Judicial Activism: Our Last Pillar of Democracy.

On December 31st of 2025, justice prevailed in the San Francisco Federal District Court. That was the day Judge Breyer officially rejected this administration’s justification for their use of the National Guard, which some have described as an “intimidation” of LA residents. The administration argued that exigency for the federalization of the National Guard is only needed in the initiation of the process. Their argument implies that, once federalized, the National Guard is available to the president indefinitely. If entertained, this rationale is a gateway to the exploitation of national guardsmen and military personnel around the United States.

The deployment of national guardsmen to LA was justified with the intention of “protecting federal personnel/property” from the brewing “civil unrest” in LA. The administration kept troops despite protesters becoming comparatively docile (to the initial deployment) in the city. Although the preliminary injunction was tossed by an appellate court, Breyer’s final ruling – that the administration was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act – prevailed. This act of judicial activism is not alone in contemporary patterns of federal court interventions.

In a recent ruling, US District Judge Dana M. Sabraw ordered the administration to return three families that were deported. The ruling is rooted in immigration agents’ deceptive tactics and intentional disregard of the families’ legal status, pursuing the ambitious expectations & procedures set by the administration. Once more, it was a judge who, with the Constitution’s might, kept these agents in check.

In a similar rebuke to an increasingly rogue agency, US District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can “no longer be presumed to be acting in good faith” (Democracy Docket, 2026) in its attempts to seize state voter rolls. Kasubhai was rightfully skeptical of the administration’s intentions after examining a letter by Attorney General Pam Bondi. In it, Pam Bondi links the deployment of ICE agents and the DOJ’s pursuit of voter rolls. The correlation is alarming, and the lack of Congressional oversight & action to subdue the executive when it acts outside of its Constitutional powers – or intrudes on the Constitutional rights of others – has become apparent.

For Americans, district courts like those of San Francisco, Seattle, and more have offered immense respite from federal abuse of power. In times when Congress has been permissive of an ambitious and overreaching executive, it is judges like Breyer, Kasubhai, and Sabraw who remember their loyalty to the Constitution. With rulings and injunctions against the administration that have prevented the financial coercion of states & universities, judges have been the backbone of a fragile democracy. Thankfully or disturbingly, they have been the main roadblock to some of the administration's attempts to cut research funding and life-saving state entitlements.

In an era of boldness and increasing disregard for the founding documents and principles of this country, restraint of any kind can be the determining factor for the livelihood of thousands. Judges are increasingly involved in public policy and activism – it isn’t out of hunger for power or personal fault with authorities: it is out of duty and allegiance to the constitutional republic that is the United States.

We must thank Judge Breyer and his colleagues for the preservation of our democracy: for reminding our increasingly rogue executive that it is their duty to uphold the rule of law, and not to rule the law.