The Trump administration continues to confront judges this year in a showdown of rivalry between the executive branch and the judiciary, fresh off its victory in the Supreme Court stopping U.S. District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. A Washington Post analysis found that President Donald Trump’s officials have defied one out of three judges that have ruled against the administration in over 160 cases this year.
Despite the adverse rulings, higher courts have been siding with Trump on many of these battles. The New York Times speculated that Trump is deliberately setting up these showdowns for the Supreme Court, which has tended to side with him against the district court judges. The newspaper noted that Trump’s defiance is unprecedented, stating that “there are no definitive instances of presidents disobeying court orders.”
No judges have taken punitive action to try to force compliance. The Post’s investigation stated that the Trump administration is finding various ways around judges stopping its policies. Of the 337 lawsuits filed this year against the Trump administration, judges sided with the plaintiffs 165 times. Trump officials defied those rulings 57 times, almost 35 percent of the unfavorable rulings.
Most of the rulings have come from Democrat-appointed judges located in progressive states and Washington D.C. The left-leaning plaintiffs and lawyers bringing the lawsuits deliberately choose Democratic venues to bring the challenges.
One of the most high profile cases is the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a gang member who was arrested for allegedly smuggling illegal immigrants in Tennessee. Judges are blocking officials’ deportation proceedings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to El Salvador. Despite the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis, appointed to the bench in Maryland by Barack Obama, issued a ruling on Wednesday blocking the Department of Homeland Security from immediately detaining him. DOJ attorneys warned that her Maryland court lacks jurisdiction over Abrego Garcia in Tennessee.
The Trump administration previously feuded with other judges over Abrego Garcia’s deportation, transporting him to El Salvador for two months until June a grand jury indicted him for human smuggling, which brought him back to the U.S.
Similarly, the Trump administration is challenging U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, appointed to the bench in Washington D.C. by Obama. Boasberg found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt for defying his order to halt deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. Boasberg claimed there was “willful disregard” by the administration, which argued the flights were over international waters and thus outside the order’s scope. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later paused contempt proceedings.
In another deportation case, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to allow immediate deportation of foreign nationals held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan, accusing U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who was appointed to the bench by Joe Biden, of defying a Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court had authorized the administration to resume deporting foreign nationals to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice. Murphy insisted that the government must continue to assess claims they make about fear of being tortured before removing them.
After a court ordered the Trump administration to continue providing federal funds to states after it had halted them, officials refused to reinstate some of the funding. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., who was appointed to the bench in Rhode Island by Obama, claimed that the Trump administration was defying his court order. Officials responded and said they complied with reinstating funding listed in an OMB memorandum, which the lawsuit was over, but were not required to reinstate funding halted from Trump’s executive orders.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali in Washington, D.C., who was appointed to the bench by Biden, ordered the Trump administration to release billions in USAID funds that were frozen on Trump’s first day in office. Officials missed the deadline to comply. However, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts paused Ali’s order.
Judges could find the officials in contempt, but it is unlikely they could incarcerate them, since that would be the responsibility of U.S. Marshalls, who report to the executive branch. Trump himself cannot be held in contempt because the president is not bound by court injunctions against the federal government. The most likely outcome is the judges might fine the administration.
Vice President J.D. Vance posted on X earlier this year, “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, posted on X, “[A]ctivist judges must stop illegally meddling with the president’s Article II powers.”
X owner Elon Musk posted in February, “The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges.”
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
