Reagan-Appointed Judges Break Ranks: Senior Conservatives Deliver Stark Critiques of Trump

Several long-serving federal judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan have emerged this year as unusually blunt critics of former President Donald Trump and his administration, issuing fierce rulings and rare public statements that underscore deep tensions within the conservative legal establishment.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee who joined the bench in 1985, not only blocked the administration’s cancellation of hundreds of research grants tied to gender-identity and diversity work, he concluded the revocations amounted to discrimination against racial minorities and LGBTQ people. "That's what this is. I would be blind not to call it out," Young said from the bench, adding that it was his "unflinching obligation" to do so.

Other senior Reagan-era jurists have voiced similarly pointed critiques. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, on the D.C. bench since 1987, condemned efforts to justify or romanticize the Jan. 6 attacks after Mr. Trump issued broad pardons for many involved, saying he could not recall a time in his decades on the bench when so many "meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream."

In February, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a 1981 appointee, struck down an executive order on birthright citizenship and wrote that, to Mr. Trump, "the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals." An appeals panel opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson III criticized the government's handling of a mistaken deportation as "shocking" and a threat to procedural due process.

Young again issued a blistering rebuke in a decision targeting the administration’s response to pro-Palestinian campus protests, quoting Ronald Reagan’s warning that "freedom is a fragile thing" while suggesting Mr. Trump may be operating from a more cynical view of civic engagement. "I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values," Young wrote.

Public pushback and departures

Some of these judges have taken their concerns outside the courtroom. Judge Coughenour spoke publicly about threats he faced while presiding over cases linked to Mr. Trump and warned that attacks from public figures have done "stunning" damage to the judiciary’s reputation. U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf — another Reagan appointee — relinquished senior status to devote himself publicly to opposing Mr. Trump, writing in an essay that he could "no longer bear" constraints on judges' public speech and that "silence... is now intolerable."

Not all Reagan nominees have sided with those critiques. U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith issued a sharp dissent in a dispute over a new Texas congressional map, calling the majority ruling "about partisan politics, plain and simple," and accusing a Trump-appointed district judge of "pernicious judicial misbehavior."

Pushback from the high court and partisan debate

These forceful district-court opinions have drawn pushback from the Supreme Court. The high court partially stayed Young’s injunction on NIH diversity grant cancellations, and Justice Neil Gorsuch sharply rebuked the lower-court action, warning that judges cannot defy the Supreme Court. Young apologized from the bench; retired Justice Stephen Breyer later defended Young’s integrity in an interview, rejecting the idea that Young would intentionally flout the justices.

Commentators have debated whether these judges’ views reflect Reagan-era conservatism or a different strain of judicial philosophy. Some conservative observers point to confirmation practices — such as the Senate’s "blue slip" tradition that gives home-state senators influence over district court nominations — as a factor shaping the composition of the federal bench. Judges themselves reject the notion that politics drives their decisions. As Judge Wolf wrote in his essay: "I decided all of my cases based on the facts and the law, without regard to politics, popularity, or my personal preferences."

Whatever the cause, the prominence of these senior Reagan appointees and the candor of their opinions have put an unusual spotlight on the judiciary’s role in checking presidential power and on how partisan polarization is reshaping expectations about judicial restraint.