Judges V Trump: The early wave of judicial mandates blocks the main priorities of the White House

The recent wave of preliminary mandates of federal judges has hindered the president Donald Trump’s Early agenda in its second period of the White House, which causes new questions about what extent the administration could come if you choose to challenge these judicial orders.

Federal judges throughout the country have blocked Trump’s ban In transgender people who serve in the United States Army, they ordered the restoration of the central functions of the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, and stopped the Government Efficiency Organization of Elon Musk, Dege, Supervision and access to government agencies, among other things. They have also temporarily arrested deportations, or tried, so that judges can consider the relevant laws.

Combined, the decision wave has encountered the indignation of Trump administration officials, some of which said they plan to appeal the decisions before the Supreme Court, if necessary. The White House Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has used her podium to criticize “leftist radical judges”, which she alleged are acting with a political agenda to block Trump’s executive orders.

“These judicial activists want to prevent President Trump Sport from foreign terrorists, hiring and dismissing the employees of the Executive Branch, and determining the preparation of our troops,” Leavitt said in X, expanding the comments made on Wednesday in information about the press.

Demand tracker: a new resistance that fights Trump’s second mandate through the onslaught of demands that point to EOS

“They must be reigned,” he added.

Some of Trump’s supporters in Congress have threatened the judges who block the president’s agenda with political trial, while his critics concern that the president’s attacks against the Judiciary collapse the constitutional system, putting in the foreground a passionate debate about the separation of the powers in the Constitution.

Here is a summary of where things are.

Courts block Trump’s agenda

The judge of the United States District Court, Theodore Chuang, a designated Obama, ruled on Tuesday that Dude’s efforts to dismantle USAID “on an accelerated basis” probably violated the constitution of the United States “in multiple ways” and ordered the partial restoration of the agency’s functions, including reinstalling access to staff to email and payment systems.

It is believed that Chuang’s preliminary mandate is the first to directly invoke Musk. He said that Musk could interact with USAID employees only after receiving an “express authorization” from an agency official, and prevented Doge from participating in additional work in Usaid.

Hours later, the judge of the United States District Court, Ana Reyes, issued a preliminary court order that prohibits the pentagon of enforcing Trump’s order on transgender people served in the army.

Reyes, the first openly gay member of the Court, wrote in a scathing 79 pages failure that the Trump administration did not show that the members of the transgender service would hinder military preparation, trusting what she described as “pure conjecture” to try to justify the policy and, therefore, cause improper damage to thousands of current members of the US service.

Shelters, Jesús and Miss Pac-Man: The US judge. Uu. Grilla to the Department of Justice on Trans Policy in a vertiginous questions

It is almost certain that both failures will be challenged by the Trump administration. In fact, Reyes was so sure that the Department of Justice would present an emergency appeal that delayed its failure to have strength until Friday to allow the Trump administration to present to request an emergency stay.

Reyes was not wrong. The senior administration officials promised to challenge the wave of judicial sentences, which according to them are an attempt by the courts of improperly infringing in the presidential powers.

“We are appealing this decision and we will win”, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said In social networks.

“The judges of the District Court have decided that they are in charge of the Armed Forces … Is there no end for this madness?” White House Policies Advisor Stephen Miller He said later in an X publication.

Who is James Boasberg, the judge of the United States at the center of Trump’s deportation efforts?

Several other high profile cases are developing in real time that could prove the tense relationship between the courts and the Executive Power, and the next steps remain deeply uncertain.

The judge of the United States District Court, James Boasberg, warned The Trump administration On Wednesday, it could face consequences for violating its court order that temporarily blocks it from invoking a little known war law to immediately deport Venezuelan citizens of the US land, including the alleged members of the Aragua Train gang, for 14 days.

Boasberg issued the temporary restriction order on Saturday night, around the moment in which the Trump administration proceeded to deport hundreds of migrants, including Venezuelan citizens subject to the alien enemies law, to El Salvador. He also ordered in a bank decision shortly after that, any plane that leads these individuals returns to the US.

But at least one plane with migrants deported by the law in question landed later that night in El Salvador.

“Oopsie, too late,” said El Salvador president in an X publication.

In later days, government lawyers who cite national security protections have refused to share information in court on deportation flights and if the plane (or airplanes) of migrants left knowing the United States after the judge ordered them not to do so.

The White House has repeatedly affirmed that the judges of the lower court as Boasberg should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what he argues is a legal agenda, although the judges in question do not agree that all the actions of the President follow the law.

“A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft full of foreign terrorists who were physically expelled from the American soil,” Leavitt He told Fox News.

Trump’s border tsar, Tom Homan, He said in an interview In “Fox & Friends” this week: “We don’t stop.”

“I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We are coming,” said Homan, adding: “Another fight. Another fight every day.”

Scotus Rules on almost $ 2 billion in frozen USAID payments

Relief on the way?

The appeals of the administration, which are almost guaranteed, may have a better opportunity for success than the previous cases that reached the courts of appeal, including one in which the Supreme Court ruled against the president.

There are two types of short -term relief that federal judges can offer the plaintiffs before calling both parties in court for a full case about merits: a preliminary judicial order and a temporary restriction order, or a tro.

A tro immediately blocks an action for 14 days to allow more time for consideration. But it is a difficult proof for the plaintiffs to satisfy it: they must prove that the order in question would represent an immediate “irreparable damage”, an especially onerous test, especially if it depends on an action or order that has not yet entered into force.

The results, as a result, have a very narrow reach. One could look at the application of Tro granted by the Judge of the United States District Court, Amir Ali, earlier this month, which The Trump administration required To pay $ 2 billion in money owed by Usaid projects previously completed.

Since I did not deal with current contracts or ongoing payments, the Supreme Court, which confirmed the decision of ALI, 5-4, had little space to intervene.

However, the request of a preliminary judicial order is a little more in depth. Successful plaintiffs must demonstrate four things to the Court when looking for the ruling: first, they are likely to succeed in the merits of the statement when listening later; that the equilibrium of the equity in your favor; that the court order is considered within the sphere of public interest; And finally, they are “probably” to suffer irreparable damage in the absence of judicial actions.

This broader level of discretion granted to the District Courts in a preliminary court ruling invites much more scrutiny, and more space for the Government to appeal the ruling to the superior courts in case they consider convenient.

It is a strategy, both legal analysts and Trump himself hung as a probable possibility while seeking to enforce some of their most radical political actions.

Click here to get the Fox News application

Trump suggested this week that Boasberg, in charge of supervising the intensive deportation struggle, being accused, describing him in a publication about social truth as a “crooked” judge and someone who, unlike himself, was not elected president.

“He did not win the popular vote (by far!), He did not win the seven swing states, he did not win from 2,750 to 525 counties, he won nothing!” Trump said.

The post obtained the reprimand of the President of Justice John Roberts, who said he broke with 200 years of established law. And on Thursday, Trump’s Cabinet Deputy Director James Blair seemed to hit the subject to Congress.

He He told Politico In an interview, Trump’s comments shone “a great focus” about what he considers a partisan decision, but said that accusing a judge would depend on the Republicans in Congress, including the president of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who, ultimately, would discover what can be approved or not “in Congress.

“That is the speaker’s work. And I will not talk about what the speaker’s opinion is about that,” he said. “I think the important thing is that the president is highlighting a critical problem.”