Trump Battles Courts: A Second Term of Judicial Challenges

President Donald Trump is facing significant pushback from the federal judiciary in his second term. He and his allies have criticized what they call "activist judges" for blocking his executive orders, hindering his ability to implement key policy priorities. These clashes highlight the ongoing tension between the executive and judicial branches, showcasing the system of checks and balances at play in American government.

Numerous executive orders and actions issued by Trump have been met with legal challenges, resulting in federal courts halting or pausing their implementation. This allows for a full hearing on the merits of the cases. The system of checks and balances offers avenues for review, including appeals to the Supreme Court and legislative action by Congress. Congress has the power to pass laws or expand executive branch authorities, potentially overriding judicial objections.

Judge Beryl Howell, a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, emphasized the foundational principle of limited government, stating, "The Framers made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king– the president included – and not just in name only."

Despite these setbacks, Trump is not without recourse. He has several options to counter the court actions.

Trump’s Options for Responding to Judicial Challenges:

• Appealing Lower Court Decisions: The Trump administration can appeal any lower court decisions it deems unfavorable or exceeding the scope of federal court authority. In the interim, it can seek an emergency stay to reinstate the executive order until the case is heard on its merits. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear several major cases.
• Legislative Action: The Trump administration can collaborate with the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to codify its policy priorities into law. This would provide a stronger legal foundation, potentially shielding them from judicial review based on executive overreach. According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president’s executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress.
• Executive Branch Enforcement: While the president cannot directly fire federal judges, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing court rulings. The administration can strategically slow-roll or deprioritize decisions with which it disagrees, affecting their practical impact.
• Judicial Appointments: The president has the power to appoint federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. This provides an opportunity to shape the judiciary’s ideological makeup over time, potentially leading to more favorable rulings in the future.

Arguments Against Judicial Overreach:

Critics of the courts argue that federal judges are overstepping their authority and engaging in political activism. They advocate for Congress to curtail the power of the courts through various measures, including stripping funding, impeaching judges, or eliminating judicial seats.

Mike Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project (A3P), stated, "When federal judges take off their judicial robes and climb into the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches from the Article III project." He added, "And when the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy, it loses everything."

However, such measures are highly controversial and face significant hurdles in gaining broad support from both the House and Senate.

Limitations on Executive Power:

The Constitution places limits on the power of the executive branch. The president cannot fire federal judges. The executive branch is also responsible for enforcing court rulings.

Unorthodox Approaches:

Trump allies have explored unorthodox ways to challenge the power of the courts. The America First Legal Foundation, founded by former White House aide Stephen Miller, filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The lawsuit alleges that they performed regulatory actions that exceed the scope of the judiciary’s core functions, potentially placing them under executive branch oversight.

Judge Howell emphasized the principle of limited executive power, stating, "An American president is not a king – not even an elected one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute."

The legal battles between President Trump and the federal courts underscore the delicate balance of power in the American system of government. The outcome of these conflicts will have significant implications for the scope of presidential authority and the role of the judiciary in shaping national policy.