Justice Department Stumbles Defending Trump’s Orders/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration is facing mounting legal defeats as courts increasingly block its executive actions and question its legal strategies. Justice Department attorneys are struggling to defend the president’s policies amid staffing changes and mounting judicial skepticism. Nearly 50 Trump orders have been partially or fully halted by federal judges.
Trump Legal Agenda Falters Amid Courtroom Setbacks: Quick Looks
- About 50 Trump executive actions have been fully or partially blocked
- Judges from across the political spectrum express doubts about legality
- DOJ lawyers have fumbled in defending key administration policies
- Some government attorneys were unprepared or misinformed in court
- Justice Department losing veteran lawyers, replaced by political hires
- Trump allies blame “activist” judges; critics cite weak legal reasoning
- Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on most contested orders
- Some early losses have been reversed on appeal or upheld by SCOTUS
- DOJ says it remains confident it will ultimately prevail
Deep Look: Trump Executive Orders Face Mounting Legal Defeats in Federal Courts
WASHINGTON — The legal machinery backing President Donald Trump’s sweeping second-term agenda is increasingly faltering in federal courtrooms. In a growing pattern of legal setbacks, judges across the country—some appointed by Republicans—are questioning the legality and rationale behind many of the administration’s executive actions.
Last week alone, federal courts blocked several initiatives, including a proof-of-citizenship requirement on voter registration forms, punitive actions against schools with diversity programs, and the deportation of a man to El Salvador in violation of a settlement agreement.
These rulings follow a broader trend: an Associated Press tally shows nearly 50 executive actions have been partially or fully blocked, while about 40 remain in effect. Dozens of other cases are pending across lower courts.
Courts Challenge DOJ’s Legal Arguments
The setbacks point to deeper problems within the Justice Department’s legal defense strategy. In several hearings, DOJ attorneys struggled to articulate basic details about the policies they were defending—prompting judges to question not just the substance of the policies but the department’s overall preparedness.
In one particularly revealing exchange, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson was unable to explain procedural details about an executive order targeting a law firm’s national security clearance, prompting a federal judge to ask: “You can’t tell me anything about that?”
Lawson, a recent DOJ appointee with a background at a pro-Trump think tank and the Florida attorney general’s office, replied, “I can’t speak to that, Your Honor.”
Similar stumbles were seen in a separate case involving law firm Jenner & Block. When asked why a former employee’s connection to the Mueller investigation presented a national security threat, Lawson acknowledged it did not “per se.”
Judges From Both Parties Voice Concerns
The judicial opposition is not limited to Democratic appointees. Republican-appointed judges have also issued scathing opinions. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, named to the bench by President Reagan, condemned one DOJ argument as “shocking” and contrary to core American principles.
In another rebuke, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly criticized the DOJ’s inconsistent statements, calling them a breach of the diligence expected from federal lawyers. Though she stopped short of accusing intentional misrepresentation, her opinion highlighted a broader concern: a growing lack of credibility from the government in federal court.
Legal Strategy Hampered by Staffing and Turnover
A key reason behind the stumbles is the exodus of experienced DOJ career attorneys, replaced in part by politically appointed lawyers with less experience in federal litigation. Legal experts say these new hires, many from conservative advocacy backgrounds, lack the institutional knowledge traditionally relied upon in courtroom arguments.
“This is quite rare, if not unprecedented,” said Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College. “They’re losing cases not because of ideology, but because they’re clearly wrong in the law.”
Stuart Gerson, a former acting U.S. attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, added, “They’re sending lawyers in unprepared—just parroting talking points, not legal arguments. It’s a recipe for failure.”
Trump Allies Deflect Blame
The White House and its supporters have blamed the defeats on “activist judges” obstructing the administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said many of the decisions reflect political bias in the judiciary. Influential adviser Elon Musk has gone further, calling it a “judicial coup” and urging the impeachment of dissenting judges.
But legal scholars argue that these explanations don’t account for the bipartisan nature of the criticism.
Even as losses pile up, the DOJ insists it remains confident in the legality of the president’s agenda. “We will continue to defend President Trump’s agenda in court, and we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail,” DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said.
Mixed Results: Appeals and Supreme Court Wins
Not all the outcomes have been negative. The administration has seen some early trial court losses reversed on appeal. For instance, an appellate court cleared the way for firing thousands of probationary federal employees despite an earlier injunction.
The Supreme Court has also granted key victories, such as overturning a block on the use of an 18th-century law to deport Venezuelan migrants, and temporarily allowing cuts to teacher training programs while litigation continues.
With a conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump-appointed justices, the Supreme Court remains a potential backstop for the administration’s legal ambitions. However, most of the lower court rulings have yet to reach the high court.
Outlook: Legal Pressure Builds, More Fights Ahead
As Trump continues his push to reshape government, courts remain a key battleground. With dozens of lawsuits still pending, the administration’s legal team must urgently address its credibility and competence in courtrooms across the country.
“The courts are testing not just the policies,” Greenfield said, “but the professionalism of the lawyers defending them.”
You must Register or Login to post a comment.