As Trump pushes the limits of presidential power, the courts push back

[February 07, 2025]  By CHRIS MEGERIAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — A familiar pattern has emerged since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: He makes a brash proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.

It's happened with Trump's attempts to freeze certain federal funding, undermine birthright citizenship and push out government workers.

Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president, who is determined to expand the limits of his power — sometimes by simply ignoring the laws.

Although Democrats may be encouraged by the initial round of judicial resistance, the legal battles are only beginning. Lawsuits that originated in more liberal jurisdictions like Boston, Seattle and Washington, D.C., could find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent.

“What’s constitutional or not is only as good as the latest court decision,” said Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland public policy professor.

Roughly three dozens lawsuits have already been filed, including by FBI agents who fear they're being purged for political reasons and families who are concerned about new limitations on healthcare for transgender youth.

The spotlight on the judiciary is brighter because the Republican-controlled Congress has essentially abdicated its role of serving as a check on the presidency. Lawmakers from Trump's party have acceded to his demands to unilaterally cut spending and fire government watchdogs without proper notice.

That leaves only the courts as a potential guardrail on the president's ambitions.

“We’re down to two branches of government," said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School.

The latest setbacks for Trump came Thursday.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour blocked Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which was intended to prevent the children of parents who are in the country illegally from being automatically considered Americans.

Coughenour described birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment, as “a fundamental constitutional right” and he assailed Trump in scathing terms.

“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” said the judge, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

“There are moments in the world’s history where people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?’" Coughenour added. “In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”

The judge had previously called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” when issuing a temporary ruling.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades," Coughenour said then. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”

Also on Thursday in Boston, U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. paused Trump's plan to encourage federal workers to resign by offering them paid leave.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he signs executive orders in the White House on Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

O'Toole, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1995, did not express an opinion on the deferred resignation program, which is commonly described as a buyout. He scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon to consider arguments.

"We continue to believe this program violates the law, and we will continue to aggressively defend our members’ rights,” American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

The White House said at least 40,000 federal workers have already agreed to quit in return for being paid until Sept. 30.

“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

It's unclear which legal battles will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices can choose what cases to consider. But Trump has nominated three out of nine members, and the court has taken an expansive view of presidential power.

In a case involving criminal charges against Trump, the justices ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for any official actions taken during their term.

Sonia Sotomayor, one of the few liberal justices on the bench, said the ruling would make the U.S. president “a king above the law.”

Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the courts have been pushing back on Trump in his second term. But he warned that judicial decisions need to be enforced.

“The collapse of any congressional pushback, any congressional responsibility, I think is an ominous sign for what would happen if this administration starts openly defying court orders," Vladeck said.

Historically, that would be a political non-starter and leave a president vulnerable to impeachment. But Trump was acquitted by the U.S. Senate despite two House impeachments from his first term, and then reelected by American voters, leaving him with little fear of punishment.

One closely watched legal issue involves the president's ability to withhold funding authorized by Congress, a practice known as impoundment. Although it's restricted by legislation passed in 1974, after scandals involving former President Richard Nixon, some of Trump's allies have described the law as an unconstitutional limit on White House authority.

The concept was tested by Trump when the Office of Management and Budget decided to freeze federal grants and loans while the administration conducted an ideological review of spending.

The directive was blocked by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, who was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2023.

“Defendants’ actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution’ by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds,” AliKhan wrote.

____

Associated Press writer Nicholas Riccardi contributed reporting from Washington.

All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved