We all know that Donald Trump’s two terms in office have been beset by activist judges who are attempting to take the law into their own hands and warp it to destroy the agenda millions of Americans voted Trump into office to put into action. And many wonder just when the U.S. Supreme Court will finally step in and cut down all these corrupt, Democrat judges. But the truth is, there already was a Supreme Court case that supports Trump’s powers. It’s just being ignored.
The case is Mississippi v. Johnson and it is a case from 1867 that shut the state of Mississippi down when it attempted to exempt itself from President Andrew Johnson’s legal actions as president.
In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state could not sue a President to stop him from carrying out his legal executive duties, even if the state believed those duties were unconstitutional.
At the time, the leaders in Mississippi argued that the federal government’s Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional and sought to prevent President Andrew Johnson from enforcing them on Mississippi. But the SCOTUS declined to issue an injunction, holding that the President’s duties under the Reconstruction Acts were not ministerial and therefore not subject to judicial restraint. In other words, the court could not interfere in the president’s duties because his office was a co-equal office and that the courts could not interfere in the president’s legal duties.
The Reconstruction Acts split the former Confederate states into military districts and then set our criteria for allowing them back into the union as full-fledged states. Johnson and the federal government were then tasked with carrying out these duties (even though Johnson tried to veto the legislation without effect).
Consequently, Mississippi asked the SCOTUS to prevent Johnson and federal officials from enforcing the Reconstruction Acts, arguing they were unconstitutional and violated the state’s sovereignty.
The high court, though, denied Mississippi’s request, and held that the President’s enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts was a discretionary act, not a mere ministerial duty. The Court also said the President’s actions fell within his executive and political milieu, and the courts could not interfere in those duties.
So, Mississippi v. Johnson ruled that a President cannot be sued to prevent him from carrying out his executive duties, especially those that are discretionary. The ruling also upheld the separation of powers between the courts and the executive branch.
Why is this precedent being ignored?
Because liberals want to pretend it does not exist.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, X at WTHuston, or Truth Social at @WarnerToddHuston.
