The Trump administration faces ongoing judicial resistance as federal judges across the country continue to issue rulings against its policies, particularly in immigration matters. Several judges appointed during previous administrations have issued decisions that directly contradict Supreme Court precedents.
According to The Daily Caller, these judicial actions are increasingly frustrating the White House's ability to implement its agenda, despite having secured major victories at the Supreme Court level. The tension between the executive branch and lower courts has intensified in recent months.
The most recent example came on Friday when U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, blocked the administration from using "expedited removal" to quickly deport illegal migrants from the country. This temporary halt could significantly impede the White House's deportation plans.
Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin issued a strong rebuke of Judge Cobb's decision, calling it "lawless" and claiming it directly contradicts a 7-2 Supreme Court majority that previously upheld expedited removals. The administration has expressed confidence that the ruling will not stand.
Similar conflicts emerged in April when Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction against transferring deportable illegal migrants to third countries. Even after the Supreme Court stayed his order, Murphy maintained his ruling remained in effect, citing Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent.
The administration called Murphy's action "unprecedented defiance" of the Supreme Court's authority in court documents. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 7-2 in the administration's favor in July, allowing deportations to South Sudan and declaring Murphy's rulings void.
Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee serving on the U.S. District Court for Oregon, ruled in July that the Department of Homeland Security could not engage in wide-scale terminations of parole status for migrants. His decision cited other lower-court rulings but notably omitted mention of Supreme Court stays issued against those decisions a month earlier.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly declined to stay a District Court order that prevented the president from removing members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Supreme Court eventually granted the stay in July, referencing prior precedent.
These cases illustrate a pattern where lower courts appear to be finding creative ways to obstruct the administration's policies, particularly on immigration. Critics characterize these judges as "activist" while defenders argue they're providing necessary checks on executive power.
The Trump administration secured a significant victory in June when the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to drastically limit lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. This ruling specifically addressed Trump's birthright citizenship order.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." The White House celebrated this decision as a "big win" in an official statement.
Despite this Supreme Court decision, lower courts have continued to find exceptions that allow them to issue nationwide injunctions. Federal judges have blocked the president's asylum ban at the southern border and prevented the White House from ending deportation protections for Haitian nationals.
In late July, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants. This marked the third nationwide court ruling blocking the order since the Supreme Court's decision limiting such injunctions.
These ongoing legal challenges highlight the judiciary's significant role in shaping immigration policy. The administration argues these rulings improperly interfere with executive authority to enforce immigration laws.
The conflict between the courts and the executive branch shows no signs of abating as the administration continues pursuing its agenda. Legal experts suggest this tension reflects deeper constitutional questions about the balance of powers between branches of government.
