Federal judges flex the power of their pens again: As Congress fiddles

                                                                                Apr 10, 2026 

[The original version of this blog can be found on Substack here.]  

The judiciary is once again using its power of the pen to hold accountable the Trump administration and its cabinet-full of cowering order followers. 

Over the past ten days, in two opinions, Trump and his minion have gotten reamed by two federal judges, one appointed by George W. Bush and the other by Bill Clinton. 

In one case, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ordered a halt to the construction of what was to be a $400 million, 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom. In the other, Senior Judge Paul L. Friedman put a stop to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s continued attempts to control the press. 

These two rulings are in line with a run of blistering recent federal bench opinions that I highlighted in Judges who don’t hold back: The only vigilant branch weaponizes wit. 

Judge Leon’s 35-page opinion opened with: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” [exclamation point his] He concluded that Trump cannot construct major additions without explicit congressional approval. In reaching his conclusion, Judge Leon ridiculed the “aptly described Rube Goldberg contraption” that authorizes Trump to use private donations made to the Secretary of the Interior. 

In the few days since the ruling, Trump’s legal team has appealed, arguing that completion of the project as a whole is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds. [See NBC News story: “White House calls new ballroom a national security necessity that’s ‘vital’ to the Trump family’ safety: The administration indicated it will go to the Supreme Court if the federal appeals court doesn’t rule in Trump’s favor.”] 

A largely demolished part of the East Wing
of the White House in October
[AP photo in NBC News story above] 

Senior Judge Paul L. Friedman took aim at the Pentagon’s reinstatement of the very policy the court had enjoined. “The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the Court to look the other way…. Nor can the Department take steps to circumvent the Court’s injunction and expect the Court to turn a blind eye. But that is exactly what the defendants have done by closing the Correspondents’ Corridor and imposing an escort requirement.” 

Pen in cheek, Judge Friedman wrote: “At bottom, the defendants ask this Court to hold that so long as the Department does not reinstate the exact words of the Challenged Provisions, and so long as it restores The Times’ reporters’ physical credentials, it has done enough. If the Department immediately uses new words to do the same thing? Too bad. The plaintiffs need to start over while the Court stands idly by. If the Department immediately takes steps to undermine the purpose of the reporters’ credentials, namely, entry to the Pentagon? Again, too bad.” “

In short,” the court underscored: “This is nonsense.” 

A federal judge in Washington said
the Pentagon’s revised press policy
was essentially unconstitutional.
Kenny Holston/The New York Times 

The judge kept going. In reminding us all that “suppression of political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy,” Judge Friedman lectured: “The Court cannot conclude this Opinion without noting once again what this case is really about: the attempt by the Secretary of Defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see. The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too.” 

 #######