Rogue Federal Judge Compromises National Security

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]This is a very critical issue for protecting the constitutional order of our separation of powers. When you look at what the president did here within his authority and what a federal judge tried to take away from the president.

[00:00:17]Nathan, give us a little bit of background on this case and how we got to where we are today.

[00:00:23]>> So, this case is really important because as you say this gets to the fundamentals of executive power.

[00:00:30]President Trump issued a number of sanctions designed to recognize the fact that the ICC is going after an ally of the United States, going after Israel for illegitimate reasons. And so the president issued sanctions pursuant to his responsibility over foreign affairs.

[00:00:47]And so he issued those sanctions and of course as always happens people brought lawsuits. This particular lawsuit was actually brought by the family members of Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur. So, they brought this lawsuit and they claim as her family members that they're now worried about whether they can give her gifts for Christmas or whether they can live with her as a family because of these sanctions. Which sympathetic or not, what this federal judge then did is the real problem because rather than saying, "You know what? You're right to be worried. Let's make sure that you as a family are protected." He invalidated the sanctions across the board. So, he completely struck down all sanctions against the UN special rapporteur just because of the single alleged harm to a family member. And so that kind of judicial overreach is a pattern we're seeing over and over again right now.

[00:01:40]>> ICC, this is something that if you watch the Seculo broadcast, if you follow the ACLJ, you're more familiar with probably than the average American.

[00:01:49]Uh the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. Uh therefore they don't have jurisdiction over the United States. That doesn't mean that they haven't tried. They have tried throughout their history to go after US soldiers.

[00:02:03]Because what they see as war crimes, what they view in their, you know, their omniscient at the International Criminal Court, they can pick and choose what what a war crime means.

[00:02:18]They we know we're going after Israel trying to arrest Bibi Netanyahu, who is also not a party to the ICC. They are trying to exert this global power, this global law enforcement authority over countries that not have not even signed on to the Rome statute, that have not been a party to their court. So, of course the president, you would think, if they are trying to exert authority where they do not have it, has those powers to issue sanctions. That that's broad foreign policy powers of the United States and the Treasury, which is under the executive branch.

[00:02:58]And you have this judge that takes a case, which just once again, Nathan, you said the absurdity of like a family member saying, "We're afraid we can't give mom a Christmas present because of sanctions." Well, one, the the the law does not take into account feelings. The the law takes into account facts and the way this plays out. But Nathan, this judge did this, what is the ACLJ doing now?

[00:03:25]>> So, the judge issued his order just a couple weeks ago on the 13th. Last week, the Trump administration appealed to the DC Court of Appeals. And what they did is they asked the Excuse me, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. What they did is and they asked they asked that court, "Please stay this order. Let us put these sanctions back in place because this is a matter of national security." So, what What ACLJ did is over the long weekend, we prepared our brief that we filed this past Tuesday supporting that motion for a stay. What we're urging the court to do is no, the president, not a federal judge, is the one who should be deciding international sanctions. It's not up to a judge in DC to decide what international sanctions should look like when these kinds of problems happen for our national security. It's a matter for the president, not a single unelected judge.

[00:04:21]>> The point, if you take this example to the extreme, I feel like most people would say sanctions against Vladimir Putin are appropriate at this point.

[00:04:33]Or sanctions on Russian oligarchs.

[00:04:36]If all of a sudden a family member were to file in US court saying, you can't do this because we're afraid we may get caught up in it because Yeah, I mean, yeah, dad's Vladimir Putin, but I want to give him a Christmas present. Like just the absurdity of the argument and then the federal judge saying, you know what?

[00:04:56]You're right. And who knows who else could get caught up in this? We're just going to get rid of the entire sanction scheme. The entire thing.

[00:05:05]That is what we're talking about here.

[00:05:06]It's up to the discretion of the executive branch, the sanctioning of individuals and the Treasury and the president ultimately. The president is the executive branch under the Constitution. And so Nathan, that's exactly what we look at here. If you were to take the the hypothetical that they made real here and apply it to any other person on the sanctions list.

[00:05:29]You start to quickly see how absurd on the face of it this ruling is.

[00:05:35]>> As important as the ICC is, I know not all of us are necessarily dealing with the ICC on a daily basis. But what we are seeing every single day are these attempts to put obstacles in the way of letting Congress and the president do their jobs, right? People trying to run to the courts as an end run around the systems that are supposed to be in place, right? And so, I think that's what this case is very fundamentally about. Should a judge be the one deciding policy for the entire country or should the people we've elected, right? And so, that's really what our what our brief is getting at at a really fundamental level is no, it's not it's not a judge who should be deciding what country should be sanctioned. Congress has set up a system and under that system it's the president who has the authority to make the sanctions. And that's the thing we're urging the court of appeals. And of course, if necessary, this could even go to the Supreme Court.

[00:06:27]And we're urging those appellate courts to hold this district judge accountable.