Federal judges are throwing wrenches into the Trump administration’s agenda, particularly on immigration, with rulings that seem to thumb their noses at the Supreme Court.
The Daily Caller reported that lower courts, led by judges appointed by Democratic presidents, are blocking key executive policies, creating a tug-of-war between judicial activism and the White House’s authority. This clash pits the administration’s hard-line immigration stance against a judiciary skeptical of its legal reach.
In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction halting the transfer of deportable migrants to third countries.
The Supreme Court quickly stayed Murphy’s order, but he doubled down, citing Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent as justification. His defiance, labeled “unprecedented” by the administration, sparked a firestorm over judicial overreach.
“The district court’s ruling of last night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
Sauer’s sharp rebuke underscores the administration’s frustration with judges who seem to cherry-pick legal reasoning to obstruct policy. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling in July, ultimately sided with the administration, allowing deportations to South Sudan and voiding Murphy’s orders.
In May, the Supreme Court flexed its muscle again, overturning a lower court’s attempt to block President Trump’s dismissal of members from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The court’s ruling leaned on the executive’s substantial authority over such agencies. Yet, some lower courts appear undeterred, continuing to challenge the administration’s moves.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, for instance, declined to stay a district court order preventing the removal of Consumer Product Safety Commission members.
The Supreme Court stepped in again in July, granting a stay and citing precedent to reinforce its authority. These repeated interventions highlight a growing tension between federal judges and the nation’s highest court.
In late June, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, curtailed lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, specifically targeting Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.” Her words signal a judicial pushback against overbroad rulings, yet some judges are exploiting loopholes.
Despite the Supreme Court’s June ruling, lower courts have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s asylum ban at the southern border and ending deportation protections for Haitian nationals.
These rulings rely on exceptions carved out in the Supreme Court’s order, showing how judges can sidestep higher court directives. It’s a clever, if frustrating, maneuver for those rooting for executive authority.
In late July, another federal judge blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized migrants. This marked the third nationwide injunction since the Supreme Court’s June decision, raising questions about judicial restraint. The administration argues these rulings undermine its ability to govern effectively.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, dealt a blow to the administration’s deportation agenda on Friday by blocking the use of “expedited removal” for unauthorized migrants.
“Judge Cobb is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court, which upheld expedited removals of illegal aliens by a 7-2 majority,” said Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. Her fiery statement reflects the administration’s exasperation with what it sees as judicial overreach.
In July, Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee in Oregon, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security could not terminate the parole status for migrants on a broad scale.
Simon leaned on other lower-court decisions but conveniently ignored that the Supreme Court had stayed those rulings over a month earlier. Such selective reasoning fuels accusations of judicial bias against Trump’s policies.
The Supreme Court has handed the Trump administration significant victories, including limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions. Yet, lower courts keep finding ways to stall the president’s agenda, particularly on immigration. This back-and-forth suggests a deeper struggle over who gets to set the nation’s course.
The administration’s hard-line immigration policies, from asylum restrictions to expedited removals, are hitting judicial roadblocks at every turn.
While the Supreme Court has often sided with the executive, its rulings haven’t fully curbed lower court defiance. The judiciary’s persistence in issuing injunctions keeps the administration on its heels.
