Photo: Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg/Getty Images
These days, it often feels like the Trump administration is on an unstoppable winning streak. President Trump and his team (particularly Elon Musk) have unleashed a torrent of outrageous and absurd policies, from haphazardly laying off tens of thousands of federal workers to banning terms like “gender,” “at risk,” and “Gulf of Mexico” from government documents. Even worse, there seems to be little pushback: Congressional Republicans are eagerly ceding power to the executive branch, elected Democrats can’t do much, and many corporate leaders are kowtowing to Trump.
But that isn’t entirely true. There has been significant resistance to Trump’s policies in the courts with federal judges across the country thwarting — or at least delaying — some of the administration’s more egregious actions. And somewhat surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court, where many of these cases are likely headed, isn’t giving the president everything he wants.
So while concerns that Trump may brazenly defy court orders are running high (though he claims he wouldn’t do that), for now the judiciary is still acting as a bulwark against executive overreach. Here’s a list, which we’ll keep updated, of the second Trump administration’s biggest court losses so far.
Fired federal probationary workers get their jobs back
What the Trump Administration Did: The Office of Personnel Management directed other federal agencies to lay off tens of thousands of probationary workers.
Court Response: On March 13, two federal judges ordered that 19 agencies — including the Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs departments — must “immediately” reinstate the probationary employees. Roughly 24,000 federal employees will regain their jobs as a result of the decision, according to Government Executive.
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with a challenge from federal employee unions, ruling that the probationary employees were unlawfully fired en masse for poor performance, regardless of their actual conduct at work, per the New York Times.
“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said. “It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”
Later on March 13, Judge James Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a similar ruling in response to a lawsuit brought by 19 state attorneys general. Bredar said the government’s claim that the employees were fired for cause, not via a mass layoff, “borders on the frivolous.”
What’s Next: This may only be a temporary reprieve for federal workers, as neither judge has issued their final ruling, and the rehiring process has been chaotic. Agencies can still enact large-scale layoffs; they just have to follow the law when doing so.
Ban on birthright citizenship blocked for now
What the Trump Administration Did: On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to stop automatically granting citizenship to babies born in the U.S., unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
Court Response: Trump’s order has yet to go into effect, and it has been slapped down multiple times in federal court. In February, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction, arguing that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment. Judges in Washington State, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have since followed suit.
What’s Next: After multiple failed attempts to appeal these rulings, on March 13, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief in three cases. If Team Trump succeeds, a birthright-citizenship ban could immediately go into effect in parts of the country — but the justices aren’t ruling on the policy itself. The administration is asking the Court to limit the scope of the lower courts’ injunctions to the people directly involved in the cases. As Politico explains, this could curb the courts’ ability to block all Trump administration policies:
But Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argued to the Supreme Court that federal district judges have no authority to issue sweeping orders that block policies nationwide. Instead, Harris suggested, an injunction should apply only in the geographic district where the judge is located — or only to the specific individuals or groups that sued.
If the legality of banning birthright citizenship does wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, many assume the Trump administration will lose, since it’s quite clearly unconstitutional. If the Court does accept the Trump administration’s radical interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that portends very badly for other cases.
Federal funding freeze halted
What the Trump Administration Did: In January, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo temporarily “pausing” all federal grants and loans to ensure they comply with the MAGA worldview. This included the elimination of programs that allegedly promote “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.” Nationwide chaos ensued, and in a few days the memo was rescinded — but the White House claimed it was still in effect.
Court Response: In February, Judge Loren AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked the freeze shortly before it would have gone into effect, writing in response to a challenge from a coalition of nonprofits that the government’s actions were “irrational, imprudent and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
Judge AliKhan indefinitely blocked the funding freeze in a February 25 ruling, saying it was “ill-conceived from the beginning.” AliKhan continued, “Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable.”
What’s Next: It appears the broad funding freeze is off for now. On March 6, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island extended his preliminary order blocking OMB from freezing billions in congressionally approved funds. In the ruling, McConnell said the freeze “fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.” The Trump administration is expected to challenge the rulings. In the meantime, some federal agencies have continued freezing funds, claiming that the orders don’t apply to them.
Refugee admissions (technically) reinstated
What the Trump Administration Did: Trump issued an executive order pausing the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and freezing related funding.
Court Response: Judge Jamal Whitehead of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction on February 25 that ordered the government to resume refugee admissions and funding to refugee-assistance organizations. Whitehead said the Trump administration does not appear to have the authority to unilaterally scrap the decades-old program. “I cannot ignore Congress’ detailed framework for refugee admissions and the limits it placed on the president’s ability to suspend the same,” he wrote.
What’s Next: Though the Trump administration was ordered to resume refugee admissions while the litigation is being considered, it has failed to do so. In a March 11 court filing, the administration claimed it could take months to comply with the order owing to a “significant deterioration of functions” in the program since it was shuttered in January.
Deportation of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil blocked
What the Trump Administration Did: The Trump administration is trying to deport Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who is a legal permanent resident. The former Columbia grad student played a significant role in the Gaza protests at the university last year. Trump said his March 8 arrest by federal immigration authorities was the first “of many to come,” accusing Khalil and other protesters of “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”
Court Response: Judge Jesse Furman of Federal District Court in Manhattan temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation pending further action on his motion challenging his detention.
What’s Next: Khalil is being held at a detention facility in Jena, Louisiana. His attorneys fought keep his case in New York, as the case is “likely to end up in one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts” if it is moved to Louisiana, per the New York Times. On March 19, Judge Furman transferred the case to New Jersey, as that’s where he was in detention when his lawyers filed a petition for his release. Khalil is expected to remain in Louisiana until a new judge rules on the case.
Federal government ordered to pay USAID bills
What the Trump Administration Did: Almost immediately after Trump took office, he froze all spending on U.S. humanitarian and development work overseas, hobbling the mission of the the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) then began dismantling USAID from the inside, cutting off financial and technological systems for workers and eventually ejecting them from USAID’s federal building in Washington.
In February, Trump put USAID under the control of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who later announced that 83 percent of USAID programs would be canceled and that the remaining programs would be administered by the State Department.
Court Response: In a March 10 preliminary injunction, Judge Amir Ali of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the administration can’t just sit on the roughly $60 billion that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance funding. Judge Ali said the government must pay for work completed before February 13.
“The executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place,” the judge said.
Days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Trump in a 5-4 decision, upholding a previous order from Judge Ali directing the agencies to pay out nearly $2 billion for completed foreign aid work.
In a more dramatic decision on March 18, a different federal judge, Theodore Chuang, ruled that DOGE’S dismantling of USAID “likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways.” Finding in favor of a group of former and current USAID workers, Chuang wrote that Musk and DOGE had no statutory authority to all but eliminate the agency, and ordered email and systems access to be restored for current workers. He also said that Musk appeared to be the real leader of DOGE, despite the organization’s claims to the contrary.
What’s Next: While Judge Ali made it clear he thinks the Trump administration overstepped, he said he could not order payments on future work or restore any canceled contracts.
The full ramifications of Judge Chuang’s decision, meanwhile, are not completely clear, though it may only be a temporary win for the agency. Chuang appeared to leave room for mass firings as long as they’re carried out by the agency head — currently Marco Rubio.
Education Department ordered to restore some grants
What the Trump Administration Did: In early February, the Education Department cut $600 million in federal grants that help train and certify teachers to serve in struggling districts as part of its DEI purge.
Court Response: Judge Julie Rubin of the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland ruled on March 18 that the federal grants were revoked arbitrarily and illegally, according to the New York Times. Her ruling said the cuts would have a “grave effect on the public: fewer teachers for students in high-need neighborhoods, early childhood education and special education programs.”
What’s Next: Judge Rubin said the federal grants must be restored, and said the administration can’t revoke them again in the future.
Prisons blocked from transferring (some) transgender women to men’s facilities
What the Trump Administration Did: Trump signed an executive order directing Cabinet officials to transfer transgender women to men’s prisons and cut off federal funding for inmates’ gender-affirming medical care.
Court Response: On February 24, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction blocking the transfer of a dozen incarcerated transgender women to men’s prison facilities, noting that federal reports and data suggest the move could put the prisoners at elevated risk for physical and sexual violence. Several weeks earlier, a federal judge in Boston blocked the transfer of one incarcerated transgender woman to a men’s facility.
What’s Next: The Guardian reported in early March that transgender women not directly involved in the cases have been moved to men’s facilities, despite the ongoing legal action. The Bureau of Prisons also issued a memo banning the use of inmates’ preferred names and pronouns, rejecting underwear requests, and halting special pat-down procedures for transgender prisoners.
Ban on gender-affirming care for minors paused
What the Trump Administration Did: Trump signed an executive order mandating that the federal government “will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” gender-affirming medical care for people under age 19. A second order said federal funds shall not be used to “promote gender ideology.” Several hospitals stopped providing care in response. The orders could affect federally run insurance programs and lead to the prosecution of medical professionals.
Court Response: On February 28, Judge Lauren King of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington blocked Trump’s order in Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado in response to a lawsuit brought by attorneys general from those states. Days later, Judge Brendan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland expanded the pause to all states.
What’s Next: Litigation is ongoing. Judge Hurson signaled that the government is unlikely to prevail, saying the orders violate laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee. “The Court cannot fathom discrimination more direct than the plain pronouncement of a policy resting on the premise that the group to which the policy is directed does not exist,” Judge Hurson wrote.
