In recent political developments, a newly elected populist leader has criticized the judiciary for obstructing his plans to fundamentally restructure his country’s government and economy. This scenario unfolded in Mexico when former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador succeeded in implementing reforms necessitating the election of every judge rather than their appointment. Such changes led to a decline in investor confidence, weakening the national currency.
This type of judicial attack is not unique, as populists worldwide have been increasingly targeting courts. Legal experts are now raising concerns whether similar trends could emerge in the United States.
Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump’s significant federal government reforms are facing judicial setbacks. His supporters have adopted a rhetoric and behavior reminiscent of the prelude to judicial assaults observed in other nations. For example, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, recently expressed his disapproval via social media, questioning the judiciary’s authority over the executive branch and raising the prospect of impeachment for judges hindering the administration.
The administration’s allies, including Elon Musk, have publicly called for the removal of judges obstructing governmental efficiency, while Congress members echo impeachment threats. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley recently expressed outrage over a court order that temporarily halted deportations initiated under an antiquated law. He suggested that such judicial actions could lead to a constitutional crisis unless rectified by the Supreme Court or Congress.
Critics argue that the current administration is fomenting a potential crisis concerning judicial independence. Despite the aggressive rhetoric, the administration has yet to defy court orders outright, and ongoing cases follow standard legal procedures. Legal scholars highlight that no tangible actions to remove judges or enact judicial reforms have been pursued by the administration, but the intensified rhetoric alone has not gone unnoticed within judicial circles.
Concerns grow as similar patterns of targeting the judiciary have been observed globally, with figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán manipulating judicial retirement policies and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro’s conflict with high courts. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has removed dissenting judges, even urging Trump to follow suit. Such actions are deemed by experts such as Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist, as basic authoritarian instincts that undermine democratic norms.
In the U.S., impeachment of judges with the required Senate supermajority remains unlikely, yet the administration expresses frustration over frequent judicial blocks to its initiatives. Historical precedent exists where U.S. presidents have clashed with courts, but the magnitude and frequency of such disputes under Trump revolve around innovative legal theories challenging established norms.
The longstanding foundation of respecting the judiciary as a rule of law pillar is tested by the current administration’s assertions. Former State Department official Anne Marie Slaughter equates judges to referees ensuring rule adherence, stressing the erosion in trust from global allies watching the developments unfold.
The situation evokes parallels from other countries, like Poland, where judicial reforms prompted mass protests and European Union sanctions. Such resistance played a crucial role in political shifts, emphasizing the broader movement to defend judicial independence.
