Last week, the Supreme Court issued a legal opinion that even the most distinguished experts and scholars struggled to comprehend. The ruling was in regards to the case of “Trump vs. CASA” – CASA standing for “Citizens Assisting and Sheltering Abused.” The central theme of the judgment revolved around a nationwide injunction on President Trump’s management of U.S. immigration policies. Like over forty other cases, federal district judges intervened to halt the president from exercising executive authority.
The Supreme Court’s opinion was blunt: “Universal injunctions from federal district judges likely exceed the equitable power Congress conferred on federal courts.” This principle not only applied to this case but also to a series of cases restricting the president’s ability to manage administrative operations. These courts had previously assumed the authority over the president, but the Constitution did not grant them such power.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented individually, to which Justice Amy Coney Barrett commented, “Contrary to centuries of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We notice only this: Judge Jackson attacks imperial-style executive power while defending judicial imperialism.”
Court observers believe that Justice Barrett’s scathing remarks towards her colleagues in the majority opinion are unprecedented.
The practical effect of the ruling underlined the meaning of the Second Amendment: “Executive power belongs to the President of the United States.”
So why did this spark controversy? Here, we delve into the structure and functioning of the U.S. government, and the overwhelming reality that contradicts the U.S. Constitution. This situation has persisted for over a century without facing fundamental challenges. Before Trump’s presidency, most presidents turned a blind eye and did not pose serious challenges. The legislature also chose to turn a blind eye.
The issue lies in what is commonly referred to as the “fourth branch of government,” which almost completely encompasses all we know about government operations. We elect leaders and representatives through elections, yet for a century, the power represented by our votes has diminished. We know this, but we always turn a blind eye to it.
In U.S. politics, the “fourth branch of government” refers to groups or institutions believed to have varying influences on the U.S. federal government’s three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) or operate on their behalf. These groups include the media, the people, and interest groups. Additionally, independent executive agencies of the U.S. government, though technically belonging to one of the three branches, can also be referred to as the “fourth branch.”
The answer has been hidden in plain sight. It was not until a dramatic domestic exercise of executive power, one that impacted each of our lives significantly, that we realized the severity of the problem. Ultimately, the approximately 425 government agencies with millions of long-term employees are the true government of the United States.
So, who or what forces are controlling these government agencies? That is the question. Since the beginning of his second term, President Trump came to understand deeply that these administrative powers ruined his first term and forced him out of office. Winning a second term, he brought in a fresh team determined to decisively address the issue of who calls the shots.
The answer lies in the organizational chart of the U.S. government. The government has three department branches, and all these agencies fall under the executive department branch.
This is a relatively simple truth that every business person knows. The meaning of an organizational chart lies in clarifying the chain of command. The President is responsible for overseeing the executive department branch. He appoints cabinet officials and agency heads, who are accountable to the President’s executive office. What he says goes.
However, the complexity lies in the fact that all these agencies are established through legislation. They could have been placed under the legislative branch, much like the Library of Congress, but that was not the case. Instead, the legislative branch sought to shirk responsibility. That is why these agencies are routinely classified under the executive department branch. Starting from the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, successive presidents have generally ignored them. And over time, they have grown in size and power.
This beast has grown in Washington, yet no one has paid attention to it because all powerful interest groups believe that these agencies serve their purposes. No one is genuinely interested in taking action against them because they keep the government functioning. Over decades of neglect, these agencies have gradually formed their own system and power without anyone turning back to address those fundamental questions.
In 2014, before Trump began his first term, law professor Philip Hamburger published “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” His argument was that there is no such mechanism in the Constitution. There were no agencies separate from presidential control.
This argument might seem academic, but the reality proved otherwise. President Trump was plagued by dark forces relentlessly accusing him. Media colluded with national administrative agencies absurdly accusing Trump of being a Russian asset who won the election through Russian intervention. This accusation dominated news reports for years, leaving the entire Trump administration in disarray.
Gradually, the Trump team realized they needed to assert some authority over the administrative state. President Trump fired the FBI director. This decision was the first significant counterstrike. It was a strong statement that the President, elected by the people, would control this strange beast that had assumed the authority to manage the country beyond its limits.
A struggle, or rather a real war, began at that moment. In March 2020, some fake experts, national security officials, and even family members convinced President Trump that he must order the shutdown of the entire U.S. economy, along with businesses and schools, and institute strange rules requiring everyone to maintain six feet of distance from others.
President Trump made this decision to preempt what he believed could be an unavoidable calamity. He issued the order. Subsequently, the administrative state sprang into action. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a slew of unbelievable regulations. Congress complied with these regulations with unprecedented massive spending. Some of these guidelines include authorizations for absentee ballots, known to be insecure.
After a few weeks, President Trump’s concerns began to multiply. Months later, he had had enough of the nonsense. He began calling for the reopening of the country. The deep state turned a deaf ear to his calls. The power of lockdowns had been transferred to the states, and federal agencies simply disregarded him. This situation persisted for months leading up to the November election.
It was clearly a humiliation of President Trump. He ultimately became a social media President, issuing advisories every day. The media mostly mocked this powerless lame duck. It was enough to make him and his team say “enough.” He issued an executive order reclassifying many federal positions as terminable. The courts rejected this order, and later his successor revoked it.
The administrative state and its power were laid bare for all to see. The curtain had been pulled back, not only seen by Trump but also by the American people. After four challenging years, he undisputedly won a second presidential term.
This time, he had a plan. He would issue a plethora of executive orders and ensure he was the true President, as if the administrative state as an independent force did not exist. He knew this would surely trigger a wave of injunctions, but he was prepared to take the risk.
After all, you are either the President, or you are not. There would no longer be Presidents governing by autopen, nor puppet leaders seemingly in charge but actually manipulated by bureaucrats. Essentially, they decided to test this Hamburger’s argument. Besides the power granted by the first clause of the Second Amendment (vesting executive power in the U.S. President), what else could the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court received a plethora of cases. Eventually, the Supreme Court spoke out. It unequivocally stated that courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions deliberately hindering the President from performing his duties.
And the arguments against it were that it bestowed too much power on the President. This is not hard to understand, but someone has to be in charge. For those afraid of one person’s dictatorial control over millions of bureaucrats, there is a solution. Disband most agencies and their employees. Fire them all, defund them all.
Of course, this is not what the “liberals” want. They consider it intolerable. Their ideal state is one where massive bureaucracies wield absolute power, unchecked, entirely captured by industry, and only responsive to mainstream media. As far as I know, those days are gone and will never return.
Someone must wield the power of the executive branch. The Constitution clearly designates who that person is. Everyone knows this.
【Translator’s Note: The original news content has been rephrased and expanded upon to offer a detailed analysis of the legal judgment and its implications for the U.S. government structure and functioning. The translation aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issues discussed in the original article without altering the core message.】
This translation incorporates a detailed analysis of the legal judgment and its implications for the U.S. government structure and functioning. Let me know if you need any further adjustments.