Judicial Supremacy or Self-Government?

The Battle Lines from CASA to Prop 8

Last week, Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion in Trump v. CASA, a landmark case that reaffirmed the constitutional limits of judicial power. At its core, the issue was whether lower federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions - sweeping orders that block federal policies across the entire country, even when the case involves only a handful of plaintiffs.

Justice Barrett called this growing practice the mark of an “imperial judiciary.” When a single district judge can freeze presidential actions nationwide it raises the question whether courts are still interpreting the law or rewriting it.

More pointedly: are judges applying the Constitution narrowly and impartially, or are they imposing personal and ideological preferences, governing by judicial decree?

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi captured the public sentiment:

“No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation…”1

CNN commentator Scott Jennings echoed that sentiment:

“Trump v. CASA is the most important because individual judges have been unfairly stopping the President from governing. He won the election, they didn’t. We don’t have 600 presidents - we have one. And now he’s going to be able to govern.”2

Justice Barrett’s opinion reaffirmed a foundational principle of American governance that federal courts are not super-legislatures. Judicial remedies, she argued, must be limited to the parties before the court. Expanding judicial authority beyond its scope not only exceeds the judiciary’s constitutional mandate, it also contradicts more than two centuries of legal tradition.

In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Barrett’s rebuke exposed Justice Jackson’s self-contradictory warning against executive overreach, while simultaneously advocating for an equally dangerous expansion of judicial power. Barrett’s concern is apparent - this is not constitutional fidelity but judicial absolutism that undermines democratic self-rule.

This isn’t theoretical. It echoes a very real moment in recent American history - the legal and cultural fallout over Proposition 8 in California.

On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Prop 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “between one man and one woman.” The initiative passed with 7,001,084 votes in favor [52.24%] and 6,401,482 against - over 13 million voters participating in a lawful and transparent democratic process.

But just two years later that outcome was nullified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Citing the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, overriding the will of more than seven million Californians. This was not judicial review in the traditional sense; it was judicial supremacy - one unelected judge overruling a state constitutional amendment passed by popular vote.

In a constitutional republic, authority is vested in the people. California’s ballot initiative process reflects this principle. Yet Walker’s decision sent the chilling message that the will of the people is subordinate to the ideology of the bench.

Compounding the concern, Judge Walker failed to disclose that he was in a long-term same-sex relationship during the trial. He refused to recuse himself, despite having a direct personal stake in the outcome. This created the glaring appearance of bias and undermined the integrity of the legal process.

Walker’s ruling marked a turning point in the culture war - a moment when the personal views of federal judges began to eclipse democratic consent. The values of the courtroom increasingly replaced the values of the citizenry.

This trajectory reached its peak in Obergefell v. Hodges [2015], when the U.S. Supreme Court redefined marriage nationwide in a 5-4 decision. Notably, two justices in the majority - Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg - had officiated same-sex weddings before ruling on the case, yet refused to recuse themselves. Their participation deepened concerns about judicial impartiality and further eroded public trust in the court’s neutrality.

But Obergefell was not merely a legal shift - it was a civilizational one. The Court’s decision severed marriage from six millennia of human tradition, cultural consensus, and biblical foundation. It was not simply about legal recognition, it raised a deeper constitutional question: Who governs - the people through democratic means, or unelected judges through expansive interpretation?

Proverbs 20:10 warns that “Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” When judges, charged with interpreting the law, instead reshape it according to personal ideology, the very foundation of constitutional government is erased.

The crisis we face is not only legal, it is moral and civic. At stake is the future of self-government: will our laws reflect the consent of the governed, or the unchecked authority of the courts?

Thankfully, Gideons and Rahabs are beginning to stand.

David Lane

American Renewal Project

1. The Spectator - “The Supreme Court allows Trump to recast America.”

2. Scott Jennings - X Post, June 2025.