Trump’s rush to unleash executive power hits a judicial wall
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Opponents are on alert for evidence that US officials are failing, or deliberately refusing, to comply with court orders.
PHOTO: REUTERS
WASHINGTON - Judges are putting the brakes on some of the most dramatic moves of US President Donald Trump’s first three weeks in office, slowing actions targeted at migrants, federal workers, government spending and transgender Americans.
A Bloomberg News analysis shows over 40 lawsuits have been filed challenging the barrage of activity by the new administration. Mr Trump could eventually prevail, but judges have halted some of his most aggressive moves to carry out his policy agenda as they weigh whether they are lawful.
“There’s a bunch of judges hearing a whistling noise like flying artillery fire as cases land on their desks,” said Dickinson College president John Jones, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania appointed by former president George W. Bush. The US court system will be “tested like it hasn’t ever been”.
Hours before more than 2,000 US Agency for International Development (USAid) employees were set to be placed on leave
A day earlier, a Boston federal judge delayed a deadline for a federal worker buyout programme to allow “proper consideration”.
Other judges across the country have criticised Mr Trump for trying to overturn what is considered settled law on US citizenship, forced a retreat on a chaotic funding freeze and ordered the administration to agree to temporarily place some restraints on Mr Elon Musk’s government efficiency team.
It is a similar dynamic to Mr Trump’s first term, when judges blocked or slowed some of his policies. Several courts halted his ban on US travel from certain majority-Muslim countries, but nearly a year later, a divided Supreme Court let it take effect. This time, the measures are larger in volume and coming more quickly from the White House. Advocacy groups and Democratic state officials are trying to keep pace challenging them in court.
White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement that the “lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance – and the Trump Administration is ready to face them in court”. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
Vice-President J.D. Vance weighed in on social media, claiming that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”.
Here are some of the most consequential cases:
Doge and Musk
As a “special government employee”, Tesla and SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk’s moves to gut federal agency personnel and programmes as part of his government efficiency mandate from Mr Trump are violating US laws, opponents argue.
There are lawsuits seeking to stop the US Treasury Department from giving Mr Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) access to a federal payments system
On Feb 7, US District Judge John Bates, appointed under Mr Bush, denied a request to block Doge’s access to Labour Department records. He wrote that he “harbours concerns” about Doge’s activities, but found the unions that sued had not shown they had standing to press the case.
Immigration agenda
Mr Trump’s move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship was the most overt example of him brushing aside legal precedents to carry out a hard-line immigration agenda. Judges in Maryland and Washington state have blocked it so far. The Justice Department has appealed against the latter ruling, kicking off a constitutional battle that could reach the Supreme Court.
Immigrant advocacy groups have also filed lawsuits challenging Mr Trump’s order suspending access to asylum proceedings for people crossing the southern border, a policy change that would allow immigration enforcement actions in or near places of worship and the termination of programmes that provide legal information to migrants facing deportation and lawyers for children. Judges have not acted in those cases yet.
Federal workforce
Opponents of the administration’s moves have argued that the livelihoods and, in some cases, the physical safety of thousands of federal employees are at risk. The suits challenge changes to the classification of federal employees, a proposed buyout for federal employees nationwide and the release of names of FBI employees who investigated the Jan 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
On Feb 7, in a pair of suits brought by anonymous FBI employees, the US government reached a temporary agreement not to make public
“I do acknowledge that if this information were released, I think there’s no question it would put a number of FBI agents in significant immediate danger,” said the district judge, who was appointed by former president Joe Biden, without weighing in on the merits of the claims.
It remains to be seen how judges will view Mr Trump’s executive order that would make it easier to fire high-level civil service employees who are normally protected from changes in administrations. At least four suits from groups of federal employees allege the change in employee classification – long sought by conservative groups – goes against the intent of lawmakers since Congress established “due process rights” for career employees.
Civil rights
Civil rights cases have largely focused so far on protecting the rights of transgender Americans, including those in the US military. At least two groups of active duty trans troops have sued to challenge a Trump executive order banning them from service
The cases are in early stages, but US District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, on Feb 6 ordered the government to immediately alert the court if the Defence Department “issues any policy or guidance implementing the challenged executive orders in the military”. The district judge said she would consider a temporary restraining order if the military took any moves to change the status of the plaintiffs in the case before she can hear arguments on a longer lasting injunction later in February.
Meanwhile, a judge barred the administration from halting medical treatment for transgender women in federal prisons or transferring them to men’s facilities, writing that the harm is “not abstract at all”.
Judicial enforcement
Mr Trump has been open about his frustration with judges who exercise their constitutional duty to serve as a check on the presidency’s vast authority. Opponents are on alert for evidence that US officials are failing, or deliberately refusing, to comply with court orders.
On Feb 7, Democratic state attorneys-general suing over Mr Trump’s freeze of certain federal grants, assistance and loans alerted a Rhode Island judge that there were problems accessing funds even with a temporary restraining order in effect. They did not ask to sanction the administration but asked for an immediate order that officials “take every step necessary” to comply.
Judges have some options to enforce orders. They could summon top White House or agency officials to testify and direct the US Marshals to bring them in if they refuse. Judges can impose fines or even place the responsible official behind bars.
If Trump-directed officials to refuse to comply with a court order, a judge could exercise at least some contempt power over him, Dickinson College’s Mr Jones said, but such a showdown would mean that “the rule of law has completely collapsed”. BLOOMBERG
