More than 40 lawsuits filed by state attorney general, unions and nonprofits in recent days have attempted to build a fortress in federal court to oppose President Trump’s outbreak of executive litigation, which has subverted much of the federal government, And questioned the constitutional system and balance system.
Unlike Mr. Trump’s opening in 2017, a major boycott of his second term was not produced on the streets, in the Congress Hall, or within his own Republican Party. At least for the time being, the lawyer said, at least it is the judicial department.
“The courts are indeed the frontline,” said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, who filed nine lawsuits and won four court orders against the Trump administration.
The over-received legal back has quickly produced results, even if it is possible to be fleeting. Judicial orders in nine federal court cases will partially bind the government’s goals for a period of time. These include ending automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. soil; transferring trans female prisoners to prisons with only men; and possibly exposing the identities of FBI personnel investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol ; coaxing federal workers to accept “deferred resignation” under pressing deadlines; and freezing up to $3 trillion in domestic spending.
The judiciary’s response to legal challenges continued through the weekend. On Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump nominated District Judge Judge Carl Nichols. He said he would issue a temporary restraining order to stop administrative leave from 2,200 employees of the U.S. International Development Agency and nearly all the evacuations of the agency from overseas.
Additionally, late Friday night, Judge John D. Bates, the nominee for President George W. Bush, rejected an emergency order requested by a union coalition to stop Elon Musk from Musk’s team accesses labor department data. Although the case is underway, Judge Bates’s ruling is Mr. Trump’s first victory in the new administration in the federal court. In the early hours of Saturday, U.S. District Judge Paul A., one of President Obama’s nominees, was one of the nominees.
The judge has no mean words. Last week in Seattle, a district judge issued a second national ban that prevented Mr. Trump from ending universal birthright citizenship. “The Constitution is not something the government can play policy games,” said Judge John C. Coughenour, adding that such changes can only be done by amending the Constitution. “That’s how the rule of law works.”
But despite the executive’s ability to act quickly and decisively, the judiciary is designed slowly, and legal opposition to Mr. Trump’s open move may struggle to keep up with his breathing.
“Last night, I was having dinner with my family, listening to the call in my ears and trying to be a father at the same time,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in an interview Friday. “It’s hard work, but we don’t want anyone to feel bad for us. That’s what we sign up to do.”
Many executive orders were generated in the first three weeks of Mr. Trump’s tenure to subvert U.S. foreign aid, domestic spending and social policies, with many publicly dismissing existing laws. The president did not trade from the government’s legislative body or even consulted with the legislative body, so he had unilateral executive powers, attempting to demolish parts of the government, covering regulations regarding civil servants, overturned immigration laws for more than a century, seek immigration laws, seeking Revenge on his perceived enemies and made free progress in diversity, equity and trans rights.
“No president can rewrite a constitutional interpretation of more than 120 years with the strokes of his pen,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in an interview. “This is a threat that exists.”
Some legal experts believe that the executive’s intentional effort to put the boundaries of legitimacy is a bare strategy to overwhelm the president’s opposition and ultimately win at least some of the conservative Supreme Court’s planned decisions.
“The government seems to want the challenge to consume a lot of resources – adversaries, courts and public attention – even if members of the government know that the provisions are not consistent with the laws that exist,” said Judith Resnik, a professor at Yale University, a law school.
For Mr. Trump’s supporters, the president’s orders fall well within the powers outlined in the Executive Section II. They say it is the judicial withdrawal that ruled the constitutional boundaries set out in the third part of the judiciary.
“President Trump has not stolen power from other branches,” said Mike Davis, project leader of the conservative advocacy group III. “He is exercising Article 2 powers under the Constitution. The judge said he cannot ? They are wrong legally. The Supreme Court will stand with Trump.”
White House officials say Mr. Trump’s victory in November is a task of exercising extraordinary power.
“Every action taken by the Trump administration is completely legal and compliant with federal law,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. “Any legal challenge to this is nothing more than Try to undermine the will of the American people.”
In fact, this should be to determine whether the courts are complying with their ruling. On Friday, the Democratic attorney general returned to court to ask federal judges to enforce their restraining orders that aim to keep billions of dollars in federal grant funds flowing. They said the Trump administration failed to comply.
The final judgment will not appear soon. Judge Coughenour’s injunction prevented Mr. Trump’s executive order to end the automatic citizenship of children born on U.S. soil, and the Justice Department has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Some cases that pass through the trial court, the court of appeal, and then arrive at the Supreme Court can take several months. Some legal scholars say those long battles will be political and legal, making the president consider himself the almost invincible leader of the populist movement against lawyers and generals, and almost all Democrats have ambitions on their own.
“The lawyer general acted quickly. If they ended up having the upper hand in court, they would be awarded for defense and defense of civil rights,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School. Political dividend.
Mr Amal added that it would also be a design if the Attorney General is leveraging a campaign against Mr Trump to shape his political future. “Our Constitution is designed to deal with ambitions,” he said. “That’s how the framework attracts the blueprint.”
Those who pursue the case say they are not surprised by their future mission. Since the beginning of 2024, democratic advancement and democratic lawyers have made parallel efforts to prepare for the second President Trump. In most cases, the Attorney General raised a unified front with occasional last minute quarrels to decide who will be one of the leaders of the case and to file a lawsuit on which venue.
A surprise factor? Elon Musk, a billionaire businessman, was granted special powers to cut and reshape the government, or it could be illegal, without a real title or Senate confirmation.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin called Mr. Musk a “wildcard number one” and threw it at them.
“I’m not even sure Trump knows what he’s doing,” Mr. Pratkin said of Mr. Musk. “He’s an unelected billionaire who runs around the government and cuts a lot of workforce and act in various potentially illegal ways.”
In the legal file, the Justice Department argued that Mr. Musk’s colleagues were acting legally because employees detailed the government’s institutions, who were under the authority of acting cabinet members.
States have a “special purpose” as plaintiffs, based on the theory of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling. In recent years, the doctrine has been reduced in weight, making it easier for states to file lawsuits claiming that their civil rights or civil rights have been violated. According to lawyers who are familiar with the attorney’s efforts, claims against Mr. Musk’s team in the same state may be more difficult to apply the doctrine, which operates at the federal level and does not directly affect states.
However, the wrinkles did not stop Judge Engmaye’s siding, and currently, New York Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other Democratic lawyers will work to disengage Mr. Musk’s team from sensitive Ministry of Finance system.
They argue that getting the government’s efficiency team to visit would be unconstitutional and to harm countries that rely on the Treasury’s Ministry of Finance to fund child support and recover debts.
“I think we are in a constitutional crisis right now,” Ms. James said.
Ms. Resnik, a professor at Yale Law School, said that while she wants the legal system to be “resilient”, it will be difficult to exaggerate the judiciary’s shares in the coming weeks and months.
“Unlimited power is the opposite of the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “Every time you enter the U.S. Supreme Court, this is on display, and the words engraved on the ground are: ‘Equal Justice under the Law.’”
Jenna Russell,,,,, Laurel Rosenhall,,,,, Charlie Savage,,,,, Chris Cameron,,,,, Yassie Fordin and Hurubie Meko Contribution report. Seamus Hughes contributed the research.
