Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has authored a column arguing that unelected federal district court judges are engaging in “judicial tyranny” by issuing nationwide injunctions that he claims are illegitimately blocking the agenda of President Donald J. Trump and frustrating the will of the American people expressed in the 2024 election.
Gingrich contends that the fight over judicial power has reached a critical point, asserting that radical district judges have “wildly exceeded their authority” by issuing a high volume of nationwide injunctions against the executive branch. He claims that in the first 100 days of President Trump’s “second administration,” lower courts issued 37 such injunctions, averaging more than one every three days.
Examples of Blocked Executive Orders:
- Immigration policies, such as aspects of travel bans and actions related to asylum seekers and birthright citizenship.
- Efforts to dismantle or significantly alter federal agencies and their functions.
- Policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
- Actions impacting federal workforce protections and collective bargaining.
- Orders targeting specific law firms.
READ :Newt Gingrich Says “Trump Boom” By Summer 2026, Citing Policy And Historical Precedent
Gingrich posits that this is not merely a conflict between the judiciary and President Trump, but rather “an issue of judges against the American people,” citing the 2024 election results where Republicans won the House, Senate, and Presidency, and President Trump carried all seven swing states. He contrasts the mandate of elected officials with the power of the 677 federal district judges, none of whom are elected.
He describes some nationwide injunctions as “verge on insanity,” offering specific examples:
- An injunction he claims prevents the executive from pausing or terminating fugitive admissions and requires accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees, disregarding humanitarian or financial costs.
- A ruling he states blocked the removal of men from women’s prisons despite safety concerns for female inmates.
- An injunction he says blocked the executive branch from acting on sanctuary cities, going so far as to prevent the White House from even discussing the issue.
Gingrich frames these as examples of “absurd judicial micro-management.”
Drawing on historical context, Gingrich invokes Thomas Jefferson’s warning against judges becoming the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions, which Jefferson feared would lead to the “despotism of an Oligarchy.”
He argues that the Founding Fathers intended the three branches of government to be co-equal, with the judiciary being potentially the weakest, and believed the elected branches could correct judicial overreach. He references Alexander Hamilton’s views on the power of the legislative and executive branches to respond to judges.
READ: Scott, Moody Push Army Corps For Full Consideration Of Critical Florida Projects In 2025
Gingrich also points to historical actions, noting that President Jefferson and Democrats eliminated 14 federal judgeships through the Judiciary Act of 1802, arguing this shows elected branches have means beyond impeachment to address the judiciary. While stating eliminating district courts might not be necessary unless forced, he believes action is required.
He expresses hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize the situation as “judicial tyranny” and take steps to eliminate nationwide injunctions by district judges or mandate their immediate review by the High Court.
Gingrich highlights legislative efforts underway in Congress and mentions the introduction of the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley and 20 other senators as a “powerful signal” from the Senate.
He also notes the passage of Congressman Darrell Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 in the House by a vote of 219-213. Gingrich asserts that these legislative actions, combined with the judicial rulings, indicate that district judges are forcing a constitutional crisis.
READ: Rubio Turns His Gaze To America’s Backyard After Years Of Neglect From Washington
Concluding his argument, Gingrich states that it is crucial to protect the right of the American people to elect those who manage the federal government.
He suggests that lower court judges who seek to “micromanage and override” the elected President and Congress should resign and run for office instead. Gingrich reiterates that if the Supreme Court does not end the current situation, Congress and the President must use their constitutional authority to eliminate nationwide injunctions by district judges, stating there is “no alternative” to retain a government “of, by, and for the people.”
Do you agree with Gingrich’s assessment? Comment below.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
