They’re Not Reporting the News. They’re Eulogizing a Weapon.
The Supreme Court didn’t just issue a ruling on the limits of judicial power. It stripped the Left of one of its most abused, most beloved tools for undermining presidents they don’t like.
The Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the ruling in Trump v. CASA isn’t a legal analysis. It’s an obituary. A mournful elegy for the death of something it never should’ve had in the first place: the power to let one district judge block the will of a national electorate.
Let’s not pretend this is neutral journalism.
The editorial tone practically collapses into grief. They’re not warning readers about constitutional shifts; they’re lighting candles and humming "Taps" for the loss of a judicial cheat code that’s been in play since Trump took office in 2017.
And now that the Supreme Court has shut it down, they’re calling it dangerous. Predictable? Absolutely. Honest?
Not even a little.
The Golden Age of One-Robe Rule
To understand why the Tribune is so upset, we need to understand what was just taken away.
For years, whenever the Left couldn’t win in Congress or, more importantly, at the ballot box, they’d race to the nearest friendly courtroom. It didn’t matter where: Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, or some handpicked Obama appointee’s chamber in Maryland. File a lawsuit. Frame the narrative. And get a “nationwide injunction” to freeze a Trump policy before it even left the runway.
This tactic became so common that it was practically choreography. Announce the policy, cue the protest, and 48 hours later, one federal judge halts it nationwide. One judge, often unelected, unaccountable, and nakedly partisan, got to override the entire Executive Branch.
What was once a rare and extreme form of judicial relief became the Left’s version of executive privilege. The result?
Border security measures were blocked.
Refugee vetting halted.
Executive orders paralyzed.
Whole sections of immigration law were suspended not by legislation or appeals but by activist judges who decided their interpretation should apply from Maine to Alaska.
And the Chicago Tribune cheered it every step of the way. They didn’t see a problem with this until now, when their side lost the gavel.
Pre-Obama, Courts Weren’t Weapons
Before the Obama years, most judges understood their lane. They ruled on specific injuries, granted relief to actual plaintiffs, and left broader enforcement to legislatures and executive officials. If a court believed a law was unconstitutional, it struck down the law for those directly affected.
That was it.
No single judge presumed the authority to govern the country.
But when Barack Obama couldn’t push parts of his agenda through Congress, he discovered something that would change the landscape: judicial power as political insurance.
Don’t have the votes?
Don’t worry.
Courts will back you up. Just redefine standing, expand harm to hypothetical groups, and convince sympathetic judges that feelings are evidence.
The floodgates opened. Under Trump, the tactic went nuclear.
Sadly, I'm not talking about this year.
By 2020, Trump’s administration had faced over 60 nationwide injunctions, more than the combined total under Bush and Obama. The media portrayed each as heroic resistance rather than a grotesque distortion of the judicial role.
The Chicago Tribune didn’t call that dangerous. They called it justice.
SCOTUS Shuts the Game Down
Then came Trump v. CASA. And finally, some order.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court declared what any honest lawyer should’ve already known: nationwide injunctions aren't standard judicial tools.
They're judicial overreach.
They violate the principle of limited jurisdiction.
A district judge has no business telling all 50 states how to behave based on the injury of one activist group.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, was refreshingly blunt. She reminded the lower courts that they exist to resolve concrete disputes for the people before them, not to moonlight as policymakers with lifetime appointments.
The Court left the door open to broader injunctions in rare cases, but the message was clear: courts are not national legislatures. If you want federal policy to change nationwide, win an election. Don’t forum-shop a ruling from the bench and call it democracy.
Naturally, the Left lost its collective mind. And the Chicago Tribune broke out the black veil and organ music.
Let’s Translate the Tribune’s Outrage
The Tribune's coverage frames the ruling as an “invitation for executive abuse” and wrings its hands over what could happen to birthright citizenship, Trump’s latest target. They suggest that this ruling will create a patchwork of justice, resulting in different Americans experiencing varying legal realities.
Here’s what they really mean: “We can’t stop Trump anymore, and that terrifies us.”
They’re not worried about constitutional chaos. They’re afraid that Trump’s policies will now have a chance to go into effect before liberal judges and lawyers can gut them.
It’s not about legal consistency. It’s about power loss.
For eight years, they grew accustomed to pulling the fire alarm every time Trump attempted to take action. Now, the fire alarm has been boxed up and labeled “For Emergencies Only.”
And they’re panicking like someone took away their oxygen.
Judicial Tyranny Is Still Tyranny, Even If You Like the Rulings
The worst part of the Tribune’s argument is its dishonesty. They never once ask, 'What if the roles were reversed?'
What if a single Trump-appointed judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction halting the Biden administration’s entire climate agenda?
What if a conservative court blocked DEI hiring mandates across all federal agencies?
What if a solitary courtroom declared the EPA’s power unconstitutional from coast to coast?
Would the Tribune applaud that as a necessary check on tyranny?
Of course not.
They’d call it “far-right extremism in a robe.” They’d demand Supreme Court intervention. They’d say it undermines the will of the people and endangers democracy.
So why is it noble when it benefits the Left? Why does judicial activism become “guardrail protection” when it’s used against Trump but “illegitimate overreach” when used the other way?
The answer is as old as politics: power. They never cared about judicial consistency. They cared about results.
And now that they’re no longer guaranteed those results, they’re calling the game rigged.
The Real Danger Isn’t Restraint. It’s Addiction.
There’s something deeply unhealthy about the Left’s reliance on the courts as their first, second, and final strategy.
They lose elections? Courts.
Congress won’t pass the bill? Courts.
Public opinion turns? Courts.
Can’t find a legislative path? Sue until it bleeds.
That’s not checks and balances. That’s dependency masquerading as principle.
The judiciary was never meant to be the national emergency brake. It was supposed to be the final word on clear law, not a referee blowing the whistle every time someone doesn't like the play.
The Supreme Court, to its credit, just reminded everyone of that. They took away the cheat code. They forced everyone, left and right, to play by the same rules.
And the Tribune can’t stand it.
Final Thoughts
This wasn’t a legal defeat for the Tribune and its fellow travelers. It was an identity crisis.
For years, they’ve wrapped judicial overreach in the language of “accountability.” They’ve treated activist rulings as moral victories. They never saw a problem with a single judge halting a president’s national policy as long as that president’s name was Trump.
Now, the field is level. The shortcuts are gone. The robe can’t swing a sword anymore.
So they cry foul.
They claim danger.
They warn of dystopias that oddly resemble how conservatives lived under their rule for years.
But what the Tribune is mourning isn’t justice; it’s their own declining control over it.
And maybe, just maybe, they’ll have to do something they haven’t done in a long time: make arguments, win elections, and accept defeat like grown-ups.
