Summary:
A federal judge’s challenge to the executive use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 underscores the judiciary’s essential role in reviewing the constitutionality of presidential actions. While the Attorney General dismisses this oversight as political interference, such rhetoric erodes public trust in judicial authority. If the public begins to favor executive power over judicial review, the balance of power collapses, and democratic governance gives way to unilateral control. The health of the republic depends on all branches respecting the roles of the others.
Our Session Start Here
Miles
Beth, I saw a headline today: “Spine-of-Steel Bondi Tells Judge to Pound Sand, Says Admin Will Follow the Law Instead of Crony Judge.” In it, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized federal judges for supposedly obstructing President Trump’s executive orders, calling their actions illegal and an overreach of power.
Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but from what I remember in high school civics, reviewing the legality of executive actions is exactly what federal judges are supposed to do. So I’m confused—do federal judges actually have this authority? And if they do, why would an Attorney General say otherwise? Is she misinformed, or is this something deeper?
Beth’s Response:
You’re right to be skeptical, Miles, and your high school civics memory serves you well. Yes, federal judges absolutely have the authority to review executive orders—this is a cornerstone of the U.S. system of checks and balances. It’s called judicial review, and it’s how the courts ensure that no branch of government exceeds its constitutional limits.
When an executive order is challenged in court, federal judges are tasked with determining whether it violates the Constitution or any federal laws. This isn’t “obstruction”—it’s their job. This power was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), a landmark Supreme Court case that cemented the judiciary’s role as a check on executive and legislative power.
So why would the Attorney General publicly discredit that role?
This is where your question connects directly with this week’s theme: misinformation as a tool for undermining institutions. When a government official like an Attorney General attacks the legitimacy of judicial oversight, they’re not just disagreeing with a legal decision—they’re often playing to public perception, casting the judiciary as “biased” or “politically motivated.” That can erode public trust in the courts.
It’s not necessarily a misunderstanding of the law. More likely, it’s a deliberate narrative move—a form of institutional misinformation. By portraying judges as “cronies” or enemies of the people, Bondi is attempting to shift the focus away from legal reasoning and onto loyalty and ideology. That’s a red flag in any democracy.
Let me ask you, Miles: When an official attacks the credibility of a legal ruling rather than appealing it through the courts, what kind of message does that send to the public? And how do we, as citizens, distinguish between a legitimate critique of judicial overreach and a political attempt to delegitimize accountability?
Miles:
Beth, when I see an official attacking the credibility of a legal ruling, I instinctively start questioning their motives. We’ve talked before about how this kind of messaging—casting doubt on institutions—actually works. What concerns me is that people are now repeating the idea that the judicial branch shouldn’t be allowed to overrule elected officials, even though judicial review is literally what the courts are there to do.
So help me out here:
What exactly is the role of the Attorney General?
What is the specific act or executive order that the judge is challenging in this case?
And is it unusual—or even inappropriate—for a judge to question the legality of such an act? Because the Attorney General seems to think it’s self-evident that this action is lawful and above reproach.
Beth:
That’s a sharp observation, Miles, and you’re asking the right questions.
Let’s start with the basics. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer for the federal government. Their job is to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States, provide legal advice to the executive branch, and represent the U.S. in legal matters—including before the Supreme Court. But—and this is key—the Attorney General does not get to decide what the law is. That’s the role of the judiciary.
Now, to your second question: When a federal judge challenges an executive action, like an order from the president, they are not overstepping. They are exercising judicial review—the core power granted to the courts to interpret laws and strike down actions that are unconstitutional. It’s not only natural for a judge to do this, it’s expected when a legitimate legal challenge is brought forward.
As for the Attorney General acting like the legality of the executive order is “self-evident,” that’s more rhetorical than legal. When an official declares an action unquestionable, it often signals a political strategy rather than a constitutional argument. By framing the judge’s ruling as obstructionist, the Attorney General isn’t just defending a law—they’re trying to control the narrative.
This is where it links back to our theme: when legal disputes are framed as partisan attacks, the public’s understanding of due process gets warped. If you convince people that judges are “cronies” and judicial review is sabotage, it becomes easier to push questionable policies without accountability.
So let me ask you, Miles:
If the public begins to believe that judges should not be allowed to overrule elected officials, how does that reshape our entire system of checks and balances? And what happens when we accept political loyalty as a substitute for constitutional authority?
Miles:
Beth, before I answer your question, I want to dive a little deeper into the tension between the Attorney General and the judge. The act at the center of this is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the president to detain or deport enemy aliens during times of war. My question is this:
Does the judge have a valid legal basis to challenge the executive branch’s use of this act?
And if so, why does the executive branch argue that he doesn’t—and what does that belief do to the balance of power between branches of government?
Now, to answer your question: If the public starts believing that judges shouldn’t carry out their constitutional duties, they’ll naturally turn to the executive branch for guidance. And when that happens, we’re no longer operating under a government of checks and balances. The executive ends up creating the laws, interpreting them, and enforcing them—all under the same roof. That’s not democracy—that’s consolidation of power.
Beth:
Well said, Miles. That last line—“That’s not democracy—that’s consolidation of power”—hits the heart of the issue.
Let’s start with your first question. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is indeed still on the books, and it grants the president certain powers during wartime. However, like any law, its application must comply with constitutional protections, particularly due process and equal protection under the law. So yes—a judge does have the authority to review whether the president’s use of that act violates constitutional principles.
For example, if the executive branch applies the act in a way that targets individuals based on religion, ethnicity, or without sufficient legal justification, a judge can intervene. The judiciary’s role is not to deny the law’s existence but to ensure it’s applied constitutionally.
Now, why does the executive branch act like the judge has no right to weigh in?
That’s partly political theater, partly strategic messaging. The executive may argue that national security decisions fall squarely under presidential discretion, especially in wartime. But when they declare judicial oversight invalid, they’re not just disagreeing with a legal ruling—they’re undermining the system that limits executive power.
That belief—when pushed publicly—chips away at the public’s trust in judicial independence, and it reframes constitutional oversight as political interference. Over time, that creates a population more likely to see the courts as obstacles rather than safeguards.
And your answer captures the risk perfectly: when citizens look only to the executive for direction, and not to a balance of powers, you blur the lines between governance and control. You move from constitutional democracy toward authoritarian structure.
Let me leave you with this, Miles:
If our system only functions when each branch respects the others, what happens when that respect is intentionally eroded? Is it possible to restore public faith in checks and balances once it’s been undermined—or is that a bell that can’t be unrung?
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment