Ron DeSantis Proposes Solution to Stop the 'Sabotaging of President Trump's Agenda' by Federal Judges

Article III of the United States Constitution offers a clear remedy for judicial overreach, leaving little room for misinterpretation.

“The judicial Power of the United States,” states Section I of Article III, “shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

With that unmistakable wording in mind, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took to the social media platform X on Wednesday morning to propose a historically grounded response to federal judges who persist in “sabotaging” former President Donald Trump’s widely supported agenda.

“Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place,” DeSantis posted.

Furthermore, the governor pointed out that congressional Republicans had failed to act decisively on this issue.

“The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress?” DeSantis questioned.

Following up, he suggested a tactical approach to bypass Senate Democrats.

“Attach it to a ‘must pass’ bill…,” DeSantis advised.

However, this aspect of the strategy makes the governor’s proposal significantly more challenging to implement.

As recent debates over a government shutdown have demonstrated, Democrats do not recognize “must-pass” bills in the way Republicans might hope. And in this instance, not even Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would assist Republicans in dismantling liberal courts.

Still, Republicans must put forth these arguments, regardless of their likelihood of success in the legislature. At the very least, doing so highlights the constitutional principle of judicial subordination to the legislative branch.

As outlined in the Constitution, Congress has no authority over the Supreme Court, nor should it. If it did, it would disrupt the balance of powers.

Nevertheless, Congress’ authority to “ordain and establish” lower courts inherently includes the power to dissolve them.

To clarify, the Constitution itself established the Supreme Court, meaning only an amendment by the sovereign people could eliminate it.

On the other hand, the Constitution merely permitted Congress to create lower courts. Thus, Congress retains the power to abolish them. Exercising that power may be necessary to curb the current wave of judicial activism.

For example, on Saturday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg showcased the dangers of unchecked judicial authority. He overstepped his bounds by ordering the Trump administration to reverse deportation flights carrying over 250 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump had expelled them under the authority of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

Neither the president nor congressional Republicans are obliged to submit to Boasberg’s self-appointed power.

This entire situation echoes an earlier period in American history.

Following Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1800, the Federalists—who had previously dominated government and ironically authored the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—saw the judiciary as a last line of defense against Jefferson’s populist efforts to dramatically reduce federal power.

“[I]f we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy,” Jefferson wrote in 1802.

In keeping with that philosophy, Republicans in Congress at the time took action against the Federalist-controlled judiciary. The Judiciary Act of 1802, among other measures, eliminated 16 judicial positions.

These historical lessons have resurfaced in recent public discourse.

On Sunday, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich invoked the Jefferson Era as a precedent.

“Those upset by the emerging dictatorship of district court justices behaving as though they were president should read the Judiciary Act of 1802,” Gingrich posted on X. “Jefferson and his party completely revised the court system and abolished a series of federalist judges they deemed illegitimate. A warning to the current out-of-control judiciary.”

Similarly, former GOP congressional candidate Michael Cassidy emphasized the historical precedent.

“The Judiciary Act of 1802 (signed by Thomas Jefferson) eliminated and restructured several federal courts over partisanship concerns. The old judges lost their seats. The Republic didn’t collapse when that happened. Perhaps something to consider once more,” Cassidy wrote on Wednesday on X.

Indeed, divine providence often operates in mysterious ways, and perhaps today’s judicial overreach will spark meaningful reforms.

Ultimately, the American people elected Trump not merely for economic relief but to restore constitutional governance. The frequent constitutional discussions spurred by judicial overreach may, in turn, shift public sentiment in the right direction.

Simply put, when Americans take the time to read Article III of the Constitution, they cannot help but reach the same conclusions as DeSantis and Gingrich—regardless of whether DeSantis’ specific approach succeeds legislatively.