What can Federal Judges Actually do?

In a previous blog I wrote: "The Judiciary’s sole function is to interpret the law—it cannot legislate, control spending beyond what Congress allocates, enforce laws, or set penalties outside those prescribed by Congress." So how come they continue to do things other than interpret the law. Why are they allowed to control government, effectively become the executive branch of the Federal Government?

Inferior courts—everything below the Supreme Court—exist and operate only because Congress says so. Article III of the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court but leaves the creation of lower federal courts to Congress, along with defining their jurisdiction and powers. So, any power these courts wield beyond basic interpretation comes from congressional statutes. Here are some concrete examples where Congress has handed them the power that have, intentionally or not:

1. Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 2241)

   
   

   Congress gave federal district courts the power to hear habeas corpus petitions—challenges to unlawful detention. This sounds narrow, but it’s huge in practice. Courts can order the release of prisoners or block executive actions (like immigration detentions) if they find constitutional violations. During the War on Terror, for instance, district courts used this to intervene in Guantanamo cases, effectively checking executive power. Congress could’ve limited this to state courts or tightened the rules, but it didn’t.

   
   

2. Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

   
   

   This law lets federal courts hear lawsuits against state officials for violating constitutional rights. It’s a congressional grant of power that’s turned district courts into enforcers of federal supremacy. Think of cases where courts struck down state voting laws or police practices—Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) expanded this to municipalities, too. Congress handed courts a tool to reshape state policy, far beyond just interpreting statutes.

   
   

3. Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706)

   
   

   Passed in 1946, the APA lets federal courts review and overturn actions by executive agencies if they’re “arbitrary and capricious” or exceed statutory authority. This gives judges a say over regulations—everything from environmental rules to healthcare policy. Look at FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000), where the Supreme Court nixed the FDA’s attempt to regulate tobacco. Congress could’ve kept agency oversight in-house, but it outsourced it to courts.

   
   

4. Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

   
   

   Congress gave district courts jurisdiction over any case “arising under” federal law or the Constitution. This is a blank check—vague enough to let courts tackle almost anything tied to federal issues. It’s how they end up ruling on disputes like Obamacare’s legality (NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012) or Trump’s travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii, 2018). Congress could narrow this to specific categories, but it’s left it wide open.

   
   

5. Injunction Power (All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651)

   
   

   Congress authorized courts to issue “all writs necessary” to protect their jurisdiction. This includes injunctions—orders to stop actions, often by the government. Take the Texas district court halting Biden’s 2021 immigration pause or blocking Obama’s DACA expansion. These aren’t just interpretations; they’re courts flexing to freeze executive moves. Congress could restrict this, but the statute’s been around since 1789.

   
   

6. Congress created these specialized courts under Article I, not Article III, but gave them power to restructure debts, seize assets, and override state laws. They’re technically “inferior,” yet they can tank entire industries—think of the Chrysler bankruptcy in 2009. Congress delegated this because it didn’t want the mess itself.

   
   

The pattern? Congress often writes broad or ambiguous laws, leaving courts to sort out the details. Why? Sometimes it’s laziness, sometimes political cowardice—let judges take the heat on tough calls. Inferior courts have no inherent power; every bit comes from statutes like these. But once given, Congress rarely takes it back—either because it can’t agree or because it likes the system as it is. The Supreme Court’s a different beast, with its self-made judicial review, but for the lower courts, it’s all on Congress. The bottom line is the problems that the people, and Congress are complaining about in regards to the courts, lies squarely at the feet of Congress. Because so many in Congress don't know the Constitution, or care, these laws get passed and once they do, Congress doesn't have the gumption to fix it. Congress has done this to the citizens of the United States and Congress must fix it.