A lawfare judge rules for false, political history

www.americanthinker.com

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley is a rare bird. A Democrat and legal analyst for Fox and other media outlets, he focuses on upholding the traditions, history, and law of the founding. He addresses political issues, but only in the context of upholding the law and legal ethics. This has often put him in the position of defending President Trump and many of his decisions, even though he disagrees with them.

Among his agreements with Trump and ethical legal scholars is the dangerous use of judicial lawfare against Trump. Federal judges have routinely tried to impose their political preferences on Trump executive orders and agency decisions, ignoring the question of whether they have the authority to make such rulings, as well as applicable law. Their constant impositions of nationwide injunctions were largely struck down in 2025:

Graphic: X Post

That has not stopped unethical, anti-Trump judges from abusing their judicial powers for political gain. And why not? They know they will suffer nothing for their unlawful decisions, which will likely be struck down by appeals courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, as most of them have been. But in the meantime, they get to virtue-signal to the rest of the judicial resistance and delay the lawful exercise of presidential powers until their illegal restrictions are overturned. Trump obeys the law; they don’t. As the Democrat Party says, “by any means necessary.”

Turley addresses a recent opinion issued to keep the Trump Administration from implementing an executive order requiring the removal of leftist attacks on America and American history in federal parks and museums.

George Santayana famously said that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The same is true for judicial overreach. Those judges who yield to the temptation to counter policies that are not to their liking are likely to repeat such excesses of power. That is why the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston is so concerning. While there are good-faith reasons why some have objected to the removal of slavery and climate change exhibits from national parks and monuments, this is not about the merits but the authority to make such changes. Kelley’s recent injunction smacks of judicial excess rather than measured review.
Advertisement

Judge Kelley, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction at the behest of groups representing park conservationists, historians and scientists, who argued that the U.S. Department of the Interior has been engaged in a “sustained campaign to erase history and undermine science.”

Turley points out the objectionable displays were installed under the Biden Administration and include Climate Change orthodoxy. Judge Kelley and other lawfare judges are establishing the principle that whatever a Democrat President does by executive action can never be undone by a Republican President, an obviously specious assertion. Turley makes the essential point:

However, the question is why the Administration can make such individual decisions rather than department-wide or branch-wide decisions. Likewise, it is difficult to see the limiting principle here. If President Trump said that he wanted to emphasize certain elements like patriotism and these displays were substituted, would that also be a violation of federal law?

His answer:

Judge Kelley chastises the Administration for removing displays that “do not align with its preferred narrative.” However, the original displays were themselves a preferred narrative by the prior Administration.

Turley concluded:

The Administration is citing the sweeping discretion afforded under federal law. However, the Court suggests it can micromanage the branch in making decisions about interpretative displays under this language.

Once again, I may agree with these historians on some of this material but it is immaterial — as immaterial as Judge Kelley’s qualms. In my view, the court’s analysis is deeply flawed and should be reversed.

I suspect Turley’s view will soon prevail and Americans visiting our national parks and museums will have the pleasure of learning the truth about America's greatness and the history that brought us to this point, circa June 2026. Leftist, revisionist history and contemporary political preaching like Climate Change have no place in those public facilities, nor in the courts. There are more than enough sources for those so inclined to read about and view leftist propaganda about the evils of America and Americans. Neither the law nor common sense mandates their inclusion and primacy in publicly supported venues. And as Turley concludes, federal judges have no authority to decide such matters on either side.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, lifelong athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer, and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.