Courts in the Crossfire: How Injunctions and Venue Games Are Damaging the Judiciary

On October 27, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Executive Order 14248, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration on federal forms. The executive order goal was straightforward: ensure that only citizens vote, as mandated by federal law. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the President “lacks authority” to alter election procedures under the Elections Clause.

That ruling conflates two very different constitutional areas. The Elections Clause that she relies on governs how elections are conducted—such as polling hours and ballots—not who is eligible to vote. Citizenship is a legal qualification, and the President’s duty under the Take Care Clause is to enforce those laws faithfully. Cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) confirm that federal authorities can require proof of eligibility. Under the Youngstown framework, a 1952 Supreme Court test that defines the limits of presidential power, this order clearly falls within the category in which the President acts with congressional approval. The National Voter Registration Act allows the Election Assistance Commission to require information “necessary” to determine eligibility. This isn’t executive overreach; it’s the proper execution of the law.

A New Kind of Judicial Overreach

That same week, two Obama-appointed judges, Indira Talwani in Massachusetts and John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, ordered the administration to use SNAP’s $5–6 billion contingency fund to cover November benefits for 42 million recipients. The White House agreed in principle but said it lacked the legal authority to access those funds without congressional approval. The judges disagreed and enforced their decision anyway.

That creates a constitutional dilemma: obey the court and risk spending money Congress has not authorized, or refuse and risk being held in contempt. Unless appeals courts clarify the legal basis, the issue will likely go to the Supreme Court. And if no justification is given, a third party could later sue over unlawful spending. It’s a bureaucratic Catch-22—and a clear example of judges crossing from legal review into policymaking.

The Injunction Surge

These are not isolated cases. In less than 10 months of his second term, President Trump has encountered 32 nationwide injunctions, continuing a pattern from his first term, when 64 executive actions were blocked—more than all presidents from Eisenhower to Obama combined. President Biden, by comparison, faced only 14 such injunctions in four years.

The Supreme Court tried to slow this trend in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025), ruling 6–3 that nationwide injunctions generally exceed judicial authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Relief, the Court said, must address specific harms to plaintiffs, not block policies for the entire nation. The decision slowed the pace, injunctions dropped from 5.5 per month to 3.8, but creative workarounds like class actions and state-specific blocks now serve the same purpose under different labels.

Forum Shopping and Ideological Judging

Advocates know where to find friendly judges. About 30 percent of all cases are filed in the D.C. District Court, 25 percent in the Northern District of California, and 20 percent in Massachusetts—districts led by Democratic appointees. Roughly 70 percent of injunctions against Trump come from such courts. Conservative challenges to Biden followed a similar pattern, often ending up before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, the only judge in that division.

The imbalance becomes more evident on appeal. Studies from the Congressional Research Service, Harvard Law Review, and Yale Law’s 2025 injunction database show that injunctions by Democratic-appointed judges against Trump were upheld about 85 percent of the time, while those by Republican-appointed judges against Biden survived about half the time once the Supreme Court weighed in.

Both sides play the game, but venues that favor the Left tend to last longer. The outcome is a system where results depend more on geography and ideology than on the law—undermining the belief that justice is impartial.

The Money Behind the Machine

The money behind this “lawfare” is enormous. Progressive legal groups spent about half a billion dollars opposing Trump’s first-term policies; the ACLU alone invested over $200 million. Allies like Earthjustice, Lambda Legal, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Democracy Forward contributed hundreds of millions more.

Conservative challenges to Biden cost about one-tenth as much, mostly funded by state attorneys general rather than private donors. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed over 100 suits against Biden, operated on a litigation budget of just $6 million—a fraction of the ACLU’s.

Even more troubling, several of these organizations receive federal grants from the very agencies they sue. Earthjustice takes in $15–20 million annually from the EPA; the Vera Institute of Justice receives $25–30 million from the Department of Justice; and Democracy Forward collects $10–15 million from HHS and the Department of Education. They claim private donations fund their lawsuits, but money is fungible. Federal grants free up private dollars for litigation, allowing taxpayer money to finance lawsuits against lawful government actions indirectly.

Restoring Balance

Whenever a single district judge halts a nationwide policy, the separation of powers weakens. Judicial review is vital to constitutional government, but judicial vetoes by ideologically predictable judges are not.

The Supreme Court’s CASA decision was a step forward, but Congress now needs to clarify the boundaries of injunctive relief and mandate faster appellate review. The Judicial Conference should strengthen venue rules to prevent forum shopping. Additionally, the executive branch should make sure taxpayers aren’t funding lawsuits against their own government through federal grants.

The controversy over proof of citizenship goes beyond voter registration. It’s about whether the will of the people still shapes national policy—or if unelected judges in sympathetic courts can overturn it from the bench.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Sober Awakening: Faith's Quiet Revolution

 A Wedding Without Wine

Last month, I attended the wedding of a young couple, only twenty-two years old. It was one of the most touching ceremonies I’ve ever seen: love, faith, and reverence filled the hall. Every detail, from the prayers to the communion hymns, moved those in attendance.

At the reception, no alcohol was served—but the dance floor was packed. Laughter, rhythm, and joy filled the night. These were twenty- and thirty-somethings—faithful, confident, and completely comfortable in their sobriety. It wasn’t deprivation; it was joy rooted in faith, the kind that sees no need to dull the senses or cloud the moment.

That evening was symbolic of a quiet revolution that is underway. After generations of associating alcohol with adulthood and success, America is shifting away from that view. Gallup reports that only about 54% of adults now drink, down from two-thirds just a few years ago. This isn’t due to policy—it’s personal. A change of heart, and young people are leading the change.

The Generational Shift

The Silent Generation, after World War II, centered their social lives around alcohol. Their children, the Baby Boomers, grew up in that environment, and many paid the price with broken homes and broken trust. As a generation, they followed suit, viewing alcohol as a symbol of adulthood. To make matters worse, the legal drinking age was lowered in many states during their teen years. Even those without addiction issues used alcohol to fit in, belong, or overcome social anxiety. Gen X followed a similar pattern.

A shift is occurring. Among Gen Z, alcohol consumption has significantly decreased. Only about half now drink at all, and heavy drinking has dropped even more. What once symbolized growing up—beer at parties, shots at bars—has become optional. A new generation increasingly sees alcohol less as glamour and more as poison. Over half of young adults believe even “moderate” drinking is harmful.

Young people today—especially Gen Z—have more freedom in some ways than their ancestors, but their world also feels smaller. They express emotions more openly and connect more easily, yet many of those connections happen through screens. Online chats and digital gatherings have replaced the bonfires, basement bands, and late-night hangouts of earlier generations. Many aren’t out drinking just because they don’t go out much at all.

Still, that retreat indoors has brought unexpected benefits. A generation less caught up in nightlife has also avoided some of its risks. They don’t depend as much on alcohol to join the crowd or find courage. Some call this isolation or overconfidence; others see it as shallowness. But maybe it’s a complex kind of progress—a quieter, more private culture learning that not every kind of freedom comes from the crowd and choosing new paths.

That’s what made that young couple’s wedding so inspiring. At twenty-two, they are not just confident in their faith—they are living it. Their decision to marry early and start a family demonstrates that faith and responsibility can bring maturity sooner rather than later.

The Regional and Faith Divide

The trends are shaped by various factors: health awareness, the "sober curious" movement, economic pressures, shifting social patterns, cannabis substitution, new addiction treatments, and increased screen time. Awareness campaigns about alcohol's dangers that Gen Z grew up with are similar to the more aggressive and successful campaigns against tobacco. 

The most noticeable change is in the South and Midwest, where faith has a greater influence on culture. Drinking among young adults in those regions has declined nearly twice as fast as on the coasts.

The South and Midwest start from lower levels—shaped by religion and conservative values—but their declines are also the steepest, suggesting an outsized influence of faith. Coasts, with higher consumption, are declining more gradually, often through wellness goals or replacement at cannabis exchanges.

There's been a recent subtle revival of faith, especially among Gen Z in the South and Midwest, which may be exerting a more substantial influence. We might be witnessing the early stages of a generational shift: young men and women who aren't just inheriting a broken world but are actively working to restore it. Bible sales doubled to 2.4 million in September 2025, with the South/Midwest accounting for 60–75% of the growth—linked to campus revivals such as Asbury (KY) and Auburn (AL) and the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

This faith resurgence isn't just spiritual—it's practical. Among young Christians, drinking rates are half those of peers, and family formation happens earlier, countering national delays.

Faith Revival: The Moral Anchor

Surrounded by abundance but uneasy with emptiness, young people are returning to the basics many of their elders abandoned—faith, family, and purpose. They are learning to balance the freedoms of modern life with the core values that once held communities together. They distrust the empty institutions that failed their parents, but they yearn to rebuild those that gave life meaning—churches, families, neighborhoods—through renewed conviction and higher purpose. This revival of faith could serve as the moral foundation of America’s sober awakening.

The Christian revival that began at Asbury University in 2023 has quietly spread across campuses and ministries throughout the United States. Charlie Kirk was part of that expansion, and his assassination has only invigorated his followers and organizers. This revival is not a mass conversion but a return home—sons and daughters rediscovering the strength that once held families of past generations together.

Together, these forces depict a powerful scene: health awakening conscience and faith sparking conviction. However, the most profound and lasting change is spiritual—young people choosing that peace comes not from escape but from purpose.

A Sober Horizon

America’s sober awakening is accelerating through a spiritual revival—a return to clarity of mind, body, and soul. The challenges are real: profit-driven marketing, peer pressure, and old habits from previous generations. But the overall direction is positive.

For years, we masked our pain and even our happiness with alcohol. Now, a new generation proves that we don’t have to. Joy can be honest, fellowship genuine, and courage steady-eyed.

If this quiet revolution continues, the next generation may not only drink less but also live more fully—guided by faith, strengthened by purpose, and confident enough to embrace life as it really is. It will provide the underpinnings they will need to face the rapid transformation anticipated in the age of Artificial Intelligence.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Vindicated: Trump’s Bold Plan Ignites the Middle East’s Long-Awaited Dawn

Nearly two years ago, in the shadow of Hamas’s barbaric October 7, 2023, assault, I wrote about the unexpected opportunity emerging from that horror. Then, in June of this year, I described a turning point, Israel’s decisive actions against Iran and its proxies that I believed would realign the region. Those posts, offered a prediction: that Iran’s overreach would ultimately collapse its influence, strengthen the Abraham Accords, and open a path toward durable regional peace. What then was hope and optimism is now becoming history and I am profoundly grateful.

The Plan That Changed the Game

President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza War has redefined Middle East diplomacy. Its first phase, securing the release of hostages, a ceasefire, and initial withdrawal, and release of some Israeli held prisoners, has been signed by both Israel and Hamas, with implementation imminent.

From Riyadh to Islamabad, world leaders have hailed Trump’s blueprint as a “bold vision for peace,” combining humanitarian relief, demilitarization, and post-war governance.

This isn’t a symbolic gesture, it’s a structural shift. Hamas is militarily broken, Iran’s proxies are neutralized, Iran is on its heals, and the Abraham Accords are expanding. The cycle of perpetual war is giving way to a framework of mutual security and economic growth.

Trump’s success in the Middle East stems not only from strength, but from fairness. He is trusted precisely because he has acted as a credible, even-handed broker, something few American presidents have achieved. Israel remains America’s steadfast ally, but Trump made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that there would be no annexation of the West Bank, preserving space for Palestinian self-governance. When Israeli operatives overstepped in their failed strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Trump insisted Netanyahu issue a formal apology to Qatar, signaling that even allies must respect the rules of peace. That balance, firm loyalty to Israel paired with accountability and respect for Arab sovereignty, has earned him rare trust across the region. Leaders from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Egypt view Trump as a negotiator who honors strength, keeps his word, and delivers results.

From Despair to Leverage

An Open Letter on the Dignity Act of 2025: A Bipartisan Start

To Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and all Americans:

In a time of partisan deadlock, your Dignity Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393) shows promise through bipartisan backing, including eleven Republicans and eleven Democrats. However, it risks failure because it repeats previous mistakes. As a commentator who recently completed a four-part series on immigration reform, I recommend that you focus on framing your bill strategically, prioritizing overhaul of the 1965 Immigration Act, and enforcement and reform of immigration related policies before legalization.

Where the Act Gets It Right

Your bill’s enforcement measures are robust. A $46.5 billion investment in barriers, technology, and ports of entry, along with 24/7 aerial surveillance and harsher penalties for smugglers and repeat offenders, demonstrates genuine seriousness. The phased rollout of mandatory E-Verify is vital. These measures echo my call for “relentless enforcement” at the border and in the interior as the non-negotiable precondition for any agreement.

Your asylum reforms are equally important. Humanitarian camps to process claims within 60 days, penalties for fraud, and regional processing centers abroad are practical steps to prevent abuse of the asylum system. If executed correctly, as part of broader reforms, these changes could help close the “catch and release” loophole and restore trust in our asylum laws.

I also see value in the Dignity Act’s restitution requirements. Requiring undocumented immigrants to pay $7,000 over seven years, undergo biometrics, check in regularly, and remain ineligible for federal benefits acknowledges that legalization must be earned, not handed out. These elements closely align with the Temporary Guest Resident and Special Legal Permanent Resident models I have proposed.

Gerrymandering: The One Thing Democrats and Republicans Agree On

Gerrymandering is once again in the news. I first wrote about it in 2019, but since then what was once an occasional tactic has turned into a high-stakes battleground in the fight for power. In this post, I suggest one way to control the worst gerrymanders — by empowering federal courts to strike down maps that are grossly disproportionate.

In Texas, Republicans redrew maps to improve their chances in 2026, prompting Democrats to denounce the move as an attack on democracy. Meanwhile, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom aims to expand a heavily Democratic-leaning delegation, where a 22.3% distortion favoring Democrats, combined with the state’s 52-seat delegation, creates one of the most significant imbalances in the nation.

Gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics since the founding of the Republic and has long been a staple of the country's political landscape. In recent decades, however, the practice has become more advanced, more coordinated nationwide, and more central to partisan conflicts. Additionally, technology enables precise manipulation, and national leaders are now investing directly in state-level races.

Immigration Reform Part 4: From Strategy to Action

For decades, Washington has traded promises of border security “tomorrow” for leniency “today.” In Reagan’s 1986 Act, legalization proceeded, but enforcement never followed. Americans now understand that promises alone do not secure borders—only laws, resources, and tangible results do. This plan changes that history by first rebuilding laws, institutions, and enforcement, while registering illegal immigrants only after legislative changes are put in place. Legalization will only begin once the new system has demonstrated its effectiveness.

A Demographic Reality We Can’t Ignore

America faces a fertility crisis. Our fertility rate, at 1.6 compared to the 2.1 needed for stability, risks a 25% population decline by 2085, resulting in a drop from 334 million to 251 million. This would shrink the workforce and decrease economic output. Unless fertility rates rise significantly, immigration will be the most effective way to stabilize the population, requiring 2.5–3 million legal immigrants annually.

But immigration alone is not a solution. The economy of the 21st century will be shaped by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence, which will boost productivity and decrease the need for certain types of labor while increasing demand for others. This means immigration must be managed carefully, not just in terms of volume, but also in terms of composition, balancing birth rates, economic needs, and technological progress. When done correctly, immigration can offer both stability and flexibility during times of demographic decline and rapid change.

Immigration Reform Part 3: The Strategic Imperitive

In Part 2 of this four-part series, we looked at how decades of broken promises, political gamesmanship, and misplaced compassion pushed America’s immigration system to the brink. But simply pointing out failures isn’t enough. If we want to restore order, public trust, and fairness, we must go beyond slogans and quick fixes. We need a strategy, a clear and practical framework that explains not just how we handle immigration, but why.

This strategy must support America’s security, economic, and cultural interests while allowing room for responsible compassion. Only then can we provide a humane and disciplined path forward that gains the confidence of the American people.

Tactics Are Not Strategy

The Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz said war is “politics by other means.” Tactics, he argued, are useless without a clear purpose. Immigration policy is no different. Deportations, walls, visa limits, or legalization are tools, not solutions.

Some advocate for mass deportation as the answer. Others support open borders, citing compassion as their reason. Both overlook the main issue: what kind of society are we building, and how does immigration help us get there? Open-border advocates argue that compassion and global humanitarian duties take precedence over national interests, but no country can thrive with unlimited generosity. Mass deportation alone ignores the need for legal paths and economic factors. Without a shared vision based on our nation’s needs, economic growth, cultural unity, and security, we end up with reactive enforcement, unpredictable policies, and a growing gap between what the public expects and what the system actually delivers.

How Immigration Policy Lost Its Way

The United States is an idea built on liberty, responsibility, and unity. However, recent immigration policies have shifted away from these principles, often driven by sentiment, corporate interests, or political gain. Corporate lobbies push for cheap labor. Activists promote demographic change. Politicians modify rules to sway elections. What’s missing is a plan to align immigration policies with America’s long-term interests.

A firm immigration policy starts with clear questions: Who can support our economic interests? How do we bring them in legally and sustainably? How do we ensure they assimilate and follow our laws? These questions focus on the nation’s interests rather than short-term gestures or ideological victories.

Progressives often quote the Statue of Liberty’s poem, “Give me your tired, your poor…,” as if it’s law. But the Statue, a gift from France, celebrated liberty, not open borders. Emma Lazarus’s poem was a later addition, expressing sentiment rather than a strategy.

Historically, immigration met America’s needs. In the 19th century, immigrants were pioneers settling the frontier to support the nation’s expansion. During industrialization, another wave of immigrants contributed to the growth of factories and the economy. Most came from Europe, sharing cultural roots that eased assimilation. They worked to adopt American values despite facing challenges like discrimination.