In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary could become “a despotic branch.” He foresaw that this would happen when judges encroached on the legislative and executive spheres by declaring themselves the final — and therefore no longer coequal — arbiters of “what laws are constitutional and what not.”

Jefferson’s prophetic warning is precisely what is playing out in the courts today. Judicial supremacists have indeed created a despotic branch. Chief Justice John Roberts would do well to take note.

Admittedly, President Donald Trump has been unorthodox in both his policies and his approach to enacting them — to say nothing of his communication methods. But he wasn’t elected and sent to Washington, DC, a second time to ensure The Swamp remained intact. His mission was and is to drain it. That’s sometimes an ugly task.

With Democrats in the minority and rudderless, activist judges have taken it upon themselves to block him at every turn. In two short months, Trump has lost court cases regarding firing executive workers, canceling executive expenditures (like funding gender mutilation of children), reworking executive agencies such as USAID, and deciding how executive agencies will enforce laws such as birthright citizenship or deportation of terrorist sympathizers and criminal terrorists. Just yesterday, yet another power-hungry district judge blocked the commander-in-chief’s order determining criteria for serving in the Armed Forces, saying he must allow “transgender” people to enlist and remain in the military. By the way, when appointed in 2023, that judge became the “first LGBT person” to serve as a district court judge in DC.

Do you notice a pattern here? Judges (mostly at the district level) are telling the president how to run his own branch of government.

Political analyst Gary Bauer also noted something mind-blowing: “[Barack] Obama only faced 12 nationwide injunctions during his 8 years in office. [Joe] Biden faced 14 in four years. But the first Trump term saw 64 judicial injunctions issued against his agenda. And the left’s lawfare against Trump’s second term is off to a blistering start. More than 120 lawsuits have been filed against the administration, and at least 15 nationwide injunctions were issued against Trump’s orders last month alone!”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it an “emerging dictatorship” of district judges.

Yet Democrats and the Leftmedia blame Trump for igniting a “constitutional crisis.” I think they have the wrong suspect.

You see, it says right there in Article II, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” District judges do not have executive power.

On Monday, I wrote that DC District Court Judge James Boasberg was micromanaging immigration policy, blocking Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for deportations and even going so far as to (ludicrously) demand that airplanes loaded with illegal alien criminal terrorists turn around and fly back to the United States. They didn’t because they were no longer in U.S. airspace, much less under his jurisdiction.

Trump responded with his typical flare, posting a Truth Social missive that included this line: “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Trump was impeached twice, of course, so he likely meant this more seriously than literally. Boasberg did grossly overstep his authority, though, and Congressman Brandon Gill filed articles of impeachment.

I’ll grant that this is largely political posturing that won’t (and probably shouldn’t) go anywhere. Like the “constitutional crisis,” however, don’t blame Trump for being the first one to politicize the judiciary. Democrats have spent decades doing that.

Still, Trump’s comment prompted John Roberts to issue a rare public statement circling the wagons for his branch of government: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Roberts is correct that not liking a ruling isn’t sufficient for impeachment. However, he is wrong to suggest that this case is merely about “disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” It concerns the argument that the judge was completely out of line and usurped authority.

Maybe Roberts could muster the energy for a statement instructing judges on their proper constitutional role and authority.

Then again, Roberts is the guy who engaged in legal contortions to save ObamaCare in 2012. Democrats repeatedly insisted that the individual mandate was not a tax, going to great lengths to legislate it as a “penalty” so as to avoid being accused of raising taxes. When the mandate was challenged in court as an unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty, Roberts decided (i.e., legislated) that it was, in fact, a tax so that he could justify it under Congress’s power to levy taxes.

I’ll strain to avoid hyperbole here, but on numerous occasions since then, Roberts has seemingly been more interested in asserting judicial authority and preserving precedents and “norms” than in faithfully interpreting the Constitution or the laws.

There may also be a personal element here. The Federalist’s Sean Davis notes that Roberts put Boasberg “on the FISA court that rubber-stamped illegal spy warrants against Donald Trump,” adding, “In case you’re wondering why he’s setting his own credibility on fire to defend Boasberg from impeachment investigations.”

In the specific case at hand, Trump is perhaps stretching the law beyond its original intent, but not incontrovertibly so. He undoubtedly prefers hyperbole in making his arguments. Regardless, Roberts should stay in his lane and oversee his own branch rather than continue to allow district judges to run roughshod over the executive branch.

Follow Nate Jackson on X/Twitter.