Mounting Lawsuits and Judicial Pushback

The Trump administration is facing a deluge of legal challenges over the series of controversial executive orders issued in the past two months. While the administration has secured some victories—most notably in dismantling the Office of Special Counsel—it has faced more setbacks and legal hurdles than successes.

The Supreme Court recently provided an early indication of how it may approach Trump’s second administration by narrowly ruling that the State Department must release $2 billion in congressionally allocated funds to USAID contractors for completed work. Though a preliminary ruling, it signaled that at least five justices may not grant Trump unlimited authority.

 

Federal Judges Losing Patience

Lower court judges are also showing increasing frustration with the administration’s repeated attempts to sidestep legal constraints. In response, the administration has asked the Supreme Court to weaken the judiciary’s ability to check executive power. Trump and his allies are no longer just defending lawsuits—they are attempting to diminish the power of the courts themselves.

One significant case concerns the mass firing of federal employees. Over the past month, federal agencies have terminated thousands of probationary employees under the guise of performance-based dismissals. However, Justice William Alsup sharply criticized the administration’s reasoning, calling it a "sham to avoid statutory requirements." He expressed deep concern over the government's decision to issue a template letter citing vague performance issues without specific justification.

Alsup’s outrage intensified when the administration attempted to backtrack on key testimony. Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), initially stated in a sworn declaration that OPM did not direct agencies to conduct mass firings. However, after being ordered to testify in court, the government abruptly withdrew Ezell’s statement and refused to produce him as a witness. This maneuver led Alsup to accuse the Justice Department of obstructing the truth. As a result, he ordered federal agencies to reinstate the fired employees—a ruling the Trump administration immediately vowed to appeal.

 

Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Faces Scrutiny

Another legal battle emerged over Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. In a heated court exchange, Judge Ana Reyes challenged the government’s rationale behind the ban. When a Justice Department lawyer struggled to defend the policy, Reyes pointedly asked if labeling transgender soldiers as untrustworthy and incapable was insulting. The lawyer’s hesitant “maybe” response did little to strengthen the administration’s case.

Reyes also questioned the credibility of studies used to justify the ban. Notably, Justice Department lawyers admitted they had not read the studies in full, prompting Reyes to grant a 30-minute recess for them to review the material. Upon their return, she meticulously dissected the administration’s reasoning, suggesting that a ruling against the ban was imminent.

 

The Birthright Citizenship Controversy

The legal fight over Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship has also escalated. Courts in three states blocked the order, ruling that it blatantly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. In response, the Justice Department has taken an unconventional approach—rather than directly appealing the rulings, it has asked the Supreme Court to eliminate the use of "universal injunctions," which prevent executive orders from taking effect nationwide.

Such a move could have sweeping consequences. For example, in Trump v. CASA, the lower court issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the birthright citizenship order not just against the five plaintiffs but nationwide. If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, it would significantly weaken the ability of lower courts to halt controversial policies.

Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have long criticized universal injunctions, arguing they exceed judicial authority. However, their opposition has been selective—Gorsuch, for instance, supported such injunctions 11 times when blocking Biden administration policies.

 

A Calculated Legal Gamble?

The Trump administration’s legal strategy appears twofold: push for judicial rulings that limit oversight while simultaneously spinning legal setbacks as partial victories. By challenging universal injunctions, Trump’s team may be attempting to claim a procedural win on birthright citizenship, even if the underlying executive order is deemed unconstitutional.

Whether the Supreme Court will take the bait remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Trump’s legal battles are far from over, and the courts are increasingly unwilling to grant him unchecked power.