Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back.
It’s another week of U.S. courts groaning under the weight of all the stupidity spawned by President Donald Trump’s administration. Some federal judges are receiving hundreds of threats for daring to rule against Dear Leader. Some federal judges are having to untangle Trump’s tariff mess. And one federal judge is stuck dealing with Patrick Byrne, the ex-Overstock CEO who has genuinely lost the plot.
Is it good when federal judges have to fear for their lives?
Because that’s what is happening to judges who rule against the Trump administration.
Sure, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to spin this as a both-sides sort of problem, issuing a toothless, vague statement about how “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
But simply put, judges did not spend the Biden administration’s duration fearing for their lives if they ruled against one of President Joe Biden’s initiatives. Biden did not threaten the judges and whip up his supporters to do the same. That one is all Trump.
Related | Supreme Court justices sure are quiet about attacks on their power
Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the bench for 45 years, told CBS News he was swatted after blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. Someone called the police to tell them Coughenour murdered his wife, leading to five armed deputies coming to his door. The next day, Coughenour got a bomb threat.
Judge Esther Salas, a Barack Obama appointee whose son was murdered by an angry litigant, said she is more concerned now with the threats whipped up by Trump.
“I think that the attacks against the judiciary are only--getting worse,” Salas said. “What I am seeing now is far different than what I have seen in the past. This is coming from our national leader on down.”
Indeed it is, and it isn’t like John Roberts is going to do anything to stop Trump.
Florida’s attorney general sure knows how to grift
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is trying so very hard to turn the Sunshine State into a mini-MAGA—so why shouldn’t he figure out how to grift tax dollars just like Trump does?
Uthmeier, who makes $140,000 per year in his role as state attorney general, just landed an incredibly sweet side gig as an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Law School. For his efforts—totalling two hours of classes per week—he will receive $100,000 per year.
Yes, you read that right. And lest you think that every adjunct at UFLS is showered with six-figure deals, Uthmeier’s salary is eight times the regular salary for adjunct professors at the school.
Uthmeier defended this in the worst possible way, whining that he just can’t make ends meet without it.
“When you have a growing family with three kids, you’ve gotta look for other ways to keep the lights on, and put food on the table,” he claimed.
Hopefully Uthmeier can make it on a mere $240,000 a year going forward.
Patrick Byrne suddenly remembers he was sued by Hunter Biden
Patrick Byrne, the Overstock CEO-turned-election conspiracy theorist, seemed to think it was a good idea to basically blow off the defamation case filed against him by Hunter Biden. Byrne said the former president’s son had committed treason, taken bribes, helped Iran—honestly, you know the drill. It’s the same stuff that was always trotted out about Hunter Biden, but seems instead to be true of several members of the Trump administration.
Patrick Byrne speaks during a panel discussion at the Nebraska Election Integrity Forum on Aug. 27, 2022, in Omaha, Nebraska.
Byrne had been playing games for months, which is not the savviest move in front of a federal judge. He failed to show up for the start of the trial when it was first scheduled last July, instead sending a brand new legal team in his stead. This is, of course, not a thing you can do in court. Byrne wanted U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson to allow him to be represented by Stefanie Lambert, and just no other lawyer would do. Wilson declined, because Lambert was disqualified last year from representing Byrne in a different case after violating federal court orders.
Oh, and she also faces criminal charges in Michigan for election tampering.
Byrne got a second bite at the apple when the judge rescheduled the trial for October, but then Byrne refused to show up for a hearing, and the judge decided he’d had enough and issued a default judgment of $33 million against Byrne.
But wait! Byrne has a plan to somehow restart everything! Calling himself a whistleblower, he trotted out new versions of the same methods he has been using to defame Hunter Biden for years. Now, however, he’s saying that this “implicates serious national security concerns” and that Hunter Biden attempted to negotiate a deal with Iran that would have netted him millions from Iranian agents. So now, according to Byrne, the court should erase the default judgment and basically let Byrne start over. That’s kinda not how it works, buddy.
What if the DOJ could be more partisan?
Things are obviously already pretty partisan at the Department of Justice since it basically exists now just to do Trump’s bidding, but Attorney General Pam Bondi feels like her people are still too shackled by petty little ethical rules.
So, she’s rescinding a Biden-era memo that barred political appointees from things like using their official authority to influence elections. Sure, yeah, what could go wrong with having high-level DOJ attorneys out there making official statements about, say, how a candidate is corrupt or election machines are broken or whatever else their spider brains come up with?
Related | Trump’s Justice Department is more lawless than ever
It also reverses the prohibition on having DOJ attorneys “solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who is a participant in any matter before the department.” That is a very long way of saying that DOJ attorneys used to be barred from using the threat of prosecution to achieve a political outcome, but now that’s totally cool. Well, the DOJ is already pretty much doing that, but Bondi apparently wanted to make it official.
Administration’s attempt to stall tariff refunds lands with a big thud
Even though the Supreme Court ruled that yes, some tariffs were illegal and yes, the government has to give the money back, the administration doesn’t want to do that any time soon.
In a pathetic attempt at delay, the DOJ filed an absolutely unhinged request to delay the refund process for four months, or 90 days after the Supreme Court issues its official mandate.
A digital bill board flashes a message in Kennedy Township, Pennsylvania on March 25, 2025
Why? To be cautious! Totally not because the administration is still trying to figure out a way to keep all the money, couldn’t be. But the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was not at all interested in this nonsense and took only two days to tell them no.
Things aren’t going any better for the administration at the U.S. Court of International Trade, which is the specialized court that has jurisdiction over the tariffs. On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton ruled on a case involving one company, Atmus Filtration, which had sued in the CIT for a refund of tariffs plus interest.
But Eaton dropped an absolute banger and told the administration that his order applies to all companies, whether they have brought lawsuits or not. How can Eaton do that, since it looks an awful lot like a nationwide injunction, which the Supreme Court said was a no-no?
The Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties. So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions. To find otherwise would be to thwart the efficient administration of justice and to deny those importers who have filed suit the efficient resolution of their claims, and to deny entirely importers who have not filed suit the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.
Get ‘em.
