Justice Department lawyers are currently defending President Trump’s unilateral actions in court, arguing that the expansive executive power granted by the Constitution supports their legality. However, outside the courtroom, White House officials and their allies are reportedly attacking individual judges and questioning the legitimacy of the courts, which undermines the separation of powers central to American governance.
The dual defense strategy may be a reaction to the successes of the president’s opponents in court, potentially leading to a significant confrontation between the executive and judicial branches, which the nation’s founders designed as coequals.
As of Saturday, there are 100 active lawsuits in federal courts challenging various administration actions, with judges issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in 21 cases. These rulings have halted parts of Trump’s second-term agenda, including actions related to civil service firings, access to sensitive data, and the relocation of transgender inmates.
On Friday, Judge Lauren J. King blocked a plan to cut funding for hospitals providing gender-transition treatment for minors, citing a violation of the separation of powers. Notably, five judges who ruled against the administration were nominated by Republican presidents, including one by Trump himself.
In another case, Judge John D. Bates ordered administration officials to provide testimony regarding the mass firing of federal workers by Elon Musk’s team. New Jersey’s attorney general remarked on the administration's legal losses, stating, “They’re losing.”
In response to judicial rulings, the Trump administration has been slow to comply and has sought loopholes to circumvent court orders. Two judges have issued motions to enforce compliance due to the government’s failure to heed initial orders.
While Trump has praised favorable rulings, his allies have called for the impeachment of judges who rule against him. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have suggested they might disregard judicial orders, with Trump stating, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
Legal experts note that the ongoing court processes are exposing the administration's actions. Some of Trump’s more aggressive policies, such as attempts to end birthright citizenship, have stalled in appellate courts, while the administration has found ways to implement policies despite adverse rulings.
Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of judges amid increasing public attacks from Trump’s allies. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. reported over 1,000 threats against federal judges in the past five years.
As tensions rise, some legal analysts suggest that a clash between the branches of government may be unavoidable. Recent comments from Trump’s nominees to high-ranking Justice Department positions indicate a willingness to consider defying court orders in extreme cases.
Judges have struggled to obtain basic information from Justice Department lawyers regarding the administration's actions. In one instance, a judge pressed for compliance with an order to release foreign aid payments, only to find government lawyers unprepared to answer.
While the Supreme Court may take weeks or months to fully consider the lawsuits, the administration achieved a small victory when Chief Justice Roberts paused an order requiring the State Department to release over $1.5 billion in frozen funds.
In some cases, judges have expressed a willingness to grant broad authority to the president, potentially allowing the administration to pursue further actions beyond those currently challenged in court.