Federal judges have recently halted a number of President Donald Trump’s executive orders and White House initiatives, setting off a firestorm of debate over how far judges’ power should go. As it turns out, most Americans of virtually all political persuasions think that judges should have the power to delay a president’s moves, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

In its April 30-May 2 national online poll of 1,400 voters, I&I/TIPP posed the following statement and question: “Federal district judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and serve lifetime terms. There are currently 677 such judges in the U.S. Do you support or oppose individual district judges having the authority to block or halt a president’s policy nationwide?”

A solid majority of Americans say yes. Specifically, 56% said they either support such powers “strongly” (31%) or “somewhat” (26%), while just 28% said they oppose it either “somewhat” (13%) or “strongly” (15%). A sizeable 16% said they weren’t sure.

But the surprising part of the responses is that, in general, all three major political affiliations are in broad accord on judges being able to put up road blocks to presidential initiatives.

Democrats are most supportive, with 71% saying the support the judges, just 14% saying they oppose them. Among independents, that majority falls to 54% support, and rises to 30% opposition. The surprise comes among Republicans, where a plurality of 48% support judges over presidents, while 40% support it.

In short, it’s a politically popular idea. Overall, it’s 2-to-1 support.

But the numbers shifted somewhat with our second question: “Do you agree or disagree that federal judges should serve for a limited term rather than a lifetime appointment?”

The answer was even more overwhelming, this time not in favor of the judges. Overall, 71% said they either agree “strongly” (41%) or “somewhat” (30%), while the disagree category mustered only 16% for disagree “somewhat” (9%) or “strongly” (7%).

Term limits for judges garner support by a landslide. None of the 36 major demographic groups was below 64% agreement on this issue, which is an extraordinary degree of agreement.

And across all three political affiliations, the level of agreement was significant, a rare case of majority “tri-partisanship.”

Among Democrats, 68% agreed to term limits for federal judges, while 18% disagreed. Independents were slightly higher at 71% agree, 17% disagree. Republicans were highest of all at 78% agree, 13% disagree.

With this level of accord on such a hot-button issue, it might not be too long before Congress moves to reduce or limit federal judges’ terms.

In one final question, related to judicial behavior, I&I/TIPP asked: “Two judges were recently arrested for allegedly harboring illegal immigrants, sparking national debate. Do you support or oppose arresting judges who break the law? “

There, once again, support was broad, though not quite as broad as on term limits.

Overall, 64% said they supported arresting judges who break laws either “strongly” (43%) or “somewhat” (21%). Just 22% opposed the idea, 10% “strongly” and 12% “somewhat.”

And as with the previous question, tri-partisan majorities formed in agreement. Democrats (53% support, 30% oppose), independents (65% support, 23% oppose), and Republicans (78% support, 16% oppose) all mostly agree that judges, as with ordinary citizens, are not above the law.

In short, break the law and you should be held accountable.

These are not mere legal speculations, given that all derive from very real current conflicts between federal judges, the limits of their legal authority, and their responsibility to uphold the law in their own lives.

It’s likely that soon Americans will here from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether individual federal judges that represent one of the 94 U.S. judicial districts have the power to halt presidential initiatives or executive orders on a national basis.

As the Trump administration has argued, it could be a recipe for national policy gridlock.

This is especially true since, as a recent chart from the American Presidency Project shows, Trump has been by far the most activist president in modern history, with nearly two times as many “executive orders, memoranda, and substantive proclamations” issued through the end of April as any other president since FDR took office in 1933.

This has inevitably led to judges issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s flurry of executive orders, though many of those injunctions seem to be skating on very thin legal ice.

“From blocking deportations of gang members to keeping men in women’s prisons, activist judges have taken up the mantle of leftist resistance during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term,” asserted The Daily Wire recently.

But, as our close friends at TIPP Insights recently observed, executive orders have become “the way to govern Washington at a time when Congress is entirely dysfunctional.”

Unfortunately, “the vast network of federal district judges, who are, by definition, supposed to be apolitical and neutral, often rule against the EO (executive order). They do so increasingly on a ‘nationwide’ basis, far beyond the districts their courtrooms oversee.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, federal judges issued 17 separate injunctions against Trump from the time he re-entered office on Jan. 20 through March 27.

This is nothing new. In 2019, William Barr, Trump’s second attorney general, complained about judicial injunctions directed at Trump.

“Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch,” Barr said. “That’s more than one a month.”

“By comparison,” the nation’s former top lawyer added, “during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit.  And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century (emphasis ours).”

Now, during Trump’s second term, many of the federal court injunctions involve heated issues related to illegal immigration (birthright citizenship, due process for criminal aliens, refugee policy, etc.) play a major role.

That includes the furor over the deportation of alleged MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador’s notoriously tough prison system. That controversial move remains in legal limbo.

Other court injunctions have halted Trump’s ability to lay off workers and to remove the collective bargaining rights of federal employees, “rights” that were themselves first created by an executive order of President John Kennedy.

Apart from the Supreme Court’s justices, who act as a check against both congress and the presidency in protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, other federal judges were never intended to have such sweeping powers of legal negation.

Soon, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on how far federal judges can go in issuing injunctions. Signs are that even some liberal justices, including Obama-appointee Justice Elena Kagan, have serious issues with letting federal judges stop federal policies they don’t like.

But as the I&I/TIPP Poll shows, Americans draw a sharp line when it comes to political activist judges who break of the law. They solidly reject the idea that judges are somehow above the law, and want term limits to limit their power.

Even so, Americans’ appetite for enabling federal judges to halt presidential actions willy-nilly may soon be tempered by a Supreme Court decision that limits those powers. If so, it should not be politics. It should be because the Constitution does not allow it.

I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past six presidential elections.

Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.