The Judicial Mutiny: Why President Trump Should Channel Andrew Jackson and Defy Rogue Rulings

The Real Threat to the Rule of Law

In the swirling chaos of American politics, critics have long warned that President Donald Trump might ignite a constitutional crisis by flouting court orders he dislikes. Yet, as Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule astutely observes in his recent New York Times op-ed, the real threat to the rule of law isn't emanating from the White House it's brewing within the judiciary itself. Vermeule flips the script, arguing that certain lower-court judges in predominantly liberal jurisdictions are staging what amounts to a "mutiny" against the Supreme Court, openly defying or evading its directives in cases tied to Trump's policies. This isn't mere judicial independence; it's a dangerous erosion of the judicial hierarchy, where activist judges prioritize ideological resistance over legal fidelity. As tensions escalate with judges reporting harassment and threats it's time to confront the uncomfortable truth: when lower courts blatantly contradict Supreme Court precedents, the president has historical and constitutional grounds to invoke departmentalism and disregard those rulings, much like Andrew Jackson did nearly two centuries ago. Ignoring this precedent risks paralyzing the executive branch and undermining our Constitutional Republic.

Systemic Defiance in the Judiciary

Vermeule's analysis, detailed in his op-ed and echoed in his Substack post, paints a troubling picture of systemic defiance. He contends that the federal judiciary faces a "collective-action problem," where individual judges reap ideological acclaim from progressive circles while the institution as a whole suffers diminished credibility. Plaintiffs, often backed by activist groups, engage in blatant "forum shopping," handpicking sympathetic judges in blue strongholds to secure resistance-friendly rulings. These decisions generate headlines and sow chaos for the executive, even if the Supreme Court inevitably reverses them. The result? Delayed deportations, stalled policy implementations, and a judiciary that appears more partisan than principled. Vermeule warns that this pattern threatens the "internal integrity of the judiciary," which depends on lower courts adhering to Supreme Court guidance.

Defiance in Immigration Deportations

Consider the eyebrow-raising examples Vermeule cites, which illustrate this mutiny in stark relief. In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's efforts to deport immigrants to third-party countries, a practice permitted under federal immigration law. The Supreme Court promptly stayed Murphy's order on June 23, 2025, allowing the deportations to proceed while appeals continued. Undeterred, Murphy doubled down, insisting his enforcement order remained valid and citing only Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent as authority a move Vermeule describes as "transparent bad faith." The high court had to intervene again, with Justice Elena Kagan concurring in a stay that labeled Murphy's action "illicit." As Sotomayor herself noted in dissent during the initial stay, rewarding governmental noncompliance "erodes respect for our courts and undermines the rule of law," yet Murphy's defiance flipped that principle on its head, prioritizing dissent over majority precedent.

Persistent Evasion, The CHNV Parole Terminations

Similarly, in a case involving the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) termination of parole for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela under the CHNV programs, a federal district judge initially Indira Talwani in Massachusetts, with echoes in Oregon rulings barred mass terminations without case-by-case reviews. On April 14, 2025, Talwani ruled that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem lacked authority for categorical revocations, citing statutory requirements for individualized assessments. The Supreme Court stayed this order on May 30, 2025, clearing the way for terminations. Yet, lower courts persisted in citing stayed precedents as if they were binding, ignoring SCOTUS stays outright. Vermeule highlights an Oregon judge's ruling against DHS parole terminations, which referenced cases already paused by the high court, as though those stays "didn't exist." This evasion exemplifies the "malicious compliance" Vermeule decries, where judges feign adherence while subverting outcomes.

Challenges to Executive Authority

The pattern extends to agency oversight. In Trump v. Wilcox and related cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the president's removal powers over agency officials. On May 22, 2025, in Trump v. Wilcox, the court stayed lower-court orders blocking removals from the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, emphasizing that the government faces "greater risk of harm" from officers exercising power post-removal. Yet, a Fourth Circuit panel refused to stay a similar district court order in a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) dispute, where Judge Matthew Maddox reinstated three Democratic commissioners fired by Trump for "neglect of duty." The Supreme Court intervened on July 23, 2025, blocking Maddox's ruling and citing Wilcox as "squarely controlling." Dissenters like Justice Kagan argued this erodes agency independence, but the majority's reminder was clear: Supreme Court orders aren't optional suggestions.

A Coordinated Assault, Patterns and Supreme Court Rebukes

These instances aren't isolated errors; they're a coordinated assault on executive authority, fueled by partisan judges who know their rulings will be overturned but relish the interim disruption. As Vermeule notes, "The whole institution bears the costs of disruption and diminished credibility from such lower-court defiance." Legal findings support this view: the Supreme Court's repeated stays underscore the binding nature of its precedents under Article III, where lower courts must follow hierarchical directives. In cases like United States v. Shilling and Department of Education v. California, SCOTUS has explicitly rebuked evasion, clarifying jurisdictional limits and policy scopes.

The Proposed Solution, Embracing Departmentalism

Faced with this judicial overreach, Vermeule floats a provocative solution: departmentalism. This doctrine, rooted in constitutional theory, posits that each branch executive, legislative, and judicial has independent authority to interpret the Constitution within its sphere. As explained by scholars like Edward Corwin, departmentalism allows the president to act on his own constitutional understanding, especially when judicial orders exceed legitimate authority. Vermeule cites his colleague Jack Goldsmith: "The president’s Article II duty to ‘take care that the law be faithfully executed’ gives him an independent power to determine what ‘the law,’ including the Constitution, means." This isn't anarchy; it's a check against judicial tyranny.

Historical Precedents, Lessons from Jackson and Lincoln

Historical precedents abound, providing legal ballast for such action. President Andrew Jackson famously disregarded the Supreme Court's 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, where Chief Justice John Marshall declared Georgia's laws over Cherokee lands unconstitutional. Jackson, prioritizing federal Indian removal policy, reportedly quipped (though apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." He took no enforcement steps, allowing Georgia to proceed, arguing the executive's independent duty under Article II. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Roger Taney's 1861 order in Ex parte Merryman, which deemed Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln continued the suspensions, asserting wartime necessities and congressional ratification in 1863, framing it as fulfilling his oath to preserve the Union. Other presidents, from Thomas Jefferson (pardoning Sedition Act convicts despite judicial rulings) to Franklin Roosevelt (challenging court-packing threats), have invoked departmentalism to correct perceived judicial overreach. These actions, while controversial, preserved executive prerogative without collapsing the republic.

Addressing the Critics, Defending Against Accusations of Tyranny

Critics will howl that Trump disregarding rogue rulings assaults democracy, I say their premise is flawed to begin with as we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic, but I digress, but Vermeule counters: it's the judges undermining the rule of law. Media framing would label it an "assault on the judiciary," yet when lower courts flout SCOTUS, they're the true insurgents. Departmentalism is "controversial and rarely used," Vermeule admits, but compelling here not a branch clash, but correcting intra-judicial hierarchy breaches.

Escalating Threats to Judges

Meanwhile, the human toll adds urgency. Federal judges overseeing Trump cases report escalating harassment: Rhode Island's Judge John McConnell endured over 400 vile voicemails, death threats, and "pizza doxxing" unsolicited deliveries invoking slain Judge Esther Salas's son. Washington's Judge John Coughenour faced swatting, with armed police responding to fake murder calls. Salas herself warns that politicians' personal attacks "invite harm." While violence must be condemned unequivocally the U.S. Marshals investigate over 1,700 judges these incidents stem from toxic rhetoric on both sides, exacerbated by judges' perceived partisanship. Blaming "political leaders" like Trump ignores how activist rulings fuel backlash.

Restoring Balance Through Bold Action

President Trump should go full Andrew Jackson: invoke departmentalism and disregard lower-court rulings that brazenly contradict Supreme Court precedents. Legal findings from Worcester to Merryman affirm this as a legitimate executive tool, not tyranny. By doing so, Trump would restore balance, deter judicial mutiny, and fulfill his Article II duties. The alternative endless stays and chaos empowers unelected judges over the people's will. Our Constitutional Republic demands bold action; history provides the blueprint. Let the mutineers enforce their own edicts.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.