I’ll never forget calling balls and strikes for the first time. It was youth baseball, so low stakes. I made hundreds of calls in my short stint. Were they always right? No. I bungled my share, but I was even-handed. No one likes it, but that’s the sport. You know what people like even less? When parents or coaches scream at the umpire to overturn a call. The call won’t get overturned and all they’re doing is ruining the game. Respecting the umpire even when you think they’re wrong is a better choice and offers a lesson that could help our politics today.
We grow up learning what makes American democracy special — separation of powers, co-equal branches and checks and balances. I’ve practiced these principles for more than 15 years as a national security professional in two branches of government: in the U.S. Senate and at the Department of Defense. I haven’t always agreed with the third branch of government, but when the judiciary exercises its discretion to check overreach, it’s performing a constitutional service — not playing politics.
Consider the legal jousting over President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act — an 18th-century wartime statute. The president invoked the law in March to justify the swift deportation of Venezuelan migrants on the pretense that they posed a national security threat. Civil liberties groups filed suit against the government in the D.C. District Court, where Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order against the government — an order it allegedly ignored even while it appealed to the Supreme Court.
The administration’s supporters argued that the district court overreached in attempting to substitute the court’s judgment for the president’s on national security. President Trump went so far as to suggest that Judge Boasberg was “highly conflicted” because President Barack Obama appointed him to the federal bench (President George W. Bush first appointed him to the D.C. Superior Court). But Judge Boasberg’s order was not an act of partisan politics or judicial overreach. It was the court doing its job to ensure that a law authorized for foreign enemies isn’t misapplied to civil immigration.
The administration appears content to ignore the judgment of district courts, using national security as cover. During an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said, “I don’t believe district courts should be determining national security policy.”
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit the ability of district courts to impose nationwide injunctions. I don’t agree with the court’s view, as it risks unequal protection under the law for anyone not party to a legal challenge of the executive’s unconstitutional actions. But it would be a mistake to concede that the court’s ruling makes district court judgments irrelevant. That seems to be what this administration wants, and it would undermine the independent judiciary where 94 district courts hear the bulk of cases in the federal court system. Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling, most of those didn’t end up as nationwide injunctions.
If a legal party — say the government — doesn’t like a district court ruling, it is free to challenge the decision to a federal appellate court and then the Supreme Court. But while the appeal plays out, the legal party must abide by the ruling.
Imagine again if this were baseball and a coach didn’t like the call at the plate. Would they tell their batter to ignore the umpire and walk to first base? Of course not, because the game would fall apart. That’s exactly what risks happening here if the administration is allowed to ignore the authority of the federal judiciary. Congress shouldn’t let the administration’s contempt slide. None of us should.
Unlike youth baseball, the stakes here are high. The American Bar Association warned that attacks against judicial review pose a “serious risk to our constitutional framework that separates power among three co-equal branches.” They remind us that Marbury v. Madison (1803) established one of the oldest legal precedents in U.S. history: that courts are empowered to check overreach. They are our constitutional umpires.
Let’s treat the judiciary with the same respect owed to youth baseball umpires. It’s okay to disagree with a court’s ruling. But if we want the system to work — the whole system — keep it civil. Follow the ruling, file an appeal and let the judicial process play out. Because whether on the diamond or in the nation’s courtrooms, when everyone plays by the rules, the game remains fair for all. That’s the only way to ensure that we can protect the game — and our constitutional democracy.
Will Rogers served as national security advisor to U.S. Senator Brian Schatz and as a senior adviser to the U.S. secretary of the Army. He is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan national security think tank in Washington, D.C.
