Congress has not shown much resistance to U.S. President Donald Trump's forceful series of executive measures, which range from cutting foreign aid to deploying troops at the border to pardon of guilty felons. Federal judges, however, are intervening more and more to indicate a possible judicial clash over the rule of law.
Federal judge in Manhattan temporarily banned Elon Musk and his government efficiency task force from gaining access to Treasury Department systems in charge of handling trillions of dollar in transactions on Saturday. This decision is in line with other recent rulings by courts that have temporarily halted government initiatives to freeze billions in federal grants, reorganize the country's foreign aid agency, change laws pertaining to transgender people, and carry out a divisive buyout offer strategy for thousands of federal employees.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle abruptly halted Trump's attempt to revoke birthright citizenship in a particularly stinging rebuke. Coughenour emphasized the seriousness of the occasion during a hearing last Thursday, warning that when democratic institutions are under challenge, the rule of law is particularly vulnerable. "There are times throughout history when people wonder, 'Where were the lawyers?' looking back. Where were the judges? Reagan appointee said, Those in the courtroom applauded his remarks.
"There are times throughout history when people wonder, 'Where were the lawyers?' looking back. Where were the judges? Reagan appointee said
Particularly as other conventional limits on executive authority have undermined, the court has become a major counterpoint to Trump's all-encompassing policy proposals. Musk and Vice President JD Vance focused on the courts over the weekend, berating the part judges are playing in stopping the objectives of the government.
"I would want to suggest that every year the worst 1% of appointed judges, decided upon by elected bodies, be let go. This will eliminate the most dishonest and least capable, Musk said on his platform, X, in reaction to Saturday's decision against his team. Vance mirrored these ideas, contending, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
In the end, divisive measures like abolishing birthright citizenship are expected to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, where a 6-3 conservative majority containing three Trump-appointed judges might be rather important in determining the result.
Constitutional scholars, who warn Trump may be oversteering his authority by destroying agencies, avoiding congressional spending mandates, and eliminating government watchdogs, are growing worried about his executive actions.
Although the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority over federal expenditure, Republican legislators who oversee both chambers have generally supported Trump's bold government makeover. This support notwithstanding some of his actions freezing money already approved by Congress.
Traditionally an autonomous department of government, the Department of Justice has similarly showed little opposition to Trump's actions. Former Trump defense attorney Emil Bove, a DOJ official, has led initiatives to clean the department of officials engaged in inquiry into the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Bove has already fired several high officials connected to the investigations.
While several of Trump's most divisive initiatives had temporary decisions issued against by federal judges, Democratic state attorneys general, advocacy groups, and labor unions have started at least 39 lawsuits to contest his government's actions. Although several verdicts are still pending, first rulings have supported these legal challenges.
Legal Arguments Could Restructure Presidential Authority
Trump's executive moves nonetheless challenge long-standing legal rules notwithstanding temporary injunctions. Soon to be faced by judges and appellate courts are important cases that might either confirm legal restrictions on the presidency or increase executive authority.
One level below the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco has reviewed Judge Coughenour's ruling. The court now has to decide whether Trump's limitation of birthright citizenship—that is, to children with at least one U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident parent—is unconstitutional.
Should it be maintained, Trump's approach would fundamentally change American immigration policy, depriving temporary workers, U.S.-born children of foreign students, visitors, and, most importantly, illegal immigrants of citizenship.
Trump's legal deft moves are also driving initiatives among conservative legal academics to rethink presidential power. Some contend that the president should have complete control over the executive branch, including departments Congress has traditionally safeguarded from direct presidential influence.
Already under test is this theory. Recently, Trump sacked an independent member of the U.S. labor board, a decision generally considered as breaking a law meant to protect such officials from presidential dismissal. The dismissal has set off still another lawsuit.
Further legal challenges over presidential spending authority, the elimination of inspectors general, and government data access loom. Particularly Musk has been closely examining government institutions looking for inefficiencies, questioning if private citizens should be able to view confidential government data.
Years of legal procedures can allow policies to take effect before they are decided illegal. Should Trump's cuts to international humanitarian aid, for instance, be reversed, it could be too late to provide money to important initiatives including medical facilities in refugee camps or efforts at landmine disposal in conflict areas.
Dan Urman, a public policy and law professor at Northeastern University, cautioned that although the courts are vital, they cannot save us on their own. "There's a real risk that the legal process could eventually shift the goalposts, granting Trump even more authority."
Legal challenges growing number will test the court's influence in defining the boundaries of presidential authority like never before. It remains a mystery whether the courts will restrict Trump's actions or unintentionally empower the president.