More than 40 lawsuits recently filed by the state attorney general, unions and nonprofits have overturned much of the federal government and responded to President Trump's Blitzkrieg's enforcement action, which challenged the system of constitutional checks and balance. They are about to build a breakwater in federal court.
Unlike Trump's first term in 2017, there was little resistance to his second term. At least for now, lawyers say that the judicial department may be that.
“The courts are really on the forefront,” said Sky Perryman, CEO of Democratic Forward.
Multifaceted legal pushbacks are already delivering quick (potentially fleeting) results. Judicial orders in nine federal court cases will partially bind the administration's hands to that goal for a while. These include the termination of automatic citizenship for babies born from immigrants that are not documented in US soil. Transgender female inmates are transferred to a male-only prison. On January 6, 2021, it could reveal the identity of an FBI official who investigated the attack on the Capitol. Help federal workers accept “postponed resignations” under tight deadlines. Domestic spending will freeze by $3 trillion.
Judicial responses to legal challenges continue throughout the weekend. Judge Carl Nichols, Trump nominated district judge, on Friday afternoon. It said it would issue a temporary restraining order at the U.S. International Development Agency to suspend administrative leave for 2,200 employees, and an impending withdrawal of workers from almost all agencies from overseas.
Also late Friday night, President George W. Bush candidate Judge John D. Bates called for a coalition of emergency orders blocking Elon Musk's team from accessing data in the labor sector. I refused. The case is ongoing, but Judge Bates' ruling was Trump's first victory in federal courtroom for the new administration. Earlier on Saturday, US District Judge Paul A. Engelmeyer, one of President Obama's candidates, restricted access to Treasury payments and data systems through Musk's government efficiency program. He said access risks “irreparable harm.”
The judges are not writing words. Last week in Seattle, a district judge issued a second national injunction. “The constitution is not something that governments can play a policy game,” said Judge John C. Cornor. Such changes can only be made by amending the constitution, he added. “That's how the rule of law works.”
But while the enforcement department is entrusted with the ability to quickly and decisively act, the judiciary slows down by design, and legal opposition to Trump's opening moves keeps up with the chaos of his fire hose. It may be a pain.
“Last night, I was eating dinner with my family where earphones were listening to a conference call and trying to become father at the same time,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in an interview Friday. “It's a tough job, but we don't ask anyone to feel sorry for us. This is what we signed up for.”
Trump's first three weeks of office has resulted in a massive amount of executive orders to support American foreign aid, domestic spending and social policies. Without support or consultation with the legislative branch of the government, the president dismantles parts of the government, overrides regulations governing civil servants, and overturns more than a century of precedents on immigration law. I exercised it. Rolls back the possibilities of revenge against his perceived enemies, and the liberal advances made in diversity, equity and transgender rights.
“The president should not be able to rewrite the constitution's more than 120-year interpretation with pen strokes,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in an interview. “That's an existential threat.”
Some legal experts push the boundaries of legality as a naked knuckle strategy to overwhelm the president's opposition and ultimately win at least some precedent crushing decisions from the conservative Supreme Court We see the intentional efforts of the administrative department to do so.
“The administration wanted a challenge that consumes a large amount of resources that attracted attention from the enemy, courts and the public, even if it knew that members of the administration would not follow bidirectional gazes on laws that have provisions. Apparently,” Law School.
For Trump supporters, the president's orders fall within the powers outlined in the second section of the constitution on the administrative division. It is the judicial pushback that exaggerates the constitutional boundaries laid out in the third section of the judiciary.
“President Trump hasn't stolen the power of other branches,” said Mike Davis, who heads the Article 3 Project, a conservative advocacy group. “He exercises Article 2 powers under the Constitution. And a judge who says he can't? They're legally wrong. The Supreme Court is on his side with Trump.”
On Sunday of X, Vice President Vance made a provocative post that appears to suggest that the judges do not have final say when it comes to the legality of the White House order. “The judges are not permitted to control the legitimate power of executives,” he wrote.
If a judge attempts to tell the general how to carry out a military operation, it is illegal.
If a judge attempts to order the Attorney General about how he uses his discretion as a prosecutor, that is also illegal.
Judges are not permitted to control the legitimate power of executives.
– Jd Vance (@jdvance) February 9, 2025
Vance's post “opens the door to potentially dangerous paths,” said Quinta Jurecic, a Brookings Institute fellow and senior editor at Lawfare. “What Vance's language suggests here is that instead of saying it directly, the executive told the court, “You are invading my authority unconstitutional and I am not going to do what you say.” “This means that we can potentially respond to court orders. ''
“At that point,” Juresic said, “The constitution will collapse.”
As of Sunday afternoon, there was already one indication that existing court orders issued by federal judges to block Trump's enforcement actions were not immediately changing the administration's actions on the ground. . An emergency motion filed Friday by the 22 state attorney generals before Rhode Island District Court judge John J. McConnell Jr. said, “The constantly changing Kaleidoscope federal financial support kaleidoscope has been suspended.” , claiming it is removed, in transit, reviews and more. “It ended its financing freeze despite a court order from Judge McConnell on January 31.
Additionally, the state says the administration is arguing that it can freeze billions of dollars under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Inflation Act.
The Department of Justice must reply to the emergency motion until the end of Sunday.
Trump's election victory in November gives him a mandate to exercise narrow and extraordinary power, as does popular vote margins.
“All actions taken by the Trump Vance administration are completely legal and compliant with federal law,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. “The legal challenge to that is merely an attempt to undermine the will of the American people.”
In fact, that should be for the court to decide if Trump is complying with their decision.
The final decision will not come anytime soon. Judge Coughenour's injunction blocks Trump's executive order to end automatic citizenship for children born in US soil, appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 9th Circuit from the Justice Department. It is being done.
It may take several months in some cases to the Court of Appeal, and to the Supreme Court. These long battles are political, legal, and the president who sees himself as the almost invincible leader of the populist movement against the Attorney General, and almost every Democrat, who views himself as a Democrat. Some jurists say they have ambitions.
“The Attorney General took action immediately. If they ultimately win in court and public opinion, they would make political dividends for their perceived defense and proof of their citizens' rights. You will enjoy it,” said Akhil Reed Amar, professor at Yale Law School.
If the Attorney General uses his campaign against Trump to hone his political future, Amar added. “Our constitution was designed so that ambition counters ambition,” he said. “That's how framers drew the blueprint.”
Those pursuing the case say they are not surprised by the task ahead. A parallel effort by the Democratic Attorney General to prepare for a democratic forward and a second Trump presidency has been underway since early 2024. In most cases, the Attorney General presented a united front. Sometimes we had a final and final fight, and decided who would get the top bill as one of the leaders of the case and which venue would be submitted.
The only factor that surprised you? Elon Musk, a billionaire businessman handed over something extraordinary and perhaps illegal, gives the power to cut and rebuild the government without real titles or confirmations from the Senate.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin called Musk a “one wild card.”
“I don't even know if Trump knows what he's doing,” Platkin said of Musk. “He's an unelected billionaire running around the government, cutting down a huge amount of workforce and behaving in all sorts of potentially illegal ways.”
In the legal application, the Justice Department argues that Musk's fellows are legally acting as detailed employees to agencies across the government, and that they are under the authority of representative cabinet members. .
The state has “special solicitations” as plaintiffs. This is based on the 2007 Supreme Court decision. This low-weight doctrine in recent years makes the state easier to litigate claiming that the rights or rights of its citizens are being infringed. According to lawyers familiar with the Attorney General's efforts, it may be difficult for the same state to apply its doctrine in his claims against Musk's team.
But the wrinkles couldn't stop Judge Engelmeyer from the siding, in an effort to keep New York Attorney General Leticia James and Musk's team out of the delicate Treasury system.
They argue that providing access to efficient government teams is unconstitutional and harms states that rely on the Treasury to pay child support and collect debts. did.
“I think we're in the midst of a constitutional crisis right now,” James said when it was announced last week.
Restnik, a professor at Yale Law School, said that while he expected the legal system to be “resilient”, it would have been difficult to overstate judicial interests in the coming weeks and months.
“Unlimited power is the antithesis of the US Constitution,” she said. “That point is on display every time you enter the U.S. Supreme Court, where the word engraved on the stone is “Equal Justice under the Law.” ”
Reported by Jenna Russell, Laurel Rosenhall, Charlie Savage, Chris Cameron, Jacee Fortin and Fulvey Meko. Seamus Hughes contributed to the research.
