentators and politicians regularly claim that conservatives pose an existential threat to the republic. They deride jurists who rely on constitutional text as “radicals” and characterize rulings that return power to elected legislatures as “undemocratic.” Yet, it is the left cheering on the political and corrosive rhetoric (and often reasoning) we are seeing from certain judges.
It is worth remembering that the judiciary is the least democratic branch. Federal judges are not elected; they are insulated by design from the vicissitudes of popular opinion. That insulation, however, comes with an expectation that judges will refrain from wielding their power to advance partisan aims. When that expectation is breached — when judges become activists in robes — the legitimacy of the courts begins to unravel.
Such behavior invites retaliation. If one side perceives that courts are no longer neutral but are instead partisan actors cloaked in black robes, the other side is likely to respond in kind. Faith in the system falters, political pressure to ignore court rulings increases, and the civic glue that binds our constitutional order starts to fray.
Indeed, instilling incendiary politics into judicial opinions hands the MAGA crowd a messaging gift: that the judiciary is filled with the political opponents of the president who will do anything to stop him, irrespective of the law. It is exactly what they want and fits the narrative that many on the new right subscribe to: that power is more important than faithful adherence to law. This behavior fuels the non-originalist, non-textualist camp on the right.
When the Trump administration acts lawlessly, and it often does, rule accordingly. Don’t give us an op-ed with it.
To be clear, this is not a call for silence or passivity on the bench. Judges must confront the often controversial issues before them. They must do so with humility, discipline and respect for the role they occupy. The courtroom is not a campaign rally. Judicial opinions are not social media posts or op-eds. And federal judges are not opposition researchers.
The American legal tradition has long prized judicial restraint — not just in outcomes but in tone. If judges do not adhere to this tradition, they may win a few political skirmishes. But they will lose something far more precious: an independent judiciary.
And without that, our constitutional republic itself slips closer to the edge.
