Who Will Win in Donald Trump and Judiciary's Power Battle?

Across the United States, federal judges are blocking several of President Donald Trump's executive orders, creating a legal standoff.

From Trump's directive on birthright citizenship to the establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to cut federal spending, judges have been issuing restraining orders to halt these policies.

Although these restraining orders are temporary, they could become long-term rulings, especially given the strong opposition some judges have expressed toward Trump's policies. Such legal battles could significantly impact Trump's agenda, influencing immigration, healthcare, USAID's future, and the federal budget.

On February 11, the American Bar Association (ABA) condemned the Trump administration’s attempts to undermine judicial authority.

"The administration continues to claim that judges cannot limit executive power," the ABA stated. "Calling for the impeachment of a judge who rules against the administration is unacceptable. Attacking judges or interfering with judicial independence undermines the legitimacy of the courts."

Newsweek requested comments via email from DOGE head Elon Musk, Trump’s legal team, the ABA, and Judge John Bates.

Thomas Moukawsh, a former Connecticut Superior Court judge, told Newsweek that Trump may not always be able to rely on the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

However, at midnight on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay on a lower court's order requiring the administration to release $2 billion in foreign aid. This marked the first time Trump’s efforts to reshape the government had reached the Supreme Court.

Professor Anthony Alfieri, director of the Center for Ethics and Public Service at the University of Miami School of Law, predicted an increase in lawsuits, leading to significant confusion within the federal court system.

Medical Websites and Transgender Policies

Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a temporary restraining order against the FDA and CDC, blocking Trump’s order to remove website content referencing transgender issues.

Dr. Stephanie Liou, a Chicago physician, argued that the order hindered her ability to access critical medical data. She recounted how she tried to access CDC data on a chlamydia outbreak but found it had been removed due to references to "gender" rather than "sex."

Dr. Reshma Ramachandran similarly argued that she needed CDC documents to prescribe PrEP, a medication that reduces the risk of HIV. Bates ruled in their favor, stating, "Dr. Liou cannot effectively combat a time-sensitive chlamydia outbreak without this information."

Following the ruling, Elon Musk criticized the decision, posting on X (formerly Twitter), "Judges as website editors?! We should at least ATTEMPT to fire this junky jurist. The idea of lifetime judges, no matter how bad their rulings, is ridiculous!"

Gender Care for Minors

In February, Judge Lauren King in Washington state issued a restraining order after attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota sued to block Trump’s order banning puberty blockers, hormones, and gender-affirming surgeries for minors.

A similar order was granted by a federal judge in Baltimore, temporarily halting the ban in response to a lawsuit from families with transgender and nonbinary children.

Birthright Citizenship

On January 23, Judge John Coughenour of Washington state denounced Trump’s attempt to strip citizenship from children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants.

"I've been on the bench for over four decades, and this is one of the clearest cases of unconstitutional overreach I’ve ever seen," Coughenour said, issuing a temporary restraining order.

Alfieri predicted an increasing number of emergency court orders in response to Trump’s policies, leading to expedited legal proceedings and potential constitutional crises if the administration refuses to comply.

Federal judges must now decide whether to extend these temporary restraining orders into preliminary injunctions, which last longer and can be appealed.

The Trump administration's legal team is preparing appeals, a process that could take years to resolve.

Moukawsh noted that the immediate legal battles revolve around potential "irreparable harm." He explained, "If USAID programs shut down and people starve, courts will see that as irreparable harm. However, in cases involving financial damages, courts may determine the harm can be remedied later."

Supreme Court’s Role

Despite the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, Moukawsh is not convinced it will fully support Trump, particularly regarding impoundment of congressional funds or birthright citizenship.

He pointed to Chief Justice John Roberts' previous rulings against impoundment and noted that the Supreme Court had already ruled against Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Still, early signs suggest some victories for Trump. On February 26, Roberts granted an emergency stay, temporarily blocking a court-imposed deadline to release $2 billion in foreign aid. This marked the first Supreme Court intervention in Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government.

The legal battles are far from over, and the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.