The Trump administration’s second term is running headlong into the federal judiciary, particularly at the district court level. Despite signals from the Supreme Court to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions, judges in Boston, Maryland, and San Francisco continue issuing sweeping rulings against the White House.
Dan Proft and guest Josh Blackman, Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at South Texas College of Law, discussed the pace and scope of these legal challenges. Blackman noted that in just seven months, more rulings have been handed down against Trump than during the entirety of Obama’s or Biden’s presidencies. “Lower court judges are blocking virtually every action Trump has taken,” he said, even when the Supreme Court has indicated otherwise.
Immigration policy has been a particular flashpoint. District judges have attempted to halt the repatriation of migrant children with their parents, and an appellate court recently ruled that the State Department must allow “X” as a gender marker on passports. Blackman argued that many of these decisions stretch judicial authority into areas the Constitution reserves for the executive branch.
The fight extends beyond immigration. Federal judges have slowed or blocked Trump administration efforts to tie university funding to Title IX compliance, and to claw back money approved in the final days of the Biden presidency. Blackman pointed out that these cases belong in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, but activists are deliberately filing elsewhere to find sympathetic rulings.
One of the biggest cases looming involves Trump’s tariff authority. If the Supreme Court strikes down the president’s use of broad statutory powers to impose duties, it could unravel trade agreements already in place and force the government to return billions in collected revenue. Blackman predicted the justices might look for a middle ground, recognizing both the risks of unchecked executive power and the destabilizing consequences of a sweeping rejection.
More broadly, Blackman warned that judicial overreach risks escalating cycles of political retaliation. “Trump’s greatest gift is causing other people to overreact,” he said, suggesting that continued defiance of Supreme Court guidance by lower courts could tempt future administrations to simply ignore judges they see as partisan actors.
For now, Trump’s legal team is contesting each case in court. But the outcomes in the months ahead will shape not only the administration’s policies, but also the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary.