(First of a series that will counter highly organized MAGA disinformation about the Constitution that has been sweeping the nation.)

The rights enumerated by the First Amendment include the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It’s a simple concept: if the actions of your government cause you harm, injury, or deprivation of your Constitutionally protected rights, the Founders gave us viable avenues to pursue these grievances in hopes of legal relief.

When the Framers included that right, they weren’t merely referring to writing letters to your representatives. First and foremost is the right to petition the court for a redress of grievances. That’s why an individual who files a formal, written application to a court or court officer is referred to as the “petitioner.“

Unfortunately, MAGA doesn’t like it very much when we petition the government for a redress of grievances. MAGA has a long history of trying to put redress via the courts out of reach for aggrieved parties, especially when the aggrieved belong to a minority group that MAGA wants to persecute, or is exercising Constitutionally protected rights that MAGA doesn’t think that we should have.

The late MAGA Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia didn’t go all the way, but he did hint that our redress through the courts should be limited: “There is abundant historical evidence that “Petitions” were directed to the executive and legislative branches of government, not to the courts” (Borough of Duryea, et al. v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011)), and proceeds to assert several pre-Constitution era arguments. Though Scalia did eventually concede the point in his partial dissent, agreeing that the question of petition should be saved for another day, the long-term desire is clear: restrict the people’s access to the Courts when their rights are violated by legislation.

Considering Scalia’s record of seizing every opportunity to issue sweeping rulings that knock out far more liberty than necessary to decide a case, his acquiescence on redress through the courts is somewhat surprising: a backhanded acknowledgement that yes, redress through the courts is one of our First Amendment rights.

At the time of this writing, MAGA is currently trying to take away more avenues of redress: the “No Rogue Rulings Act.” The wording of the bill specifically targets limiting or denying “injunctive relief” of any meaningful scope and reach — in other words, corrective judicial action for grievances stemming from MAGA overreach and abuse.

MAGA also argues that the judicial branch should have no power to enforce the Constitution, a dangerous view that reflects MAGA’s twisted concept of the separation of powers. In this video clip, MAGA ironically cites Federalist Paper #78 to bolster MAGA’s argument that the judicial branch should have no authority to bind the Executive Branch to the Constitution.

What MAGA conveniently leaves out is that Hamilton, in this same Federalist #78, also says, “But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.” Contrary to MAGA distortion, Alexander Hamilton was not asserting that the Courts should have no power to hold the Executive or the Legislative to the constraints of the Constitution. He was affirming exactly the opposite.

We get it. MAGA absolutely hates the fact that their intended victims and targets currently have legal remedies available to them.

In fact, the judicial branch does have the power and authority to do so, as determined in the pivotal Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803), which affirms that the Supreme Court does indeed have the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

The rules of Constitutional interpretation are common sense. The very concept of checks and balances affirms that the three branches of government ARE equipped to hold one another to account. Petitioners to the Court are indeed entitled to redress and potential injunctive relief, contrary to the protestations of MAGA.