The Trump Administration’s Ignorance for the Law Reflected Through the Judicial Branch

Since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, his administration did not hesitate in beginning to fundamentally reshape the government. As of February 20, Trump has signed 72 executive orders, a number that scholars argue exceeds his executive authority and is overwhelmingly affecting government sectors. These orders include efforts to revoke birthright citizenship, freeze federal spending, shut down a federal agency, remove leaders of other agencies, fire government employees subject to civil service protections, and threaten to deport people based on their political views [1]. Some orders have already been struck down in court for their unconstitutionality, highlighting the Trump administration’s neglect for our nation’s guiding document and the established rights of American citizens. The following analysis addresses the administration’s blocked executive orders, executive power and limits in the Constitution, the administration’s disregard for the rule of law, and the role of the courts in preventing unchecked executive power over the next four years.

One of the most notable actions taken by the Trump administration so far since inauguration was the freeze on federal spending on grants, loans, and other financial aid as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to cut federal spending [2]. The Trump administration attempts to weaponize federal dollars by financially cutting off states and cities that refuse to cooperate with its federal immigration enforcement and other administration agendas. However, multiple courts have temporarily blocked the freeze from going into effect. On January 31, US District Judge John J McConnell ordered the temporary halting of the freeze. In his order, Judge McConnell stated, "The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country." [3]  Since, Judge McConnell has said that the Trump administration had violated his order halting the freeze and is ordering the government to “immediately restore frozen funding” [4]. Judges in courts across the country are acting similarly to protect the rule of law against the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. This includes Trump-appointed judges that have upheld the right of states and localities to refuse participation in federal immigration enforcement. [5] Despite court rulings clarifying the unconstitutionality of such actions, the Trump administration’s continued efforts to leverage funding in this manner reflects a disregard for judicial precedents and the limits of executive power.

The controversy surrounding the freeze on federal funding is part of a broader pattern of the administration’s interference with federal agencies. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency team has been interfering in the actions of federal agencies, including shutting down ongoing work and firing thousands of federal employees. For instance, two federal judges temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by ordering a funding freeze on foreign aid and placing thousands of workers on leave [6]. Similarly, a federal judge said she will continue to block DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury Department records and systems, and a separate judge issued an order temporarily blocking layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [7]. To combat DOGE’s interferences, the courts have been turning to the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows judges to throw out federal agency actions that are "arbitrary and capricious" on various grounds, including failing to articulate why the agencies are changing policy [8].  “The dissolution of USAID is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects,” the USAID unions argue [9]. The administration’s disorderly efforts to 'reform’ federal agencies has arguably exceeded the power of the executive branch, and is reflected in the swift blocks by federal judges around the country. 

The question, then, is how the Trump administration is able to pass these orders in the first place if they are clear overextensions of the president’s authority (reflected in their subsequent judicial blocks). Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” [10] The President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine the President’s actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. [11] However, the President does not have complete freedom in their executive actions. The courts have consistently ruled that the executive branch cannot strong-arm states and cities into compliance by weaponizing federal dollars. [12] Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. However, under both the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act, the president cannot withhold congressionally-approved funding without congressional authorization.[13] Under the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the "power of the purse,” meaning the legislature decides what funds should be spent and where, and the executive branch is bound by congressional appropriations. [14] Consequently, even when Congress does attach conditions on funding, they must respect states’ 10th Amendment rights and the conditions must be clear, directly related to the purpose of the funding, not coercive, and cannot override constitutional rights such as free speech or due process.[15] Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions. So while the president holds significant executive power, the courts have consistently upheld that this authority is not unlimited, specifically relating to governmental funds and the separation of powers.

President Trump does not acknowledge the Constitution and Congressional limits placed on him to the extent that scholars are referring to his actions as a ‘constitutional crisis’. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California Berkeley School of Law, stated, “There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency…Systematic unconstitutional acts create a constitutional crisis” [16]. This view is further supported by Professor Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who argued that, “The administration’s early moves also seem designed to demonstrate maximum contempt for core constitutional values - the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, equal justice under law” [17]. This pattern of disregard for constitutional principles extends beyond the administration’s actions, as Trump has openly denied the authority of the Supreme Court as the final decision making body of the United States. In January of 2025, President Trump disregarded the decision of the Supreme Court requiring that the social media app TikTok be sold or banned. The President instead ordered the Justice Department not to enforce the law for 75 days, citing as authority for the move his “unique constitutional responsibility for the national security of the United States.” [18] Trump’s clear action outside of Constitutional executive limits could be checked by the other branches of government. However, while Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken out against executive overreach, the Supreme Court’s six-member conservative majority may be receptive to Mr. Trump’s arguments. Reflective of this is the decision in the 2024 case Trump v United States, which entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all his official acts [19]. However, the immunity does not extend to areas where his authority is shared with Congress, or actions outside of Presidential action. [20] The ruling reflects the current political climate of the republican-majority government that will most likely vote in the President’s favor if issues regarding the extent of executive power arise. 

While there are checks in place to curtain executive power, the possibility of fully restraining the President’s aggressive agenda is slim. The Supreme Court and Congress’ conservative majority makes it difficult to be positive about the blocking of President Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal actions through the Court, and the court’s tools to force compliance that can be used against the executive branch look weak in comparison to the power of the current executive. Traditionally, executive branch employees, officials and lawyers have understood they must comply not just with explicit court orders but with their existing legal roles, in order to comply with the rule of law. [21] However, this expectation has proved to be diminishing. Federal judges have the power to levy fines and find parties in contempt for not following their orders. But that's generally considered toothless enforcement. [22] Courts have tools to force compliance, whether that be through fines or sanctions, finding someone in contempt or even jail time. However, it would fall to the U.S. Marshals Service which is part of the Department of Justice to enforce a judge's order. [23] With the Trump administration in charge of the DOJ, they could potentially direct the Department not to comply. Congress, ultimately, can amend a statute that the president is claiming authority under if they disagree with the executive use. However, the Republican control of Congress makes opposition unlikely. Additionally, the solely reactive feature of our court system means that eventual rulings from the Supreme Court or federal courts rejecting the president’s action could come too late. “The volume and speed of those actions may overwhelm and thus thwart sober and measured judicial consideration” [24]. The courts do not have preemptive pace and action to overpower executive overreach in the manner that the legislature could, which makes relying on the judicial branch to check the power of the president a daunting expectation.

In conclusion, the government is facing an aggressive and unrelenting “constitutional crisis” due to the Trump administration’s interference. President Trump’s executive actions have already defied constitutional principles and individual rights. While the Republican majority in Congress and the Supreme Court could continue to allow the president to act outside of his executive authority, the actions of Judges around the country blocking the orders in court reflects the true sentiments of the country towards maintaining a stable rule of law and separation of powers. 

Sources:

1. ACLU, Trump’s Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding Is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic, (Feb. 19, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/trumps-attempt-to-unilaterally-control-state-and-local-funding-is-dangerous-dumb-and-undemocratic
2. CNBC, Trump administration, DOGE hit roadblocks in three court cases, (Feb. 25, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/25/trump-doge-immigration-aid-court-cases.html
3. NBC News, Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order Halting Funding, (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-finds-trump-administration-violated-court-order-halting-funding-rcna191528
4. Supra 2
5. Supra 1
6. NPR, Courts Block Trump's DOGE Actions — Chaos, Panic Not Proving to Be Best Legal Strategy, (Feb. 15, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/15/nx-s1-5297925/courts-block-trumps-doge-actions-chaos-panic-not-proving-to-be-best-legal-strategy
7. Id
8. NPR, What happens if Trump starts ignoring court rulings? We break it down, (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5293132/trump-vance-constitutional-crisis-court-rulings
9. Supra 4
10. Trump v United States, No. 23-939, Supreme Court of the United States (2024) 
11. Id
12. New York Times, Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say, (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-constitutional-crisis.html.
13. Id
14. Id
15. Id
16. Supra 1
17. Id
18. Id
19. Supra 7
20. Id
21. Supra 8
22. Supra 4
23. Supra 8
24. Supra 1