Are the courts treating Trump differently than other presidents?
From pink hat-wearing protesters to former FBI Director James Comey, President Trump has accrued plenty of challengers in his first four months in office – but perhaps none has been as effective as the federal courts.
The judiciary is a key cog in America’s checks-and-balances system, and a significant question mark loomed over how the institution would respond to such an unorthodox and unpredictable character in the White House. And ever since Judge James Robart in Washington became the first federal judge to block one of Mr. Trump’s policies nationwide – in that case, his first travel ban executive order – federal courts around the country have overwhelmingly done the same.
But as the losses have mounted for his administration, particularly in liberal-leaning courts, some have begun to wonder if the hype and fear surrounding his policies have led the judiciary to treat him unfairly.
For almost a century, presidents have enjoyed a “presumption of regularity” that, barring evidence to the contrary, they always properly discharge their official duties.
Perhaps for the first time in history, the question of whether a president is entitled to that presumption is being seriously debated…
Click here to read the full article.