Federal courts delivering repeated rebukes to Trump’s executive actions

Editor’s note: “Behind the News” is the product of Sun staff assisted by the Sun’s AI lab, which includes a variety of tools such as Anthropic’s Claude, Perplexity AI, Google Gemini and ChatGPT.

Since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January, federal courts across the United States have issued numerous rulings reversing, blocking or limiting executive actions from his administration.

These judicial decisions reflect the courts’ role in checking executive actions that exceed statutory or constitutional authority, protecting democratic institutions and individual rights from unilateral administrative overreach [1][2].

Among the most recent instances came Wednesday when a federal judge in Boston delivered a significant victory to Harvard University by ordering the Trump administration to reverse cuts of more than $2.6 billion in research funding [3][4]. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration unlawfully cut the funding as retaliatory punishment for Harvard rejecting White House demands and accusations of antisemitism without sufficient evidence.

The judge emphasized violations of Harvard’s First Amendment rights and academic freedom, noting that antisemitism was improperly used as a pretext for ideological retaliation [5]. The court barred future unconstitutional cuts and reaffirmed protections against government retaliation on speech grounds. Experts viewed this ruling as a crucial defense of constitutional protections and academic autonomy.

Some other court orders

Birthright citizenship executive order challenges:

One of the most significant ongoing legal battles involves Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which sought to restrict birthright citizenship. Multiple district courts issued universal injunctions blocking the order, ruling it likely violated the 14th Amendment and was issued without Congress’ authorization [6][7].

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction, ruling the order contradicted the plain language of the 14th Amendment granting birthright citizenship [8]. The Supreme Court has already engaged with procedural aspects of this litigation, ruling 6-3 in Trump v. CASA that lower courts generally lack authority to issue “universal” injunctions blocking policies nationwide, though this did not address the constitutional merits of the order itself [9].

Legal scholars expect the Supreme Court will ultimately hear the constitutional question because it involves a major constitutional provision affecting millions and longstanding legal precedent [10][11]. The exact timing remains uncertain, but the case is considered likely for full Supreme Court review given its constitutional weight and national importance.

Other rulings

Deportation and immigration actions:

• The Supreme Court halted deportations of Venezuelan nationals, ruling the administration overstepped by using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for broad deportation orders without due process [1]
• Federal courts blocked Trump administration orders allowing immigration enforcement inside places of worship, citing violations of religious freedoms and due process protections [2]
• Courts blocked deportation flights to El Salvador over procedural and humanitarian concerns [12]

Environmental and climate actions:

• Courts halted executive actions stopping wind energy project approvals, ruling the administration violated environmental laws and procedural requirements [1]
• Judges blocked deletion of climate change data from government websites, ruling the administration acted beyond its statutory authority to erase scientifically relevant information [1]

Federal employment and civil service:

• Courts ruled against mass firings of federal workers done without procedural due process, ordering reinstatements and citing violations of civil service protections [2]
• Memoranda freezing federal hiring faced court challenges for violating established federal employment laws and congressional budgetary authority [13]

Civil rights and social issues:

• Federal judges blocked executive orders transferring transgender women inmates to male prisons, citing violations of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment [2]
• Courts temporarily halted funding cuts to refugee resettlement organizations, ruling the cuts violated federal statutes requiring funding for humanitarian programs [2]

Trade and economic actions:

• Courts issued injunctions against the administration’s tariffs, finding overreach in bypassing Congress’ exclusive trade and tariff authority [12]
• Courts intervened in Trump-era executive actions redefining firearm regulations, ruling that reinterpretations violated existing gun laws and failed required rulemaking processes [1]

Educational policy:

• Courts allowed some changes to teacher training grants but blocked sweeping modifications without following proper administrative procedures [2]
• Court rulings halted administrative threats to revoke tax-exempt statuses for universities for not complying with political demands [14]

Executive overreach

Legal experts widely criticize Trump’s tendencies to issue sweeping executive orders or administrative actions bypassing Congress, raising concerns about constitutional separation of powers [14]. Many legal scholars assert that his “executive overreach” undermines the system of checks and balances, as Congress holds the exclusive power to legislate.

Judges have underscored the dangers of punitive executive actions aimed at political opponents, highlighting First Amendment rights and due process protections. Courts and legal experts call for careful adherence to formal congressional processes rather than unilateral executive decrees [14].

Legal scholars insist that substantive policy changes require clear congressional legislation to uphold separation of powers, and courts serve as critical checks on unilateral executive actions that threaten constitutional rights, due process and institutional autonomy [15][16].

Trump’s response

Trump has consistently criticized court decisions that have ruled against his administration’s actions, framing many judicial rulings as politically biased or unjust interference in his agenda.

For instance, after a federal appeals court struck down many Trump tariffs as an overreach of emergency powers, he defended keeping tariffs in place and called them vital for national economic security [15][16].

He described the court’s rulings as threats to the country and economic strategy, asserting all tariffs remained effective despite legal challenges.

Trump routinely frames adverse court decisions as examples of judicial activism or political bias against him and his policy goals.

He suggests courts are unlawfully obstructing presidential power and his agenda to transform immigration, trade and regulatory policy.

Trump’s public rhetoric often characterizes judges as hostile or partisan, reinforcing his supporters’ narrative of resisting a “deep state” or hostile judiciary.

He promises continued legal fights and appeals to overturn unfavorable rulings.

Supreme Court outlook

The Supreme Court’s role in reviewing these challenges remains significant. Beyond the birthright citizenship case, the court has shown interest in procedural questions about the scope of judicial injunctions against executive actions. The court’s decisions on universal injunctions and emergency relief will continue to shape how lower courts can respond to sweeping executive actions [9][17].

Sources

[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

[2] https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/trump-lawsuits-2025

[3] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-03/judge-reverses-trump-administrations-cuts-of-billions-of-dollars-to-harvard-university

[4] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-reverses-trump-administrations-cuts-of-billions-in-research-funding-to-harvard

[5] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-reverses-trump-administrations-cuts-204647354.html

[6] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

[7] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/in-birthright-citizenship-decision-the-supreme-court-expanded-trumps-power/

[8] https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/appeals-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-blocked-unconstitutional/

[9] https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/where-does-birthright-citizenship-order-currently-stand/

[10] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/24/nx-s1-5478384/birthright-citizenship-appeals-court-blocks-trump

[11] https://www.cfr.org/article/what-birthright-citizenship-and-could-supreme-court-end-it

[12] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-anonymously-criticize-supreme-court-overturning-decisions-emergency-rulings

[13] https://www.nafsa.org/executive-and-regulatory-actions-trump2admin

[14] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-03/judge-reverses-trump-administrations-cuts-of-billions-of-dollars-to-harvard-university

[15] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/us/trump-administration-lawsuits.html

[16] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation

[17] https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/the-supreme-court-fails-to-apply-its-own-precedent-and-continues-to-sow-confusion-through-its-shadow-docket/

[18] https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/29/business/trump-tariffs-appeals-court-ruling

[19] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/what-trump-court-loss-means-for-billions-in-tariffs-paid-to-government.html

[20] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/04/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-appeal-column-00543196

[21] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-asks-supreme-court-endorse-power-impose-broad-tariffs-rcna228799

[22] https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/what-the-trump-administration-wants-from-the-supreme-court-this-term/

[23] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-poised-resolve-clashes-over-trumps-power-2025-09-04/