Democracy Under Siege: When Courts Become Optional

This week has been a roller coaster of political chaos, executive overreach, and constitutional crises that would make James Madison's powdered wig fall right off his head. Before we go into our main story, let's quickly recap the avalanche of news that's buried us all this past week.

You can find the podcast over at libsyn.

If you are a glutton for punishment, you can also watch a video version of the podcast on YouTube (PeerTube coming shortly).

The Week That Was: A Rapid-Fire Digest

Remember when national security was conducted through proper channels instead of group chats? Well, those days are apparently over. In what's being called "SignalGate," National Security Advisor Mike Waltz accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, to a Signal group chat called "Houthi PC small group". And this wasn't just any chat – it included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other top security officials discussing actual war plans against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

These officials weren't sharing memes – they were sharing military targets, weapons packages, and precise strike times. When Defense Secretary Hegseth messaged that bombs would fall at exactly 1:45 p.m. eastern time, they did – and Goldberg watched it all unfold from a supermarket parking lot. The breach has alarmed U.S. allies, with NATO members and partners like Japan questioning intelligence-sharing with Washington.

Adding to the digital security nightmare, it was discovered that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and other top officials, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, had left their Venmo friend lists public, exposing sensitive personal and professional connections. This digital carelessness revealed links to journalists, defense contractors, and members of that now-infamous Signal chat.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been busy dismantling various government and independent agencies. The U.S. Institute of Peace staff received termination notices effective immediately, with the majority of employees let go as part of efforts to freeze funding and dismantle the organization. This happened on the same day the administration formally shut down USAID.

In health news, Peter Marks, the FDA's top vaccine regulator who oversaw COVID-19 vaccine development, was forced out after refusing to support misinformation about vaccines promoted by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Speaking of RFK Jr., he's also planning to eliminate an additional 10,000 positions at HHS, which would shrink the agency's staff by roughly 25%.

The NIH has abruptly canceled all RECOVER program grants for long COVID research, halting nearly completed studies aimed at uncovering the condition's biological mechanisms. Researchers warn the cuts waste millions in taxpayer dollars and could cripple future treatment efforts. The CDC was also ordered to bury a measles forecast that stressed the need for vaccinations, instead issuing a statement saying the decision to vaccinate is a personal one.

On the immigration front, hundreds of international students received emails instructing them to self-deport due to campus activism or social media posts deemed "anti-American." Families of detainees at Krome Detention Center in Miami are speaking out about harsh conditions, including lack of food, water, and medical attention, with viral videos showing people sleeping on floors. And, I don't think any of us will ever forget the surveillance camera recording of a Fulbright scholar being abducted in broad daylight by a team of plainclothesed ICE agents who pretended to be police officers.

In other administration news, the Labor Department announced collective bargaining would end at national security agencies, RFK Jr. forced out the FDA's top vaccine scientist Peter Marks, and we saw continued fallout from the executive order making the "District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful". The President even clarified on social media that he'll "work with the mayor on this and if it does not happen we'll have no choice but to do it myself".

But the story that deserves our full attention – a story that's been overshadowed by the Signal disaster – is potentially even more alarming for the future of our democracy.

The Disappearing Courts Act: Mike Johnson's Judicial Extinction Threat

On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson made a statement that should send chills down the spine of anyone who passed eighth-grade civics. When asked about how Congress might respond to federal judges blocking President Trump's executive orders, Johnson casually suggested they might just eliminate entire courts.

"We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court," Johnson told reporters. "We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

Let's pause and consider what just happened. The Speaker of the House – second in line to the presidency – just threatened to eliminate parts of the judicial branch because they're doing their constitutionally mandated job: providing checks and balances on executive power.

How Did We Get Here?

The trigger for this constitutional crisis appears to be frustration over at least 15 nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges against Trump's executive orders. These include blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, attempts to abolish birthright citizenship, dismiss federal employees, and halt certain federal expenditures.

In particular, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington has been a target after he mandated the administration cease removing Venezuelan migrants. Trump has explicitly called for Boasberg's impeachment, a move that received a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated: "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement regarding a judicial decision".

The Constitutional Reality Check

Johnson, who previously practiced constitutional law, later attempted to downplay his comments, saying he was merely demonstrating that Congress has "extensive authority" over the "establishment, upkeep, and regulation" of the courts.

Technically, he's not entirely wrong. The Constitution's Article III established the Supreme Court while granting Congress the ability to "ordain and establish" lower federal courts. And yes, Congress has eliminated courts before – in 1913, it abolished the Commerce Court, redistributing its judges to the federal appeals court.

But there's a vast difference between reorganizing the court system for efficiency reasons and eliminating courts because you don't like their rulings. As Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin put it: "The proper response to disagreement with a particular court ruling is not to abolish the court. That's obviously a naked assault on judicial independence."

The Game Plan

So what's the actual strategy here? Johnson has indicated that the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, will hold a hearing next week "to bring attention to these abuses". Additionally, the House plans to vote on a bill proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa aimed at prohibiting district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

Alongside these legislative efforts, conservative members of the House have submitted impeachment resolutions against six judges who have obstructed actions taken by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called the threat "outrageous," saying, "It is outrageous to even think of defunding the courts. The courts are the bulwark against Trump, and the Republicans can't stand it."

The Practical Challenges

Even if Johnson wanted to follow through on his threat, it would face significant hurdles:

1. Republicans would need to convince appropriators to remove funding for specific courts from the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.

2. With their slim majority, House Republicans would require nearly unanimous consent to pass such a bill – a tall order given the divisive nature of this move.

3. Senate approval would be even more difficult, requiring at least seven Democrats to join Republicans to overcome a filibuster.

4. Even some Republicans might oppose such measures. Senator Josh Hawley 🏃🏼‍♂️ expressed concern that abolishing district courts would lead to "huge backlogs" and limit Republican judicial appointments.

The Bigger Picture: An Assault on Checks and Balances

This attack on the judiciary isn't happening in isolation. It's part of a broader pattern of challenging constitutional guardrails:

• Trump has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate ways to penalize law firms and lawyers who file what he deems "frivolous" lawsuits against the federal government.

• Executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale restrict their access to government work and suspend security clearances for their lawyers.

• The administration has demonstrated a willingness to ignore judicial rulings, such as deliberately defying Judge Boasberg's order to turn back deportation flights carrying Venezuelan immigrants.

In this context, William R. Bay, President of the American Bar Association, wasn't exaggerating when he said in February: "These are not ordinary times. The rule of law itself is at stake."

When Courts Become Optional, Democracy Is in Danger

The fundamental principle of American government is that power is divided and checked. When one branch threatens to eliminate parts of another branch for performing its constitutional duty, we've entered dangerous territory.

As constitutional law professor David Strauss noted, "What we are observing is a pronounced disinterest on the part of the administration in adhering to what we would have considered the standard practices of a constitutional government."

The threat to eliminate federal courts isn't just a political maneuver – it's a potential turning point in American democracy. If courts can be eliminated when their rulings are inconvenient, then judicial review becomes meaningless, and executive power faces no effective constraint.

The Founding Fathers designed our system with the understanding that power corrupts, and checks on that power are essential. Mike Johnson's casual suggestion that Congress might just eliminate courts it disagrees with strikes at the heart of that design.

While SignalGate captured headlines, this threat to judicial independence may prove far more consequential for the future of American democracy. As citizens, regardless of political affiliation, we should all be concerned when the separation of powers – the bedrock of our constitutional system – comes under attack.

Because when courts become optional, democracy itself is at risk of becoming optional too.