In an extraordinary sequence of events, former President Donald Trump’s administration endured three major legal setbacks within a single day on Friday — a sharp reminder that while executive orders may be swift, they are not immune to the Constitution. As the Trump White House forges ahead with a bold — and often controversial — second-term agenda, the judiciary is proving to be one of its strongest checks.

From Washington, D.C., to Massachusetts, federal judges ruled against Trump’s policies, citing unlawful actions and constitutional violations in areas ranging from healthcare and legal representation to the independence of public institutions.

1. U.S. Institute of Peace: A Board Too Far

The first blow came when Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, D.C., refused to overturn her previous ruling that deemed the administration’s dismissal of the U.S. Institute of Peace’s board illegal.

Back in May, Howell ruled that the Institute, long an independent body dedicated to diplomacy and conflict resolution, was not under direct presidential control. The Trump administration had attempted to justify its March firing of the board, which came after a controversial DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency, run by Elon Musk) reorganization, as a standard personnel decision.

Howell wasn’t convinced. On Friday, she rejected the administration’s attempt to suspend her earlier judgment, stating that they failed to show their case had merit. Her original ruling still stands: the board must be reinstated, and Trump’s intervention was “null and void.”

2. Jenner & Block: Law Firm Crackdown Ruled Unconstitutional

Next came District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, who struck down an executive order that had stripped legal giant Jenner & Block of its federal access and security clearances. The order had targeted the firm for representing clients in legal actions involving the president or his associates.

Bates didn’t mince words. He wrote that the executive order sought to “chill legal representation” that the administration disliked — a direct threat to the separation of powers and the constitutional right to legal defense.

“The judiciary exists to provide a check on executive power,” Bates stated. “This order seeks to insulate the Executive Branch from that check. It is unconstitutional and will be enjoined in full.”

The ruling makes clear that targeting law firms based on whom they represent is a dangerous precedent — one the courts will not tolerate.

3. Gender Ideology vs. First Amendment: A Healthcare Twist

In Massachusetts, Judge Leo T. Sorokin sided with free speech advocates in a case concerning the removal of articles from a federal patient-safety resource. The content had been scrubbed following Trump’s executive order aimed at combating so-called “gender ideology.”

Sorokin found that the articles were removed not due to inaccuracy or irrelevance, but because they presented perspectives that clashed with the administration’s political stance — a clear case of viewpoint discrimination, he ruled.

Calling the decision to censor the content a “textbook example” of First Amendment violation, Sorokin ordered the immediate restoration of the articles. This ruling underscored a central judicial theme: government resources cannot be manipulated to erase viewpoints it disagrees with.

Why It All Matters: The Courts as the Last Guardrail

These defeats are part of a growing list of legal challenges faced by Trump since his return to office in January. Previous rulings have blocked deportation policies, the suspension of foreign aid, and a ban on transgender individuals in the military.

While the Republican Party currently holds a narrow edge in Congress, the judicial branch has emerged as the main arena for opposing Trump’s more aggressive policies. Each ruling on Friday represents not just a legal loss for the administration, but a broader victory for institutional independence, civil liberties, and constitutional law.

White House officials, however, remain defiant. In a statement to Newsweek, Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields asserted that decisions involving national security and legal access were within the President’s “core executive powers”, and warned of judicial overreach.

But with Trump continuing to question the integrity of judges — a tactic reminiscent of his first term, a constitutional showdown between the White House and the judiciary seems increasingly likely.

Whether it’s protecting independent institutions, defending legal representation, or upholding free speech, the courts have sent a loud and clear message to the Trump administration: presidential power has limits, and the Constitution still rules.