Ever since he first announced his bid for the White House in 2015, President Donald Trump has attracted the ire and enmity of practically every Democratic Party politician in the country. However, his second presidential term has seen the real estate magnate-turned-commander in chief besieged by federal judges and their sweeping nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs). The president’s tug-of-war with the federal judiciary has been ongoing for months now, with judges impeding his agenda in areas ranging from staffing cuts and military personnel decisions to deportations and constitutional powers. Here are four of the latest developments in the president’s conflict with the courts.
- Trump Allies Sue Supreme Court Chief Justice
America First Legal Foundation recently filed a lawsuit, naming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his official capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Director Robert Conrad as defendants. “For several years, the media and enterprising lawmakers have launched an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court,” the lawsuit stated. It cited a series of incidents in which congressional Democrats — namely, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) — and their ideological allies in the mainstream media have questioned and undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court, particularly targeting Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court Justices,” the lawsuit averred.
The suit further argued that, because the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office have both cooperated with oversight requests from Whitehouse and Johnson, the entities should be treated as executive branch functionaries, rather than appendages of the judicial branch, and should thus be subject to the president’s direction if the integrity and non-political nature of the federal judiciary is to be maintained. “Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies. Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts,” the lawsuit stated. It continued, “Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”
“Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions. But the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does exactly that,” the lawsuit explained, noting that the Administrative Office is under the control of the Judicial Conference, which is itself under the control of the Chief Justice, who also appoints the head of the Administrative Office. The lawsuit argued, “The Judicial Conference’s duties are executive functions and must be supervised by executive officers who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.”
Consequently, both the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office must comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits, the lawsuit concluded. America First Legal Foundation was established in 2021 by Stephen Miller, who currently serves as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and one of the president’s top advisors. Although the lawsuit does not directly address the rash of injunctions and TROs plaguing the Trump administration, it aims to curb political influence over the federal judiciary and its policymaking bodies.
- Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration on Immigration
A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction last month barring Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem from terminating parole programs, which allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to enter and remain in the U.S. during the previous administration. Over 500,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans are currently paroled into the U.S. When Noem attempted a sweeping parole program termination, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts determined that the DHS Secretary only has the authority to terminate parole on a “case-by-case” basis.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed down an order this week upholding Talwani’s injunction. “The statute is clear that parole in the first instance is to be granted only on a case-by-case basis,” the appellate court stated. However, the court acknowledged, “The statutory text is less clear regarding the termination of parole. Common sense suggests (but does not dictate) that parole given only on a case-by-case basis is to be terminated only on such a basis.” The court continued, “Whether this is so we need not now decide. For present purposes it suffices to say that the Secretary has not at this point made a ‘strong showing’ that her categorical termination of plaintiffs’ parole is likely to be sustained on appeal.”
Another federal judge, Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for Northern California, had previously issued a similar order, blocking the Trump administration from ending legal protected status for an estimated 300,000 Venezuelan nationals, many of whom entered the U.S. illegally during the previous administration.
- Senior Senator Predicts End to Nationwide Injunctions
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) anticipated in an interview this week that the sweeping nationwide injunctions federal courts are imposing on the Trump administration will likely be curbed soon. “Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power,” the senator declared. Clarifying that “judges are not policymakers,” he added, “Allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous.” Grassley emphasized that he has introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act (JRCA) in order to “put an end to universal injunctions.”
Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced similar legislation to block partisan federal judges from issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions. Legislation to the same effect has also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Issa said, when unveiling his bill, that the No Rogue Rulings Act “is the comprehensive solution we need to ensure that this problem does not occur anywhere in our federal judiciary and resets the proper and appropriate balance in our courts.”
- GOP Senator Hands Prosecutor’s Appointment to Partisan Judge
According to reports, Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) may block the confirmation of Ed Martin as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Another member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tillis has previously voiced concerns over Martin’s defense of January 6 protestors. The senator met with Martin Monday but, according to Politico, has told the White House that he will not support Martin’s confirmation. “I have no tolerance for anybody that entered the building on Jan. 6, and that’s probably where most of the friction was,” Tillis said.
Martin currently serves as the acting U.S. Attorney for D.C., but his interim status will expire on May 19. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has warned that, if Martin’s interim status expires before he is confirmed, then James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for D.C., will likely get to choose who succeeds Martin in the role of U.S. Attorney. Boasberg has repeatedly imposed injunctions and TROs on Trump administration actions and has even threatened to hold the administration in contempt for refusing to comply with an order he issued (which was later vacated by the Supreme Court). Congressional Republicans have also questioned Boasberg regarding the unusually high number of cases he has been assigned related to Trump administration controversies.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), if the Senate does not confirm a U.S. Attorney for D.C. within 120 days of the vacancy or interim appointment, the responsibility for choosing a U.S. Attorney would fall to the District Court, led by Boasberg. Grassley has been working behind the scenes to confirm Martin, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-N.D.) admitted Tuesday that without Tillis’s backing, Martin is unlikely to make it out of committee and proceed to the Senate floor, where Republicans hold a majority of seats.
S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.
