Judges are delaying Trump’s policy changes. But for how long?
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s aggressive attempts to reform and reduce the size of the federal government are facing some obstacles.
The rapid succession of executive orders and other actions initiated by Trump in his initial weeks in office have sparked over thirty lawsuits.
Initial encounters in court have not favored Trump.
Recently, judges have placed restrictions on Trump’s plans to halt funding, reduce the federal workforce, eliminate automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, relocate transgender women to men’s prisons, and dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour remarked on Thursday, as he continued a temporary order preventing Trump from limiting birthright citizenship, “It has become increasingly obvious that the rule of law is merely an obstacle to his policy ambitions.”
“He views the rule of law as something to sidestep or disregard for either political or personal profit,” Coughenour stated.
Nevertheless, these remarks do not suggest that Trump will ultimately face defeat or that there won’t be lasting changes as a result of his actions, even if he loses certain cases.
For instance, the suspension of foreign aid is already detrimental to the network of organizations that the federal government relies on to provide assistance abroad, according to Scott R. Anderson, a former U.S. diplomat and government attorney now affiliated with the Brookings Institution.
“This entire sector is being severely weakened and may even collapse,” he cautioned.
With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, those opposing Trump’s policies have limited options aside from legal channels to resist.
These challenges are often put forth in predominantly Democratic states like Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, where they are more likely to encounter accommodating judges.
Interestingly, the judge who recently suspended parts of the administration’s efforts to shut down USAID was also appointed by Trump.
Moreover, Coughenour, the federal judge from Seattle who criticized Trump recently, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a fellow Republican.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, countered that Coughenour’s decisions do not align with conservative values.
“I don’t find these temporary delays by Coughenour and other judges significant,” he stated. “Most judges involved in these disputes lean very liberal in their past rulings.”
Despite unfavorable decisions at the district court level, von Spakovsky believes Trump will prevail more often than not in the long run, including any cases taken up by the Supreme Court.
“I truly think we will ultimately triumph in court, especially at the Supreme Court level,” Trump told reporters following Coughenour’s earlier ruling against limiting birthright citizenship. “I believe we will win that case. I am eager for that victory.”
White House asserts Trump’s actions are ‘entirely legal’
The Trump administration is confident it will succeed in all legal challenges against the President’s directives.
“Every action taken by the Trump administration is completely legal and adheres to federal law,” stated Harrison Fields, principal deputy White House press secretary, in a news release to YSL News.
“Any legal opposition is simply an attempt to undermine the will of the American public, who overwhelmingly chose President Trump to secure borders, invigorate the economy, and restore reasonable policies.”
Fields further claimed that Democrats are “gaslighting” the public by “resorting to lawsuits” against the widely endorsed initiative of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, overseen by Trump and supported by tech billionaire Elon Musk and his team of young engineers.
“Reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, while effectively managing taxpayer funds, may be viewed as a crime by Democrats,” Fields remarked, “but it is certainly not a crime under the law.”
Opposition to Elon Musk’s attempts ‘to dismantle the federal government’
The endeavors of DOGE and Musk’s team to utilize the computer systems of several federal agencies have become a focal point for numerous legal challenges.
Many private sector lawyers and public interest organizations are gearing up to oppose DOGE in court, according to Rushab Sanghvi, general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a union involved in multiple lawsuits.
“Alongside our partners, AFGE believes this litigation approach will support federal employees and help resist Musk’s effort to undermine the federal government,” Sanghvi stated to YSL News on Friday.
“We typically refrain from publicly discussing the potential for success,” Sanghvi remarked. “But we trust that the law supports our position in these matters, which is why we have pursued them.”
“Clearly, the administration is contravening the law,” Sanghvi continued, “on multiple issues in various ways.”
In a recent agreement, the Treasury Department decided not to provide DOGE access to its payment systems while a judge reviews claims that Musk and DOGE searched these systems illegally.
This decision followed a lawsuit filed by employee unions and retirees, who alleged that the Treasury violated privacy laws by granting Musk and DOGE “full access” to government payment records, which include data on income tax payments, Social Security benefits, and salaries of federal employees.
A mixed legal history during Trump’s first term
During Trump’s initial term, the administration had a varied record at the Supreme Court.
For instance, it took three attempts before the court finally approved a version of his travel ban affecting certain nations, primarily targeting five Muslim-majority countries.
Despite appointing three justices to the Supreme Court during his first term, Trump had the least favorable record at the Supreme Court of any administration since at least the era of Roosevelt, according to research conducted by law professors Rebecca Brown and Lee Epstein for a 2023 article published in Presidential Studies Quarterly.
Von Spakovsky noted that Trump now boasts a more competent legal team compared to his initial term.
“Their level of preparation has significantly improved,” he said.
However, Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law professor, expressed doubts about whether the Supreme Court would grant Trump the broad powers he asserts, despite the court’s recent assertive and dubious interpretations of executive authority.
“These claims are struggling to gain traction in court,” Vladeck observed recently, “and I expect that the Supreme Court, or at least a majority, will exhibit the same skepticism shown by lower courts.”
Public interest lawyers are feeling positive about the automatic or birthright citizenship case, arguing that Trump’s attempt to limit this practice contradicts centuries of legal precedent and the Constitution itself.
On February 5, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, blocking Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict birthright citizenship.
Boardman’s order “will stay in place until the lawsuit is resolved or the injunction is overturned by a higher court,” attorneys Nicole Fink and Philip Sholts from Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group indicated in an analysis of the ruling.
They noted that Boardman’s decision found that Trump’s executive order not only contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment but also challenged over a century’s worth of binding Supreme Court rulings, as well as the United States’ history of birthright citizenship over the past 250 years.
In response to opposition, the Trump administration has also threatened legal action against those obstructing its agenda.
Ed Martin, recently appointed by Trump as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, warned this week that his office would pursue charges against “anyone who obstructs” DOGE’s mission to downsize and reconfigure the federal government.
