Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, he has found himself increasingly entangled in what many on the right view as an aggressive campaign by the federal judiciary to obstruct his agenda. At the heart of this battle lies a growing phenomenon critics call judicial supremacy-the idea that the courts, not the executive or legislative branches, have the final and overriding say on nearly every question of law and policy.

In recent months, federal judges-many appointed by Democratic presidents-have issued sweeping nationwide injunctions against key components of Trump’s second-term agenda. These include immigration policies, administrative reforms, and executive orders designed to curb illegal border crossings. Yet, instead of confronting what some observers are calling a “judicial coup,” the Trump administration has repeatedly chosen to litigate rather than confront the judiciary’s overreach head-on.

A particularly alarming case has emerged from Massachusetts, where District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, placed a broad injunction blocking the administration’s policy of deporting illegal aliens to designated third countries. Although the Supreme Court issued a stay on Murphy’s order on June 23-essentially pausing its enforcement-the judge doubled down just hours later. He declared his injunction still stood, arguing that his “remedial orders” had not been properly appealed and were not subject to the stay.

This move stunned constitutional scholars and administration officials alike. It appeared as though a federal district judge was not only defying the........

© Blitz