The Supreme Court loves to exalt “due process” as a sacred principle, handing down lofty rulings from their marble fortress. But when it comes to their own responsibilities? They vanish behind a wall of procedural loopholes.
While SCOTUS demands that the President provide a full hearing for every one of the estimated 20-30 million illegal immigrants—complete with lawyers, judges, translators, and appeals—they themselves dismiss 99% of petitions begging for a hearing, citing “time constraints.”
It’s a staggering double standard, one that exposes a deeper truth: SCOTUS doesn’t practice the burden-sharing it preaches.
SCOTUS Selects, the President Suffers
Each year, SCOTUS receives 7,000–8,000 petitions for review. They hear maybe 80–150. The rest are denied without explanation. Since 1789, they have turned away over half a million cases, not because of merit, but because they simply don’t have the time.
No one expects nine justices to shoulder the legal needs of an entire nation. But why, then, should the President be forced to engineer due process on a scale far greater, with far fewer resources, amid a 3-million-case backlog in immigration courts?
Where are the thousands of judges supposed to come from? The unlimited funding? The years of time? SCOTUS does not care. They issue demands from a position of insulated privilege while the executive branch is left to pick up the pieces.
Due Process for Some, Expediency for Others
SCOTUS justifies its mass denials by arguing that citizens already had their day in court before petitioning for review. Yet illegal immigrants—many of whom crossed the border in violation of law—are to be granted full constitutional due process rights, including judicial review and appeal.
If due process is sacred, it should apply across the board. If limited resources excuse SCOTUS from hearing thousands of cases, then limited resources should equally excuse the President from providing millions of hearings.
The double standard could not be clearer. Justice for some. Expediency for others.
Judicial Absolutism in Action
When a President dares to expedite immigration enforcement or tighten asylum rules, the courts rush in with lawsuits and injunctions, declaring every efficiency a violation of sacred process.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS continues to pick and choose its own workload, enjoying the flexibility it denies the executive.
This is not constitutional governance. This is judicial absolutism—the Court elevating itself above the practical realities it forces others to endure.
SCOTUS and the Erosion of Authority
The stakes are bigger than court backlogs and bureaucratic dysfunction. This is about who governs America—and whether the will of the people still matters.
Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024. He won the popular vote, he won the House, and he won the Senate. He campaigned openly on mass deportation. It was not hidden. It was not ambiguous. It was a central plank of his platform—and the American people gave him the mandate to act.
Yet SCOTUS, which is not elected and is insulated from public accountability, stands poised to obstruct that mandate at every turn. Worse, the Court sat silent as Biden flooded the country with millions of illegal entrants without proper vetting, weakening national security and overwhelming state and local governments.
The President is the only figure in the federal government elected by all the people. National security is his sacred trust. The executive branch must be allowed to act like an executive. If SCOTUS tries to paralyze the President’s constitutional duty to defend the nation, it plays a dangerous game—one that could end with Trump following the example of Andrew Jackson and ignoring Court rulings outright.
If that happens, it will not just be a Trump problem. It will permanently damage the authority of the Supreme Court itself. A court that overreaches and disregards the will of the people will find itself disregarded in turn.
The warning signs are already there. As Douglas Mackey recently noted, the Roberts Court in 2010 denied due process to Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was kidnapped at JFK Airport in 2002, deported to Syria, and tortured for a year. SCOTUS refused to hear his case.
If the Court could turn its back on a man tortured abroad, how dare it now demand infinite process for millions who entered America illegally?
SCOTUS cannot have it both ways. If it continues down this path, it risks inviting the very constitutional crisis it claims to prevent.
Conclusion: End the Hypocrisy, Share the Burden
If SCOTUS cannot hear every case brought before it, it has no right to demand the President hear every case before deportation.
The burden must be shared—or the standards must change.
The Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. Due process should not be wielded as a weapon to paralyze the executive branch while the judiciary shields itself from accountability.
No more free passes for the robed elite. Reform is long overdue.
—Wolfshead
