Justice Department lawyers are defending President Trump’s unilateral actions in court by citing expansive executive power. However, Trump’s administration is simultaneously attacking judges and the legitimacy of the courts, undermining the separation of powers core to U.S. governance. With over 100 active lawsuits against the administration, judges have issued rulings against Trump’s policies, including blocking funding cuts for hospitals providing gender-transition treatment. Although the administration has at times complied with some rulings, it has also been accused of slow-walking compliance and finding loopholes. This tense environment raises concerns about a constitutional crisis between the executive and judicial branches.
Lawyers from the Justice Department, facing a barrage of legal challenges, have argued in court that the broad executive power granted by the Constitution supports the legality of President Trump’s assertive unilateral actions.
However, outside of the courtroom, legal principles appear to be irrelevant to the tactics employed by White House officials and their supporters, who are targeting individual judges, questioning the courts’ legitimacy — and weakening the separation of powers that has been fundamental to American governance since its foundation.
The dual-layered defense of Mr. Trump’s maneuvers may be an understandable response to the string of victories achieved by the president’s adversaries in court. Nevertheless, it presents the possibility of a significant clash between two branches of government that the nation’s founders intended to be coequal: the executive and the judicial.
As of Saturday, the number of ongoing lawsuits in federal courts challenging administration actions had reached 100. In 21 of those instances, judges have issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, effectively halting, at least temporarily, certain elements of Mr. Trump’s agenda for his second term.
Trial judges have attempted to intervene against the unilateral termination of civil servants, the access Elon Musk’s associates have gained to confidential agency information, the transfer of transgender women inmates to men’s prisons, the pursuit of immigrants within places of worship, and the withholding of up to $3 trillion in federal funds from the states.
Late on Friday, Judge Lauren J. King halted a Trump administration initiative to cut funding for hospitals providing gender-transition treatment for individuals under 19. In her decision, Judge King stated that the two orders from the Trump administration in question constituted “a violation of the separation of powers.”
Among the judges who have ruled against the White House, five were nominated by Republican presidents, including one by Mr. Trump himself.
On Thursday, Judge John D. Bates mandated that administration officials participate in depositions regarding Mr. Musk’s mass firing of federal employees and submit documents to a group of unions suing to prevent these actions.
“They’re losing,” stated Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, in an interview.
In turn, the Trump administration has shown obstinacy. Officials seem to be delaying the implementation of various judicial orders and seeking loopholes to sidestep complying with their intent. Two judges have issued “motions to enforce” because the government has disregarded their original directives.
Though Mr. Trump has commended judges who have ruled in his favor, his allies have urged Congress to impeach those who have not. On social media, Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have even suggested that they might choose not to comply with judges’ orders altogether. “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump tweeted.
“The court process is revealing a lot of public insight into what the administration is actually doing,” remarked Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, which has secured 12 court orders through over two dozen legal actions it has launched.
The orders halting the White House’s actions are preliminary, and the ultimate boundaries of presidential authority as determined by the courts remain unclear. Some of Mr. Trump’s most assertive initiatives seem to have been stalled, such as the attempt to end birthright citizenship for certain infants born on U.S. soil. The administration has twice failed to reinstate this directive through appellate courts.
However, in many situations, the administration has found ways to implement Mr. Trump’s policies despite adverse court rulings. For example, when a judge determined that relocating transgender female inmates to men’s prisons would likely violate their constitutional rights, the government opted to interpret the order narrowly and apply it only to the trans women who had filed the lawsuit. It proceeded with its plans to transfer the others, several of whom subsequently filed lawsuits as well.
After Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the Federal District Court for Rhode Island instructed the Trump administration to conclude a domestic funding freeze, the administration indicated it would continue to withhold some funds — for reasons they claimed were beyond the lawsuit’s and the judge’s order’s scope.
In a separate case contesting cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to billions of dollars in grants, Judge Angel Kelley of the Federal District Court for Massachusetts temporarily halted the cuts, given their apparent severe consequences for medical and scientific research. Yet, the agency issued a procedural order that effectively froze the funding anyway, preventing health officials from publicly announcing impending grant review meetings. This impeded research progress, if not the funding itself.
Currently, the discussion seems to be shifting toward whether the judges — rather than the president — are overstepping their authority.
Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and assistant to the solicitor general during the Reagan administration, questioned whether district court judges should issue restraining orders that compel the White House’s actions, such as releasing billions of dollars in foreign aid or reinstating executive-branch personnel.
The notion that the administration might ignore court orders was “fear-mongering,” he concluded, adding, “Let’s allow the process to unfold before we start panicking.”
However, if there is “fear-mongering” occurring, it is originating from both sides. As notable Democrats express worries about a potential constitutional crisis, Mr. Trump’s supporters are utilizing social media to attack judges publicly. Mr. Musk used his platform X to accuse one judge of “violating the will of the people.” He also amplified a post by far-right activist Laura Loomer that included screenshots purportedly of another judge’s daughter’s LinkedIn profile.
Such language has prompted security concerns for judges.
In his latest annual report on the judiciary, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that the U.S. Marshals Service had investigated over 1,000 threats against federal judges in the past five years.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the judiciary, opted not to comment. In a statement, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, a former federal judge who led the administrative office from 2021 to 2024, expressed confidence that the judiciary could handle the pressures of this moment.
“Are federal judges capable of managing the task? Absolutely,” she affirmed.
To some observers, a conflict seems unavoidable. On Wednesday, when asked whether it was permissible for an elected official to defy a federal court order, two of Mr. Trump’s nominees to prominent Justice Department positions hesitated. John Sauer, nominated for solicitor general, referenced two infamous Supreme Court decisions: Korematsu, which upheld the legitimacy of Japanese internment camps during World War II, and Dred Scott, which denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved individuals. If confronted with “extreme cases” like those, Mr. Sauer implied, the executive branch could theoretically justify ignoring the courts.
With the White House operating at an unrelenting pace, judges have found it difficult to extract even the most fundamental information from Justice Department lawyers regarding actions taken by the Trump administration and Mr. Musk.
Prior to imposing a deadline for the Trump administration to release billions in foreign aid payments this week, Judge Amir H. Ali of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia pressed a government lawyer to identify a single instance where the State Department or U.S. Agency for International Development complied with his order from 12 days prior to unfreeze funds that the government had stalled for review.
“I’m not in a position to answer that,” replied Indraneel Sur, a government lawyer.
On various occasions, government lawyers have appeared alone in court — and seemingly unprepared — on behalf of numerous agencies or senior officials within the Trump administration.
“You seem to be a bit outnumbered,” Judge Trevor N. McFadden remarked to Joseph F. Carilli, a Justice Department lawyer sitting alone across from a group of attorneys representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops during a case in February.
Mr. Carilli was prepared to defend the administration against allegations of arbitrarily halting funding that the bishops depended on to resettle over 5,000 refugees already in the country.
Yet, before the case could advance on Friday, the State Department announced it had terminated the contested funding agreement. A challenge to an executive order on refugee resettlement had, for the White House, devolved into a straightforward contract dispute. If the bishops felt entitled to any remaining funds, administration lawyers asserted, they could initiate a new lawsuit.
It could take weeks or even months before the Supreme Court fully assesses any of the lawsuits. Nevertheless, the administration achieved a minor victory on Wednesday when Chief Justice Roberts stayed an order from Judge Ali that would have required the State Department to disburse over $1.5 billion in frozen funds by midnight on Thursday, a deadline they claimed they could not meet.
In their response, the plaintiffs accused the government of “disregarding” the district court’s order “for twelve days.”
In other matters, trial judges have been more sympathetic to the concept that the president possesses substantial authority to alter the executive branch, even opening additional avenues for broader actions than what is currently under scrutiny.
In a case questioning the White House’s decision to exclude Associated Press reporters from events with close access to the president, Judge McFadden reflected that Mr. Trump likely had broad discretion to select the journalists and outlets that cover him.
Days later, the White House did precisely that.
Jonah E. Bromwich and Devlin Barrett contributed reporting. Alex Lemonides and Seamus Hughes contributed research.