Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
First 100 Days
First 100 Days
In his first 100 days, Trump faced 135 court rulings which at least temporarily paused some of the administration’s initiatives. Mr. Trump responded angrily and even called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration on deportation flights, earning a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr who said “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,”
The cases that are going before the courts are asking an important and unresolved constitutional question.
Do judges have the power to compel the administration to change its behavior? if that answer is “no,” then a powerful check on presidential power will be greatly diminished.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison
John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison
The administration summarily fired or put on leave thousands of federal employees. Court orders have reversed the firings of two government watchdog officials.
Dellinger v. Bessent. In this appeal, the Supreme Court initially issued a preliminary ruling siding against the administration. The case was later dismissed with a ruling that the president was within his rights to fire the officials.
In another case, a federal judge temporarily halted the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to shield people from fraud and abuse by lenders and financial firms.
Board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting who received emails stating President Trump had fired them are suing the administration, asserting that the president does not have the power to terminate them.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought
After the Trump administration moved to fire hundreds of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees, consumer advocates and the bureau’s union sued, saying only Congress has the authority to close the bureau. A judge ordered a temporary halt to the agency’s dismantling that the Trump administration appealed.
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
The Office of Personnel Management ordered federal agencies to fire tens of thousands of federal employees. A coalition of unions sued, saying the terminations violated the law and the Constitution. A judge temporarily reversed the firings, and later directed six agencies to reinstate any probationary employees who had been terminated improperly.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump fired the inspectors general for several federal agencies and departments, in defiance of a law that requires presidents to give Congress 30 days’ notice before removing any inspector general, along with reasons for the firing. Eight of the fired independent watchdog officials sued, saying their removals were illegal.
Harris v. Bessent
President Trump fired Cathy Harris from an independent agency that oversees federal employment disputes and whistleblower protections. Ms. Harris is suing for wrongful termination. Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, blocked her firing. The Trump administration is appealing the decision.
The administration’s attempt to freeze as much as $3 trillion in federal funding has been blocked at least temparilly in several cases.
The drastic reduction in the United States Agency for International Development is on hold after the Supreme Court sided with a district judge, who ordered funding restored to the agency.
An order to slash “overhead” at research labs funded through the National Institutes of Health was similarly blocked by a district judge.
Judges have ordered the administration to unfreeze funds, but the administration has tried to avoid the question of the president's constitutional power by having political appointees embedded in various agencies invoke other legal authorities to pause spending, while suggesting those officials had undertaken the efforts independent of the President's original directives.
Twice, judges have issued “motions to enforce” because the government failed to promptly heed their initial orders.
New York v. Trump
After the Trump administration sought to enact a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states, more than twenty sued the Office of Management and Budget, saying the freeze was unlawful. A judge later found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unfreeze the funds.
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump
President Trump issued executive orders seeking to ban diversity practices at certain educational institutions. A group of college diversity officers sued, saying the orders usurp Congress’s power and violate the Constitution. A judge blocked the administration from freezing any current funding obligations, and the administration has appealed the ruling.
Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health
The Trump administration planned to cut $4 billion in federal funding for research at universities, cancer centers and hospitals. University associations and major research centers sued, arguging that the freeze would “devastate medical research.” A judge issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the plan nationwide.
On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to stop treating as U.S. citizens any children born in the United States after a certain date whose parents are undocumented or who are in the country legally but temporarily. Several judges have issued temporary orders stopping the move.
New Jersey v. Trump
After President Trump instructed the government to stop recognizing children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents as citizens, several states sued, saying the administration’s actions were unconstitutional. A judge blocked the order from taking effect, and the administration has appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
CASA v. Trump
An immigrant advocacy group is suing, saying the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional. Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction that protects the right to U.S. citizenship for children born on U.S. soil. The administration is appealing the decision.
Washington v. Trump
President Trump instructed the government to stop recognizing as citizens children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents. In a suit brought by four state attorneys general, Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, indefinitely blocked the order from taking effect. The administration appealed, but the appeals court declined to reverse the order.
Elon Musk’s initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency, amassed extraordinary power, ostensibly to cut costs and reorder the government.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DOGE
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-profit organization, sued Elon Musk’s cost-cutting effort, known as the Department of Government Efficiency, arguing that its internal emails are subject to public disclosure laws. A judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering DOGE to release the emails.
Immigration policies, including the administration’s efforts to authorize immigration agents to enter houses of worship, speed up and broaden the scope of deportations, withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities and make it harder for refugees to claim asylum in the United States.
The administration’s efforts to cancel a longstanding refugee program have been temporarily blocked. The move to authorize immigration raids in houses of worship has been blocked, but the protection is limited to the groups suing.
After thousands of international students were notified that their legal status in the United States was being rescinded, scores of them sued the Trump administration. In April 2025 , the administration abruptly restored the students’ legal statuses, and the government moved to dismiss many of the suits, saying immigration officials were working on a new system for reviewing and terminating international students’ records.
The Trump administration is using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members and others, and the legality of its move has come under judicial scrutiny.
On March 15, James E Boasberg, a federal judge at a district court in Washington, DC, issued a temporary restraining order to halt deportations due to constitutional concerns over how the Trump administration was using the more than 200-year-old law.
But the US Supreme Court last week overturned that order in a narrow 5-4 decision, allowing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act to proceed.
“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
Both Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented with the ruling.
President Trump issued a memo directing the government to expand the migrant operations center at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay. Ten non-citizens in U.S. custody, who were described in court documents as being “at imminent risk of transfer” to the base, sued the government, calling the transfers unconstitutional.
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia - a 29-year-old from El Salvador who was deported from the US in March - has prompted a legal showdown over the administration's immigration policy.
Judges all the way up to the US Supreme Court have ruled that Mr Abrego Garcia was deported in error and that the US government should help "facilitate" his return to his home in Maryland.
But the White House has accused Mr Abrego Garcia of being a member of the transnational Salvadorian gang MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organisation, saying he "will never live" in the US again.
President Donald Trump has acknowledged he has the ability to bring Mr Abrego Garcia back to the US, but that he will not do so.
Lawsuits are also challenging the Trump administration’s moves to prohibit recognizing transgender Americans according to their gender identity.
Efforts to place transgender women who are federal prisoners in men’s housing, end gender-transition medical treatments for inmates, bar trans people from the military, withhold federal funding from hospitals that offer gender-related treatment to patients younger than 19 and prevent transgender people from reflecting their gender identities on U.S. passports.
The move to freeze federal funding to hospitals that provide gender treatment to minors was blocked from taking hold in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado, which sued the administration. Separately, a judge blocked the administration’s attempt to place transgender women who are federal prisoners into men’s prisons.
Doe v. Bondi
President Trump issued an executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to house transgender women with male inmates and stop medical treatment related to gender transitions. Three transgender women in prison sued, saying they had a right to essential medical care and to be kept safe while incarcerated. A judge temporarily blocked the order, and the Trump administration has appealed the case.
PFLAG v. Trump
With their parents and advocacy groups, six transgender people between the ages of 12 and 18 sued to block President Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict medical treatments for trans youths, arguing that it violated the Constitution. A judge temporarily ordered the administration to continue federal funding for hospitals that offer transition care for people under the age of 19, a decision the Trump administration has appealed.
Trumps aim to purge the F.B.I. agents and employees have been delayed after agents sued to block Trump from releasing the names of agents and staff members who helped investigate the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is suing the Trump administration for halting New York City’s congestion pricing program, which charges tolls when cars enter the most crowded parts of Manhattan.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy
The M.T.A. lawsuit argues that the administration’s actions are politically motivated, arbitrary and unlawful. The authority says that congestion pricing has already been successful in reducing traffic, improving air quality and increasing ridership on public transit.
Doctors for America, an advocacy group is suing the administration after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down online information about environmental justice, H.I.V. treatments, fertility clinics and recruiting diverse populations for clinical trials. The plaintiffs claim that taking down the information violates the Administrative Procedure Act and will slow down medical research.
Doctors for America v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
President Trump signed an executive order banning any reference to race, gender identity or sexual orientation in all executive departments and agencies, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take down some pages on its website. Doctors for America sued the Trump administration, and Judge John D. Bates of the D.C. Federal District Court issued a temporary restraining order, requiring the C.D.C. to temporarily restore the pages.
The White House has used its power over access to federal property to single out certain organizations for punishment, prompting legal action.
The administration is barring Associated Press reporters from official press events because the news agency continues to use the name Gulf of Mexico in its articles, rather than change to “Gulf of America.”
The administration also barred lawyers from the firm Perkins Coie from entering federal buildings, and discouraged federal officials from interacting with the firm’s lawyers. Cutting off such communication would make it all but impossible for the firm to advocate for its clients.
Associated Press v. Budowich
President Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 18 blocking any federal employee from expressing a legal opinion that diverges from his and the attorney general’s. That would include members of the Federal Election Commission, whose job is to administer federal campaign finance laws.
Democratic National Committee v. Trump
In its lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee alleges that the order undermines the independence of the F.E.C., which is supposed to be bipartisan and not subject to direct presidential control.
State officials, small businesses and political groups have sued the Trump administration over its tariff policy, contending that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. In one case, a group of 12 states sued Mr. Trump in the U.S. Court of International Trade, asking for the tariffs to be declared unlawful.
California v. Trump
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse