Did you hear the one about the Federal Judge who thought he could tell Trump what he could not do? Hilarious!

We’ve all heard stories about power-mad Federal Judges who had been told so many times by people who are required to be nice to Federal Judges they were all-powerful they actually started believing it but this one just might top them all!

A Federal Judge, Paul A. Englemayer, in Manhattan (of course) wholeheartedly complying with a request by attorneys general of 22 deep blue states, entered an order in the dark of the early morning hours of last Saturday banning - are you sitting down?- the Secretary of the Treasury from accessing the records of… the Treasury Department.

Just think about that for a moment or two; it is almost impossible to imagine hubris this gargantuan without seeing it as some kind of a joke!

He also banned, apparently thinking he was more powerful than the President of the United States, the duly appointed head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency, Elon Musk, and his duly appointed employees but he allowed civil servants, a/k/a denizens of the Swamp (the highly revered Administrative State), to have full and unfettered access to all such records!

And the real kicker to this joke is that this particular judge was deliberately sought out by the said attorneys general (a practice known as “forum shopping”), led by the truly execrable Letitia James of NY v. Trump “fame”, and that he decided he could tell the person elected by 77.3 million American citizens to hold, according to the Constitution, ALL executive power of the government, what he could do and, more importantly, what he could not do.

If only this were some kind of a sick joke but the tragic fact, bordering on downright dangerous for the future of our Republic, is that Judge Englemayer does, in fact, exist and he did, in fact enter such an order without allowing the government the right to be heard in opposition to this act of sheer anarchy, in violation of the most basic principles of judicial ethics and basic fairness which are the bedrock of our judicial system.

Before exploring in a little more detail the bizarre world of the aforesaid Judge Englemayer it should be noted with some relief that another judge, the one to whom the case is permanently assigned, has modified the order allowing the Secretary of the Treasury, a duly appointed member of the cabinet, approved as required by a majority vote of the Senate, to have access to the records of his own department. That this modification was even necessary tells you all you need to know about today’s activist judges and the anti-Trump resistance they so dutifully serve. Here’s a photo of the resistance in action- peaceful and non-violent, as always and being inspired, as only a liberal could be, by the screeching of Fauxahontas (Loon, Mass.):

Here is a good summary of this sick joke of a ruling:

Engelmayer blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department payment system. In his ruling, Engelmayer forbade all political appointees including the Treasury Secretary(!) from accessing Department of Treasury data.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) explained the ruling on my podcast, “The Alex Marlow Show.”

“The ruling is just four pages long. It appears to me to be all boilerplate, pretty generic language with zero substantive legal analysis,” Lee said.

“It was issued ex parte, meaning the Trump administration lawyers weren’t allowed to argue, they weren’t even in the room,” he added, noting that the aggressive ruling came down with apparently only activist leftists in the room.

“This is a really aggressive order that,” Lee explained, because “in essence” it implies that “Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial role without real power.”

Pure lawfare.

Another writer summed up the insanity of this order in these few pithy words:

In what universe is the Treasury Secretary not allowed to look at the records of the agency he manages?

Here is the Vice President’s solid common sense view of the matter:

It seems lately one of these ridiculous injunctions pop up out of nowhere and they’re spreading like an epidemic with the arrogance of some judges reaching the point where they are entering “nationwide” injunctions! I find myself in full agreement with this excellent analysis of John Daniel Davidson writing in The Federalist:

Only a few weeks into Trump’s second term, the popularity of injunctions is back with a vengeance, which means the Supreme Court might well step in to decide whether any federal district judge, anywhere in the country, can bind the actions of the White House by issuing nationwide injunctions.

It’s long past time to settle this. The American people overwhelmingly elected Trump precisely because they wanted to see his agenda for America enacted. Lower court federal judges, whom no one voted for, have no right to assert their will over and against the will of the American people. The sooner the Supreme Court takes this up and settles the obvious question, the sooner Democrat lawfare against Trump’s agenda will come to an end. Instead of relying on activist judges, Democrats might then have to figure out how to compete at the ballot box — something they are obviously loath to do.

One thing seems certain: with all but one of the President’s Cabinet selections confirmed and considering his approach to stubborn problems-and people- it is highly likely we will see some solutions start shaping up on this front very soon!