Megyn Kelly and Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg recently clashed over and whether courts should decide politically charged issues. This debate comes as federal judges increasingly block Trump administration policies on immigration, national security, and cultural issues.

by substituting personal opinions for constitutional authority. She cites multiple examples of what she calls “Lawfare 2.0” – activist judges blocking Trump’s executive orders on transgender military service bans and deportations of suspected gang members . “These rulings focus on feelings over law,” Kelly contends, accusing judges of “delaying conservative policies through endless litigation despite the administration’s legal authority” .

Aronberg counters that to check executive power, even if decisions appear political. While acknowledging some judges may overstep, he emphasizes: “Courts have a duty to uphold constitutional principles regardless of political winds” . Their disagreement intensified discussing a recent case where a D.C. judge halted deportations of Venezuelan migrants – Kelly called it “radical judicial interference” while Aronberg stressed procedural due process protections .

The debate reflects between conservative priorities and judicial independence. Kelly warns of “activist judges becoming unelected policymakers” through nationwide injunctions , while Aronberg argues Trump’s team should “build stronger legal cases first rather than blame courts later” . Both agree the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve these clashes, but disagree sharply on whether lower courts are fulfilling their role or obstructing democracy.

This legal philosophy divide underscores America’s culture wars, with Kelly framing judicial pushback as , while Aronberg views it as necessary checks against potential executive overreach. The outcome of these battles could redefine the balance of power between federal branches for years to come.