The responsibility of federal courts in upholding constitutional rights
The framers of the Constitution designed the federal judiciary as an essential check on the other branches of government. Today, it stands as the only effective check.
The framers recognized that the legislative and executive branches, influenced by political pressures and shifting majorities, might occasionally overstep their constitutional limits. In such instances, it is the solemn duty of the federal courts to act and restore the proper balance, thereby safeguarding the rights of citizens.
Now is the time for judges to step forward.
They can no longer remain secluded in palatial courtrooms adorned with paintings, portraits, artifacts and architectural symbols of governmental authority. This is a moment that calls for great courage. Federal trial and appellate judges must leave behind the safe harbor of timidity and lengthy footnotes and instead act boldly when the executive branch has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution — and strongly consider effective remedies that may require receivership-type oversight.
The intent of the Framers
The Federalist Papers provide clear evidence of the framers’ intent regarding the judiciary’s role.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton emphasized that the courts were meant to serve as a barrier to legislative encroachments on the rights of the people. Hamilton wrote, “The independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves.” This statement highlights the judiciary’s critical function as a protector of constitutional rights against violations by the other branches.
Similarly, in Federalist No. 51, James Madison argued for a system of checks and balances, stating that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The judiciary, protected from political pressures by lifetime appointments, was positioned to ensure that neither the legislative nor the executive branch could unilaterally infringe upon individual liberties.
Constitutional scholars on judicial oversight
Constitutional scholars have consistently affirmed this interpretation of the framers’ intent.
For example, John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously established in Marbury v. Madison that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This principle has guided federal courts in exercising judicial review and correcting constitutional violations by the other branches.
More recent scholars, such as Laurence Tribe and Akhil Reed Amar, have further explained the judiciary’s obligation to enforce constitutional limits. Tribe points out that the courts “stand as guardians of the Constitution, ensuring that no branch exceeds its authority or tramples on the rights guaranteed to the people.” Amar similarly argues that “the structure of judicial review is not a matter of judicial supremacy, but of constitutional supremacy, where the courts act as faithful agents of the constitutional text and principles.”
Ronald Reagan stated that federal judges are “… the guardians of freedom for generations yet unborn.” Our freedoms have never been under such a visceral threat as they are today.
Correcting infringements on constitutional rights
When the legislative or executive branches enact laws or take actions that infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens, it is the responsibility of the federal courts to correct these overreaches. This corrective function is not merely a power but a DUTY, rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers and the framers’ deliberate design. Judicial intervention is essential for preserving the rule of law and maintaining the integrity of the constitutional system.
In sum, the framers made clear through their writings and the structure of the Constitution that the federal courts must act decisively when the other branches threaten the rights of the people. Drawing from the wisdom of The Federalist Papers and the insights of constitutional scholars, it is evident that now, more than ever, it is time for the federal courts to fulfill their non-discretionary constitutional responsibilities.
Minnesota has a long history of distinguished and courageous federal judges, including Jack Tunheim, Don Alsop, Edward Devitt, Diana Murphy, David Doty, Michael Davis, Mimi Wright, Donovan Frank, Joan Eriksen and many others. I call upon Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schlitz to act in the manner of his predecessors and take the necessary steps to restore the Constitutional rights of Minnesotans, stop a rogue agency, and implement an oversight framework to prevent such grotesque abuses in the future — actions that echo the founding principles of our country. The federal judiciary remains our only practical hope.
Jim Seifert, Lake Elmo, is former general counsel for Ecolab and American Public Media Group and a former Republican state legislator who represented parts of Woodbury, Oakdale, Maplewood and Landfall.
Leave a Reply