Article III of the US Constitution states, “Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Articles II and III, respectively, identify the responsibilities and powers of the congress and the president.

Federal courts are to apply the Constitution, and the laws created by Congress under its authority, and to do so equally and fairly, strictly following the law and not personal biases or opinions. Enforcing federal law is the role and responsibility of the president and, by extension, the Executive branch and its agencies. This is the Constitutional model for how the federal government has and should function.

In 2017, President Trump recognized that certain countries disproportionately harbored terrorists and, under his executive authority to enforce immigration law, ordered a temporary travel ban from selected countries until adequate vetting of immigrants was in place. Later, President Trump recognized that DACA (created via “executive order” by President Obama) exceeded executive authority, since creation of immigration/naturalization laws and policies are the responsibility of Congress. Congress, in its role, was to resolve the issue. Common sense and logic would dictate that if one president had authority to implement DACA, then another had the authority to end it.

Several federal district judges have stepped in, apparently ignoring established law and practice, and ruled that President Trump’s actions were unconstitutional, and have blocked their implementation. This raises questions.

Since when do non-US citizens in other countries have Constitutional rights? How does one individual district judge have power to order a nationwide ban? Regarding DACA, one judge even ruled that President Trump had the authority to end it, but that his reason for doing so was inadequate. You be the judge. What’s wrong with this picture?