Morning AF 6/21/2025

The Revenge of the Senior Status Judges

By Michael Popok

Let me call this what it is: the revenge of the senior status federal court judges against Donald Trump. These are judges who, unlike most, have the long view. They possess the historical context, the earned wisdom, and the unshakable legacy required to hold a lawless administration accountable. They do not answer to ambition, reelection, or political favor. They answer to the Constitution, and to their conscience.

The latest example comes from Massachusetts, where Judge William Young, a federal district court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has just concluded the very first full trial this term against Donald Trump’s administration. Think about that—despite more than 400 cases filed against Trump in the past several years, this is the first to reach a full bench trial and decision. Judge Young is 84 years old. He has spent four decades on the bench and is widely respected as a trial lawyer’s trial judge. And what he said from the bench after hearing the evidence was nothing short of extraordinary.

The case concerned the Trump administration’s decision to strip funding from the National Institutes of Health that supported medical research serving Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ communities. Judge Young, after hearing the facts and arguments, ruled from the bench and declared that this policy was, in his words, the most blatantly racist act by a government he had seen in forty years. He said, “This policy represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ+ community. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out—and I do so.”

These are not words lightly spoken. They are grounded in decades of judicial service, in principle, and in constitutional fidelity. And they resonate deeply—because we’ve heard something very similar before, from another judge of similar stature. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Seattle—also in senior status—issued the first major temporary restraining order against Trump when the administration attempted to erase birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen. That judge, on the bench for 40 years, said he had never witnessed a more blatant constitutional violation. The parallel is unmistakable. These are judges in their 80s, still sharp, still committed, and still defending the rule of law without fear or deference.

Judge Charles Breyer, another senior status judge in San Francisco and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, also recently stepped in to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration—this time concerning the federal government’s interference with California’s National Guard. These judges, by virtue of their senior status and independence, cannot be silenced. They do not worry about career advancement, political attacks, or cable news soundbites. They rule based on law, precedent, and their solemn oath.

It is not a coincidence that these judges, all in their 80s, are the ones stepping forward. It is a form of poetic justice. At a time when members of Congress obsess over whether President Biden can recall what floor he’s on, we have federal judges his age—and older—rendering powerful, complex constitutional rulings from the bench. Judge Young, for instance, is still actively trying more cases than many of his younger colleagues. These judges are with it—completely. And their clarity is undeniable.

Let me return to the Massachusetts trial. The evidence demonstrated that the Trump administration’s decision to defund healthcare research focused on diverse communities was not just misguided policy. It was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional. It violated due process and equal protection. Judge Young saw it plainly for what it was: governmental racial discrimination. He was unequivocal. He confined his remarks to the record before him, as any disciplined jurist would—but within that record, he found clear and deliberate targeting of the health and well-being of Black Americans, Brown Americans, and the LGBTQ+ community. He noted that the Trump administration’s directives, and the pattern of terminated grants, were clearly designed to stop research that might benefit the health of LGBTQ+ Americans. He called that “appalling.” And it is.

This isn’t just about one trial. It’s about a pattern—and a counterforce. It’s about the guardians of the judiciary using their independence to protect our constitutional framework from those who seek to dismantle it. These judges, by and large moderates appointed by Republicans, are stepping forward now—not to play politics, but to fulfill their duty. They are not easily dismissed as radicals or ideologues. These are the Harvey Wilkinsons and William Youngs of the judiciary—men and women whose reputations rest not on ideology but on integrity.

And Trump knows he cannot discredit them the way he tries with younger Obama or Biden appointees. He can’t tweet them into silence. He can’t smear them as Marxist radicals. He can’t undermine their legitimacy. When these senior judges speak, their words carry the weight of lived principle and earned authority. Judges like Judge Young, Judge Breyer, and others such as Judge Beryl Howell in D.C. speak softly but carry enormous judicial power. They are using it now, and their decisions resonate far beyond the courtroom.

Of course, I expect Trump and his allies will attempt to retaliate. They may try to restrict the ability of senior status judges to hear cases. They may try to defund or sideline them through Congress. But it won’t work. These judges have what my mother used to call the “I-don’t-care-anymores.” They are beyond intimidation. They are here to rule on the facts and the law, without fear or favor, and their time on this earth is being spent exactly where it should be: defending our democratic values.

Forget the idea that the youngest shall lead. In this moment, it is the oldest who are showing us the way. If we are the foot soldiers of the constitutional order, they are the generals. And we must follow their lead into the breach. Judge Young, in particular, deserves our admiration. After a full bench trial, he called out Trump’s administration for what it was—racist and discriminatory. When they say they want to investigate “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” translate that: racism. When they say they want to root out voter fraud, understand that means voter suppression.

This is about more than just one trial. It’s about protecting the soul of this country. The blue states they so often attack—those are the ones contributing the most to this nation in education, in health care, in innovation, in the economy. They don’t ask for anything in return except liberty and justice for all. But that’s too much, apparently, for those who want to drag us all down into ignorance, poverty, and fear. We must not let them. And the judiciary must not let them.

We need judges like William Young, Thomas Zilly, Charles Breyer, Beryl Howell—to be our guiding lights. And we need to support them, understand their rulings, and follow their courage. They are standing between us and authoritarianism.