The Supreme Court recently did something rare: it reminded 677 federal district judges that they are not the President of the United States.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that these judges have been exceeding their authority when blocking President Trump’s policies. Shocking, I know. Who could have guessed that a judge assigned to a single district isn’t supposed to issue sweeping nationwide rulings based on personal political preferences? Something tells me they knew it, too. Seems when the robe goes on, some judges start to feel a little imperial.

Note that a president is elected by the entire country to make decisions in the national interest. A district judge? As the name suggests, they handle cases in a district. Not a country. Note the word ‘district,’ which spans a few states at most. Their job is to interpret the law in federal matters, not to grandstand with universal injunctions every time they disagree with White House policy. Yet that’s exactly what we’ve seen, especially during Trump’s presidency.

In recent years, left-leaning judges have handed out nationwide injunctions like free samples at the grocery store, halting any policy progressives found problematic. Immigration? Halted. Travel bans? Blocked. Executive orders? Froze them solid. Apparently, the judicial oath now includes the phrase: “May override Orange Man at will.” One has to wonder how many of these judges are friendly with their local congressperson so that one hand can keep washing the other.

Incredibly, the country mostly yawned and let it happen. Where were the Republicans when these shenanigans first started? Where were the conservative judges to pump the brakes? Once again, the GOP – masters at flooding inboxes with fundraising emails, but averse to actual confrontation – seemed content to go along for the ride.

Finally, the Supreme Court stepped in. The breaking point? Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants who cross the border just in time to deliver on U.S. soil. (Why this is even controversial is a rant for another day.) A district judge, predictably, slapped the policy down with a nationwide injunction, as if they were the final word on the Constitution. Guess what –  they’re not.

This time, SCOTUS said enough. In a decision that divided neatly along party lines, the Court ruled that district judges have no business issuing universal rulings that block presidential actions far outside their jurisdiction. In other words: stay in your lane.

The ruling is a much-needed slap on the wrist to judges playing politics from the bench. If a judge wants to shape national policy they should run for office.

For now, the adults in the judicial system have spoken… well, six of them anyway. Hopefully this decision ends the delusion that a single unelected judge can hit the brakes on an entire presidency because their country club friends are troubled by a Trump policy. Judicial activism should not be allowed in our country.

At a press conference following the ruling, President Trump stated: “We can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” he said, listing birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding, refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary government spending, ending taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries, and actually doing what 75+ million Americans elected him to do.

Imagine that: a president implementing the agenda he campaigned on. Oh, the inhumanity! cried the Left.

Now, just to clarify for anyone whose civics knowledge comes from late-night monologues: SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship. That’s still up for debate. What they said loudly and clearly, district judges need to stop acting like commander-in-chief every time they don’t like the president’s policies. Judges are supposed to write opinions, not executive orders.

And while they were at it, the Court added another little nugget: parents may remove their elementary-aged children from classes that include books with gay characters. Yes, apparently that required Supreme Court clarification. Because in 2025 America, allowing parents a say in their kids’ education is now treated like some fringe-right fantasy.

Attorney General Pam Bondi weighed in, noting that 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions against Trump policies came from judges in liberal Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington, and D.C. Quite the coincidence, huh?

So after years of political overreach, we finally get a course correction. It’s not a revolution, just a long-overdue reminder: judges interpret laws, presidents make policy, and voters, not robe-clad activists, decide the direction of the country.

Kind of like the Founding Fathers envisioned it.