Are Federal Courts Above Criticism?

The era when the rulings of federal judges were treated like God handing down the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai are over. In the internet age, no one is above reproof.

Mainstream media outlets are teaming with dire warnings that GOP President Donald J. Trump is provoking a “constitutional crisis” by criticizing rulings of assorted federal court judges.

A headline from ABC News warns: “Trump, Vance, and Musk take aim at the courts as judges halt some of 2nd term agenda.”

The real danger to the status quo is not Trump, Vance and Musk. It is that tens of millions of Americans are listening on social media to Trump, Vance and Musk. This has created a tsunami of criticism of decisions handed down by federal court judges that thwart Trump’s inquiry into fraud, waste and abuse by the government.

Criticism was inevitable when U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of New York denied the President’s designated representative (Dept. of Government Efficiency) access to the Treasury Department’s vast federal payment system. How can the executive branch be excluded from reviewing the payroll of executive branch federal employees?

Judge Engelmayor, an appointee of Democrat Barack Obama, said he wanted to protect sensitive taxpayer data. “The court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that no one – not a billionaire and not the president—are above the law. The actions of Elon Musk and his team represent a dangerous overreach that could have long-lasting consequences,” he wrote.

Many Americans complained on-line that Judge Engelmayor had egregiously overreached his judicial authority to prevent a legitimate oversight by the executive branch.

Republican Congressman Eli Crane from Arizona this week said he has drafted articles of impeachment against Judge Engelmayer.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tweeted that Democrats are “finding random judges willing to sabotage the legitimate exercise of executive authority” by Trump.

Lee called for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to investigate lawfare, in this case, the politicization of courts by the Democratic Party. More than 40 lawsuits have been filed to thwart executive orders signed by Trump in less than a month, several by Democratic Attorneys general.

Trump argues that he was elected by an estimated 77 million people to do exactly what he is doing - root out fraud and waste in the deep state / bureaucracy.

Trump ‘Allies’ (a.k.a. Critics)

A headline Friday in Bloomberg reads: “Trump Allies’ Criticism of Judges Prompts Security Concerns.” Again, the real problem is not so much what Trump’s “allies” have to say, but that millions of Americans are listening on social media.

Without being specific, Bloomberg claims Trump has “fueled misinformation and verbal attacks against courts on social media.” Bloomberg reports that a spokesperson (not identified) for the federal judiciary “declined to comment on the attacks, or whether the courts plan on pushing back against the rhetoric.”

Judge Engelmayer has remained mum. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges states that “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” But how does silence serve the judiciary when it is under fire?

No Comment?

The leadership of the U.S. court system - whoever that is - operates as if it is 1963, and not 2025.

Today, Americans can - for the first time - see what federal courts are doing. They don’t have to physically go to the courthouse and sit on a wooden bench in the courtroom to find out what is happening. They don’t have to sign up for an expensive subscription service, like Westlaw or LexisNexis, to get a court decision. Americans are no longer in the dark thanks to social media.

But federal courts still operate like it is 1963, when judges told the occasional back bencher to stop chewing gum.

Court leadership should rethink its refusal to permit its federal court proceedings to be streamed or televised so that Americans better understand how the system works. There especially is no justification for effectively closing the door to U.S. Supreme Court hearings, which mainly feature arguments by attorneys.

Moreover, why is the public completely excluded from court decision-making? Why not engage the public, to improve court operations? The court ultimately is a service provider, not a monastery for a reclusive religious organization.

The First Amendment protects on-line speech that is broadcast around the globe in a millisecond. Even when it makes the court look bad. That’s not going to change. It is the judiciary’s responsibility to adjust and to adopt a modern-day vision that reflects reality.

Whether engagement would have made a difference with respect to Judge Engelmayer’s decision is anyone’s guess. But a spokesperson for the judiciary could, at least, have said that Judge Engelmayer’s decision represents the first step in a process. It is scheduled for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals, and it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bottom line is that federal courts are not above criticism. And an outlandish ruling by a partisan federal judge will generate backlash for the judge and the courts. That’s good for democracy. Not bad.