The whirlwind of executive orders from U.S. President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through Washington, as his rapid-fire decisions slash foreign aid, deploy troops to the border, and pardon individuals with violent criminal histories. While Congress has largely remained silent in the face of these sweeping changes, federal judges are increasingly stepping in, signaling a brewing legal showdown over the rule of law.
One of the most dramatic interventions came on Saturday when a federal judge in Manhattan issued a temporary block against Elon Musk and his DOGE government efficiency team from accessing Treasury Department systems, which handle trillions of dollars in transactions. This ruling joins a growing list of judicial actions against Trump’s policies, including orders preventing the freezing of billions in federal grants, dismantling the nation’s foreign aid infrastructure, and changing regulations on transgender rights. Judges have even halted a controversial plan to buy out thousands of federal workers.
The Judiciary Fights Back
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour of Seattle made a particularly striking move last Thursday, blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship—a long-standing constitutional principle. His words resonated powerfully in the courtroom:
"There are moments in the world’s history where people look back and ask, 'Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?' In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable."
Nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan, Coughenour’s strong stance against executive overreach received applause in his courtroom, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the last remaining check on Trump’s power.
The Supreme Court: The Ultimate Arbiter
With a 6-3 conservative majority, the U.S. Supreme Court—including three justices appointed by Trump—could ultimately decide the fate of these contentious policies. Birthright citizenship, along with several other legally dubious executive actions, appears destined for a Supreme Court ruling.
The president’s reliance on executive orders has reached unprecedented levels. Since taking office, he has signed at least 60 executive orders—a stark contrast to the mere 12 he signed within the same period during his first term. While Trump’s base views these actions as a necessary pushback against entrenched government inefficiency, legal scholars warn that he lacks the authority to unilaterally dismantle agencies, override congressional spending laws, and fire watchdogs designed to curb executive abuse.
A Congress in Lockstep
The U.S. Constitution clearly grants Congress the power over government spending, yet Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate have shown little resistance to Trump's sweeping changes—even when they disrupt funding they had previously approved. With legislative opposition almost nonexistent, the courts remain the primary battleground for legal resistance.
Musk and Vance Weigh In
Trump's legal battles have also drawn attention from high-profile figures like Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance, who took to Musk's social media platform, X, to air their frustrations. Musk proposed an annual purge of the “worst 1%” of federal judges, calling them corrupt and incompetent. Meanwhile, Vance argued that judges should not have the power to override executive authority, further highlighting the administration’s combative stance against the judiciary.
The Role of the Department of Justice
Unlike in previous administrations, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has shown little sign of independent oversight. Emil Bove, a DOJ leader and Trump’s former defense attorney, has been actively purging officials who investigated Trump supporters involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Several top officials tied to these investigations have already been dismissed, raising concerns about the department’s ability to act as a neutral arbiter of justice.
The Fight Over Executive Power
Trump’s executive actions have reignited long-standing conservative arguments that the president should have sole authority over the executive branch, including independent agencies that Congress has traditionally shielded from White House control. This theory is now being tested in real-time.
One of the clearest examples of this battle came when Trump fired an independent member of the U.S. labor board responsible for enforcing workers' rights. The unprecedented move directly contradicts laws preventing a president from unilaterally removing certain officials, prompting yet another legal challenge.
The Consequences of Judicial Delays
While judges have issued temporary blocks on many of Trump’s policies, legal cases often take years to resolve. This slow-moving judicial process raises concerns that irreversible damage may occur before the courts reach final rulings. For instance, if Trump’s move to eliminate foreign humanitarian aid is later deemed illegal, it may be too late to salvage projects such as hospitals in refugee camps or mine-clearing operations in war zones.
The Future of Birthright Citizenship
Coughenour’s ruling against Trump's birthright citizenship policy has already been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one step below the Supreme Court. The appeal will determine whether it is constitutional for Trump to restrict citizenship to children born to at least one U.S. citizen or a parent with permanent legal residence—effectively ending automatic citizenship for children of tourists, students, and undocumented immigrants.
If upheld, Trump's policy would fundamentally alter American citizenship laws and set a new legal precedent that could reshape immigration policy for generations.
The Legal Resistance
Despite Trump's aggressive push to expand executive power, a growing resistance is forming. Democratic state attorneys general, advocacy groups, and labor unions have filed at least 39 lawsuits against his policies, securing multiple early victories. However, these are temporary measures, and higher courts will ultimately determine the long-term legality of Trump’s executive orders.
A Precarious Legal Landscape
Legal scholars warn that the courts alone cannot fully safeguard democratic institutions. Dan Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, cautions that even if Trump loses some of these legal battles, the cases themselves could push the boundaries of executive power further than ever before.
"The courts are important, but they won’t save us alone. Eventually, it could end up with the courts rewriting the law and pushing executive power to be even stronger—moving the goalposts in a way that gives him more authority."
As the nation braces for what could be a defining moment in the balance of power, the battle between the executive branch and the judiciary is far from over. Whether Trump’s bold policy moves will be solidified or struck down remains uncertain, but one thing is clear—the fight over the limits of presidential authority is only just beginning.
Login