States, organizations, and individuals have filed over 100 lawsuits challenging President Trump’s early actions. While many cases remain unresolved, most court rulings so far have found his administration’s actions to be unlawful. From transgender rights to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the Supreme Court and federal courts have repeatedly intervened to push back against the Trump administration’s agenda.
The Supreme Court has taken on two Trump administration-related cases thus far. In the first case, regarding a suit brought by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition about government foreign aid, the Supreme Court ruled that the district judge’s order for the federal government to restart aid payments must stand.
The second case questioned the timeline for a president to appeal a lower-court ruling that reinstates a fired federal worker, specifically about President Trump’s firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The Court ruled temporarily on Feb. 21 that the president could not fire Dellinger, but a federal appeals court allowed the president to continue with Dellinger’s termination on March 5.
Of the many federal firing cases that have been filed, this one was the first to be heard by the Supreme Court, presenting a potential blueprint for future decisions. A federal judge also blocked the firing of Cathy Harris, chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a decision that the Trump administration is appealing. Similarly, a federal court halted the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In a rare judicial win for the Trump administration, a federal judge ruled that the unions representing federal employees did not have the standing to sue the Office of Personnel Management for issuing the “Fork in the Road” federal employee resignation offer. However, a separate and similar suit succeeded on March 13 when a federal district court ordered six agencies to reinstate improperly fired employees.
Federal courts have also considered cases relating to trans rights. Multiple judges have ruled to block the federal funding freeze to hospitals that provide gender-affirming treatment to minors and the administration’s attempt to place imprisoned trans women in men’s prisons on the federal level. However, these rulings only apply to the plaintiffs who brought the cases. Federal funding to hospitals has only resumed for Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota in that case, while the trans women who were not included as plaintiffs in various cases were recently moved to men’s prisons. Additional lawsuits are ongoing regarding the erasure of trans people from public life.
Hospitals are not the only entities at risk of losing federal funding. Judges have ordered the administration to release previously frozen funds for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), state programs, medical research for cancer and Alzheimer’s treatments, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. After some college diversity officers sued President Trump for pulling funding from educational institutions seen as upholding DEI, a judge ruled that the administration could not freeze current funding obligations to higher education institutions.
A similar decision prevailed regarding the funding freeze to 22 states and DC that had been put in place while the administration considered whether the funding aligned with President Trump’s priorities. President Trump has implied that he would like the case on state funding to go to the Supreme Court so he might be granted more control over federal spending. In two cases, judges have issued “motions to enforce” due to the government’s lack of compliance.
Additional lawsuits have concerned birthright citizenship, immigration, DOGE, January 6 investigations, and CDC data. Federal courts have issued temporary orders stopping the end to birthright citizenship, blocking an attempt to suspend the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), and denying the Trump administration the ability to cut funding to refugee resettlement organizations. They have denied the authorization of immigration raids at places of worship, but only for the plaintiffs involved in the case.
On March 14, President Trump invoked the seldom-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 137 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador. A federal judge temporarily blocked the action the next day following a lawsuit and ordered the planes to return, but the planes arrived in El Salvador on Sunday, March 16 anyway. An ACLU lawyer stated that the deportations may have been illegal if the administration acted before publishing Trump’s move to use the Alien Enemies Act, which seems to be the case. The case raises concerns about preserving due process for immigrants. The White House commented to the Washington Post that regardless of when the flights departed, one judge should not be able to block the president from acting. Additionally, Trump demanded that the judge who ruled in this case be impeached, a call that was rejected by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Federal judges have blocked DOGE’s access to Treasury Department payment and data systems, and 22 other suits against DOGE regarding various actions are still pending. A federal judge also declared that DOGE’s efforts to close the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Department were likely unconstitutional because dissolving agencies is a Congressional power. Furthermore, a judge issued a temporary restraining order to bar the Trump administration from releasing a list of FBI agents who had investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Plaintiffs in the FBI case worried that those who were involved in the investigation would be fired. Further wins include a requirement for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to restore website pages on environmental justice, HIV treatments, fertility clinics, and diversity in clinical trials.
According to the New York Times’s lawsuit tracker, at least 46 rulings have paused President Trump’s actions, while only two — dismissing the federal resignation program suit and the ongoing ban on the Associated Press attending official White House press events — have supported his agenda. This implies that the Trump administration is often acting outside its legal abilities, in some cases even violating existing laws.
Given the administration’s unwillingness to release funding in compliance with court orders, and its attempts to subvert potential lawsuits, a showdown between the Executive and Judicial branches of government is looming. This is a threat to the American system of checks and balances. The Trump administration’s actions demonstrate a disregard for the laws of the land and a willingness to punish groups that push back against their agenda.
