Rogue judges are causing a constitutional crisis in the United States. Since President Donald Trump took the oath of office, federal district courts have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions against his administration. This compares with only 14 such injunctions issued against Joe Biden during his entire four-year term. In fact, more than 70 percent of all nationwide injunctions since the year 2000 have been issued against a Trump administration. Judges are blatantly exceeding their constitutional authority to stop the president’s Make America Great Again agenda. And to a large degree, they’ve gotten away with it.

But now the Supreme Court is intervening!

On Inauguration Day, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 instructing the executive branch of the federal government not to recognize children born to illegal immigrants or visa holders as citizens. This order was blocked by several district court judges. Three of these injunctions were later consolidated into Trump v. CASA, Inc. and brought before the Supreme Court. What happened next was interesting.

Rather than rule on whether the children of illegal immigrants are citizens, the Supreme Court focused on whether lower federal courts have the authority to overturn actions by the federal executive (the president).

The court’s six conservative justices ruled that that the Constitution provides no authorization for a district judge to issue an injunction that applies nationwide. “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,” Justice Amy Barrett wrote for the majority opinion; “they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, saying the Supreme Court “today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, calling the majority opinion “an existential threat to the rule of law” and a license to “engage in unlawful behavior.” She lamented that district court judges will no longer be able to stop President Trump—effectively making national policy—yet she did not even attempt to claim that her dissent was based on the Constitution.

To Justice Jackson’s dissent, Barrett replied, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.”

This is good legal analysis!

As Hillsdale College president Larry Arnn pointed out to radio host Mark Levin earlier this year, the office of federal district court judge was created by Congress with the Judiciary Act of 1789. At the time, many people thought the federal judiciary should be limited to a Supreme Court, but Congress saw fit to create lower federal courts to handle local issues. These lower courts almost didn’t come into existence, and they were never given nationwide jurisdiction.

“These districts are created by Congress, not the Constitution,” Levin said on his show on February 27. “These judges are created by Congress, not the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create both. So when a federal district judge issues, say, a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction, and does that nationwide, they’re really operating outside their lane, aren’t they?”

Arnn answered that it “violates practice. But also obviously it violates common sense, right. How can you do business if one of 677 guys becomes the national authority on some major national level of policy?”

Just three years ago, even Justice Elana Kagan, another extreme liberal, agreed with the same principle Barrett, Thomas, Arnn and Levin have emphasized. In 2022, when Biden was in the White House, she said, “It can’t be right that one district court—whether it’s in the Trump years … the Biden years—and it just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks, and leave it stopped for [the] years that it takes to go through the normal process.” But under the influence of Trump derangement syndrome, radical liberal justices now believe that it can be right for every federal policy to face 677 potential vetoes.

The Founding Fathers wrote a constitution that gave the courts the power to check and balance executive authority. They obviously never gave district judges the power to stop the president from enforcing laws that have been passed by the people through their representatives in Congress. The practice of nationwide injunctions emerged in the 1960s and, unchecked, became more and more common.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. moves America back closer to its Constitution and its founding.

My father, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry, has proved that President Trump is an end-time type of the ancient Israelite King Jeroboam ii. He wrote in the August 2019 Trumpet issue that Amos 7:12-13 are actually a prophecy that this same Jeroboam figure will be supported by a secular entity called the “king’s court,” or “kingdom’s court.” In “Can President Trump Get Control of His Own Divided Government?”, he wrote:

In Washington, D.C., is the Supreme Court building, where judges are to interpret the law. In the same area are buildings for the cia, the fbi, the Justice Department, the State Department, the Pentagon and others. Most of them were built during and after the Great Depression, when they had a lot of manpower to use, so they built some truly impressive structures for the government. It is logical this prophecy is talking about these government structures, or agencies. After all, if Jeroboam is going to be used to save Israel, he would need the law on his side. He wouldn’t be able to use the government like he needed to without the legal structure behind him.

During President Trump’s first term, politicians, judges and other officials loyal to Barack Obama tried to subvert his agenda while posing as a constitutional check on the president. Yet a number of recent Supreme Court cases have clarified this issue and held that federal officials cannot usurp legislative or presidential authority. The Constitution provides that lower officers of the United States possess only as much executive authority as the president delegates to them. Now, the Supreme Court is acting once again and clarifying that district judges have jurisdiction only within their districts and that their injunctions do not have nationwide effect.

When Amos 7:12-13 refer to the kingdom’s “court,” it uses the Hebrew word bayi, which is usually translated as “house.” This word does not refer to a city full of millions of people but rather to a household of people dedicated to enforcing the kingdom’s laws. This word aptly describes America’s constitutional system of government. This week’s Supreme Court ruling is another fulfillment of a prophecy my father first explained six years ago.

To learn more about this prophecy, read “Is America’s Supreme Court in Bible Prophecy?”