Emboldened Trump signals long court fight to expand power

By Erik Larson and Zoe Tillman

President Donald Trump has ramped up his fight with the judiciary as he racks up losses in court over his administration’s efforts to reshape the US government and its approach on everything from immigration to federal spending.

Two months into his term, Trump is already fighting more than 150 lawsuits challenging his executive actions, based on a Bloomberg News review of filings in federal courts. Judges across the US are frequently ruling against the administration and in some cases signaling the president may have exceeded his power to act without the approval of Congress.

As Trump challenges the authority of the courts to block his agenda, even calling for the impeachment of judges, the government has been increasingly accused of disobeying judicial orders and failing to properly follow the law. The Trump administration has said that it is not flouting orders.

The White House has had some notable wins and is appealing most of its losses. At least some of the cases are likely to reach the US Supreme Court, where Trump dominates with a conservative majority.

Here are five areas of the Trump administration’s legal fights to watch:

Immigration

Trump’s hardline immigration agenda is playing out across the courts, with some of his biggest priorities stalling. He’s lost several court fights over his ban on birthright citizenship, the most high-profile executive order tied to his immigration crackdown. Judges in different states who have blocked his order from taking effect while litigation proceeds say Trump’s executive order violated the clear language of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Trump has already asked the Supreme Court to intervene, by limiting the extent of the injunctions. The high court is accepting written briefs through next month.

Trump’s anger over challenges to his immigration policies peaked on Tuesday, when he called for the impeachment of the Washington judge handling a lawsuit over the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The judge had blocked further deportations and scolded the administration for failing to obey a verbal order to turn the planes around. Government lawyers argued they were only required to follow his written orders. The president’s comments about the judge prompted Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement rebuking Trump, saying impeachment “is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Most of the other immigration suits are in early stages. The suits challenge most of Trump’s reform efforts, including ending so-called sanctuary city policies, increasing immigration raids, restoring the “Remain in Mexico” policy and pausing funding of legal services to undocumented immigrants.

If Trump prevails in these cases, it will expand the president’s already-significant ability to shape immigration policy immediately after taking office.

Spending and Workforce

Nonprofits, unions and state attorneys general have mostly prevailed in challenging the White House freeze of trillions of dollars in congressionally approved spending on grants, loans and other payments. Judges have ordered the US to keep funds flowing during litigation.

But the administration has been accused in a few cases of failing to resume funding, drawing rebukes from judges. So far the government has avoided sanctions or being held in contempt. In two cases over the firing of federal workers, judges ordered the rehiring of thousands of probationary employees. One judge expressed concern the administration wasn’t following a court order because workers were being placed on paid leave instead of returning to work.

There are at least four challenges to Trump’s gutting of the US Agency for International Development. A judge in a pair of suits filed by nonprofits ordered USAID to resume paying out $2 billion for work already completed around the world. But the judge gave the administration a partial win by allowing thousands of contracts for future work to be canceled. And in a separate suit brought by USAID employees, a judge cleared the way for workers to be fired while the suit continues.

The cases could establish broader powers for a president to rescind federal spending that’s already been approved by Congress.

Firing Independent Officials

Members of independent agencies who claim they were dismissed by Trump illegally are mostly prevailing in court, though Trump has doubled down with additional firings. The winners include Gwynne Wilcox at the National Labor Relations Board, Cathy Harris at the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Susan Grundmann at the Federal Labor Relations Authority. All were reinstated in federal court rulings that highlighted the importance of independent agencies. Two of the cases are on appeal.

Trump did get a win when a federal appeals court allowed his firing of Hampton Dellinger, who led the Office of Special Counsel, to take effect while his lawsuit proceeded. Dellinger dropped his case, so the courts haven’t ruled on the merits of Trump’s actions. The president doubled down on March 18 when he fired the two Democratic Commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission, signaling even more litigation ahead.

The legal fights began after Trump’s firing of more than a dozen Executive Branch officials whose positions were created by Congress. The dismissals have fueled concerns that Trump could try to fire Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, whom the president has criticized.

The cases could determine the extent of the president’s ability to control the Executive Branch, even positions that Congress decided decades ago should be independent so they can handle matters related the White House without fear of retaliation.

DOGE and Elon Musk

States, privacy advocates and unions that challenged Elon Musk and his budget-slashing Department of Government Efficiency team have had mixed results. Some judges have temporarily limited DOGE employees’ access to Americans’ personal data held by departments.

But in other cases, the Musk team was allowed to continue reviewing secure information. A Washington judge denied a request that would give DOGE access to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau records, at least for now. And the Trump administration continues to fight restrictions. It asked an appeals court to block disclosures about Musk’s role and threatened to all but shut down the Social Security Administration after a judge blocked DOGE’s access to the agency’s computer systems.

The administration is also fighting suits challenging DOGE access to Treasury payments data, with limited success. A New York judge largely blocked DOGE’s access but said the administration could regain it by giving the employees proper training and security clearances.

These cases are testing the standard allowing presidents to assign non-Senate confirmed aides to dig into Americans’ data across the government.

Equality and DEI

In a major loss for the administration, a Washington federal judge this month issued an order blocking Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military while litigation proceeds. The government has said it will appeal the decision.

On the DEI front, eight states that sued over the Department of Education’s cancellation of $250 million in federal grants tied to equality and diversity won a temporary order blocking the terminations earlier this month. ,

In Maryland, a federal judge blocked portions of Trump’s executive orders limiting DEI programs. But a federal appeals court put that order on hold while it’s challenged, giving Trump a key procedural win. Trump got another win last month when several US intelligence officers who were assigned to DEI initiatives lost their bid for a temporary order preventing them from being fired while their lawsuit proceeds.

The lawsuits come after Trump signed executive orders seeking to eliminate “illegal” DEI programs in government and pressure companies and universities to do the same. Government agencies quickly got to work firing employees who work on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, while DEI language was stripped from websites.