As our nation approaches the 250th anniversary of its founding, Americans have an opportunity — and an obligation — to reflect on the institutions that have preserved liberty through war, economic upheaval, political conflict and social change. Among the most important is an independent judiciary.
Opinion
The Framers of the Constitution understood that freedom cannot survive if judges are merely extensions of political power. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary would serve as a bulwark against the “encroachments and oppressions” of the other branches. The Constitution sought to ensure that judges would answer not to popular passions, political movements, or elected officials, but to the law itself.
History demonstrates why that independence matters. Throughout our nation’s journey — from the turbulent years after the Civil War to the constitutional challenges of the Great Depression, from the struggle for civil rights to the national crises following September 11 — courts have often been called upon to make difficult decisions that were unpopular in the moment but essential to preserving constitutional principles. Judicial independence does not guarantee perfect decisions; Judges are human. It does, however, provide the important framework necessary for fair and impartial judgment.
Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly emphasized this principle. In 2018, he observed, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” His words captured a fundamental truth: the legitimacy of our courts rests on public confidence that justice is administered without fear, favor, or political allegiance.
An independent judiciary is not a privilege reserved for judges. It is a protection for every citizen. It safeguards property rights, defends individual liberties, restrains government overreach, and ensures that disputes are resolved according to law rather than political influence. When judicial independence is weakened, every American’s rights become weakened.
As we prepare to celebrate America’s monumental birthday, we should honor not only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but also the institutions that have sustained them for 2 1/2 centuries. Judicial independence has helped anchor the rule of law through some of the nation’s most challenging chapters. It has steadied our democracy when passions ran high and political winds shifted.
The United States did not reach 250 years among the world’s oldest continuing constitutional republics by accident. We endured because generation after generation defended the principle that no person is above the law and that courts must remain free to interpret and apply that law impartially.
That principle deserves not only our respect but our unwavering commitment. As we look toward America’s next 250 years, we must protect the independence of our judiciary with the same determination that previous generations used to build and preserve it.
The authors of this article actually have the nerve to use the term ‘independent judiciary’
That term is oxymoronic in the state of Wyoming where state district courts and the Wyoming Supreme Court are picked in closed door, smoke filled rooms to advance the political agenda of the executive branch that select them.
The Wyoming Supreme Court is not an ‘independent judiciary’ when it allows for the killing of unborn children despite the numerous references to God in the Wyoming constitution to which they swear an oath to. Are Wyoming state and supreme courts now independent of God?
Their real definition of ‘independent judiciary’ means they can independently ignore the law defined in the constitution and statutes to which they swear their allegiance to…”We are ‘independent’ of what the Constitution and statutes require us to do….we are independent of God.”
Their article is the classic case of judicial activism. “We can ‘independently’ do what we want, because we are highly trained experts who know more than the public, the executive branch and legislative branch…we are intellectual gentry…you are uneducated peasants.”
Having seen Wyoming’s finest members of its judiciary in action and comparing them to really smart people in the private sector, there is no comparison when it comes to intellectual brilliance.
People are tired of failed judges holding themselves up as paragons of virtue…like the authors say, “judges are human too” which means they make as many mistakes in their “independent judicial rulings,” thereby confirming they are not paragons of virtue…or independent…you can’t say you are independent and human…by definition, humans are not independent.
The authors also make it sound like America was the first country to implement judges and that its judges are the only ones in the history of the world to be independently judicious. That in itself is laughable…’independently judicious’ judges have been around since the dawn of time…not invented in 1776…
The US ‘independent judiciary’ gave us Roe vs Wade. Need I say more…
The authors are misguided if they think Wyoming state and supreme courts are ‘independent.’
Did you know the. Wyoming Supreme Court has lawyers installed as judges who have not tried a case in years…name me a serious profession where the ‘best of the best’ is comprised of individuals who do not even practice their profession…
Rather than thinking of the state of Wyoming’s judicial system as “independently judicious,” think of it as being filled in a closed door, smoke filled room by lawyers who laugh in the face of statute and constitutional obligations that they allegedly swore an oath to…
Thank you gentlemen for a well written reminder of how the United States is supposed to work, and continues to work, despite the present challenges.
I too applaud this piece and its authors. I feel I must however point out that, at least from where I’m watching things, the Judiciary itself, through the Roberts’ court’s rulings, may well present the greatest threat to an independent judiciary.
While an argument can be made that presidents at times need to be able to make momentous and controversial decisions for the good of the nation, and that they need to be able to make those decisions without fear of prosecution, the Roberts court’s ruling that presidents have unlimited immunity for official acts was several bridges too far. It went well beyond insuring future presidents’ ability to make legally or morally questionable decisions that they think are necessary to ensure the safety of the country, and instead created a de facto imperial presidency, one that ultimately has the power to potentially hobble, or even dismantle the entire judicial system. They further weakened judicial independence with their ruling striking down district courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, the current administration, led by the most utterly moral president in our nation’s history, is gleefully and destructively exploiting the president’s newfound power.
While the Roberts court has indeed shot down some of Trumpty’s more egregious acts, like his tariffs, and it looks like it will kill his nixing of birthright citizenship, these rare instances of the court standing up to the president are chump change compared to the biggest wins they have gifted to him.
AMEN!
There is a reason why we have THREE branches of government. If there were just two, they could always neutralize each other. But three–overseeing different areas of public needs–results in a much more effective, and balanced government. The USA has never had the political struggles of many other “democratic” nations. The term “balance of power” has meaning and purpose!
Alas, the recent overreach of our executive branch–coercing the legislative branch–has resulted in vilifying the judicial branch. And this coercion has almost ‘unbalanced’ our leaders’ powers. I fear for many moderates who would otherwise contribute to our society, but who may be too intimidated to risk running for office (& rightfully so).
To the contrary, we–the USA–need our judicial branch to be strong now, more than ever!
Frankly, I am no longer proud to claim Wyoming as my home state. TOO MANY extremists who seem to have little foresight about the effects of their desired policies on our long-term future.
Balance! Moderation! Please!
Bravo for this piece!
I could not agree more with what the authors of this piece have to say, and they, unlike many, know what they are talking about. The authors also exemplify the example of what a principled, independent judiciary is. I suggest that people who doubt the integrity of Wyoming’s judiciary should spend some time observing actual judicial proceedings. Every county has a courthouse so there’s at least one near everyone.
Here’s a concise social media version:
Thank you to Wyoming’s judges for their dedication to upholding the rule of law and our Constitution.
Judicial independence isn’t about protecting judges—it’s about protecting the rights and freedoms of every Wyoming citizen. We don’t all have to agree with every court decision, but we should all value a judiciary that decides cases based on the law rather than political pressure.
Thank you to our judges, clerks, and court staff for your professionalism, integrity, and public service. An independent judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional system, and Wyoming is stronger because of it.
Independent Judiciary is only beneficial if the judiciary is honorable and of integrity. When this is not the case, there is no recourse.
LOL, “independent judiciary” is a ridiculous sounding as an “Independent Federal Reserve”.
Two corrupt institutions that in no way look out for the benefit of the American Public.
Your anarchist streak is showing again Chad.