More Judicial Over Reach

After a reported Trump threat over naming sites after him, judge orders rail tunnel funding restored

A federal judge recently ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for a rail tunnel project between New York and New Jersey - stepping in just as construction was set to halt. The ruling came amid reports that President Trump was withholding the funds as leverage for political demands.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Trump, this decision highlights a serious and growing problem: judges ruling from the bench and intruding into powers reserved for Congress and the Executive.

Under the Constitution, spending decisions belong to Congress, not the judiciary. A federal judge has no authority to unilaterally direct the allocation of taxpayer funds unless a specific legal claim regarding statutory or constitutional violations is properly before the court. Courts are meant to resolve disputes, not manage national infrastructure budgets or override political funding decisions.

When judges inject themselves into funding decisions without a narrowly defined legal basis, they blur the separation of powers and undermine democratic accountability. If Congress appropriated funds with specific conditions, disputes over those conditions belong in legislative and executive channels - not in courtroom decrees.

This kind of judicial activism erodes public trust and fuels the perception that courts are no longer neutral arbiters of law, but political actors advancing policy outcomes. Whether the issue is immigration, spending, or infrastructure, courts must interpret law - not create policy.