Courts defiant: How the U.S. judiciary became the last line of defense against Trump’s controversial executive orders

This article was originally published in Russian on April 3, 2025.

Checks and balances that failed

The U.S. is widely known for its institutions and its system of checks and balances. Under the Constitution, the most powerful governing body in the country is not the president, but Congress. The president’s powers are either explicitly defined in the supreme law of the land, or else delegated by Congress. All other federal powers belong to the legislature.

The Constitution clearly states that budgetary control lies with Congress, making it the key mechanism to check the powers of the president. However, the current Congress seems to have abdicated that role. Only in rare cases do Republican members speak out against the president’s actions, and even when courts have ruled that certain executive orders are unlawful, Trump’s loyalists in the House and Senate always come up with excuses for failing to contest his overreach.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are currently controlled by Republicans, but that isn’t what makes today’s dynamic so unique. In past cases of single-party control of the presidency and Congress (the so-called “trifecta”), the legislature still maintained its Constitutional role and voiced dissent when the president attempted to abuse his office. Today, however, lawmakers are even agreeing to reduce their own powers.

For example, the current fiscal year’s budget — valid through the end of September — was drafted under a new approach: whereas previous budgets detailed line-by-line spending, this one offers broad categories, allowing the administration to decide how to allocate funds within them. In effect, Congress has handed over its budgetary authority to the executive branch.

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, is in disarray, struggling to form a unified strategy. When the latest version of the budget was up for a vote, all House Democrats opposed it. But in the Senate, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer initially announced the party wouldn’t support the bill — then, within 24 hours, he reversed course, saying a government shutdown would hurt American families and that each Democrat would vote at their discretion. Schumer, for his part, said he would back the bill. In the end, a handful of Senate Democrats voted for a budget that had not been coordinated with their party and clearly disregarded its input.

It’s not just the Democrats who are in disarray — the Republicans themselves are facing internal turmoil as well. A telling example is the situation with town halls, a traditional format for meeting with constituents. Many of these events, even when held by Republican lawmakers in solidly Republican states and districts, have been ending in rather embarrassing fashion. Elected officials attempt to talk about how well, for instance, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is functioning, but the audience often responds with shouting, interruptions, boos, and other expressions of disapproval.

This has become so common that the Republican Party issued guidance discouraging members from holding such events. Effectively, this is a quiet retreat from direct democracy — once a staple of American political engagement. Recently, one district even limited access to a Republican congressman’s town hall to Republicans only — a clear violation of democratic principles, since lawmakers represent all constituents, not just their voters.

While anti-Trump protests do not yet constitute a mass movement, demonstrations are becoming increasingly frequent. The 50501 movement, for instance, organizes coordinated demonstrations in all 50 state capitals. In mid-March, veterans held a demonstration against Trump in Washington, D.C. And on April 5, the “Hands Off!” movement held rallies in over 1000 towns and cities.

Still, it appears that not all Americans truly realize the gravity of the moment. Civil servants, many of whom have already lost their jobs after suffering clear harassment from DOGE and the White House, clearly do. Farmers, too, have felt the impact, as USAID had been purchasing their produce for overseas aid programs. Americans whose stock portfolios suffered following Trump’s tariff announcements may also be questioning the logic of the president’s actions.

The protests may gain even more momentum if the ongoing budget dispute affects Americans’ access to healthcare. Republicans are claiming that Medicare and Medicaid funding will remain intact, while Democrats argue the programs have already been slashed.

What’s happening in the courts

While protests continue across the country, another front is unfolding — in the courts. Over 100 lawsuits have been filed challenging President Trump’s decisions. A large number of these cases are being handled by the federal court in Washington, D.C., and judges are moving through them remarkably quickly. Under typical circumstances, complicated cases can drag on for years, but judges in challenges involving Trump’s policy initiatives are taking a much more proactive approach, especially when it comes to issuing temporary rulings.

When a plaintiff asks the court to freeze an action they’re challenging, judges can grant it based on how likely they believe the plaintiff is to win the case. Lately, judges have been using this power with notable frequency in order to blockTrump’s executive orders. For example, courts recently stopped the ban on transgender people serving in the military. They also blocked the shutdown of USAID, ruling that fired employees of the agency must be reinstated — at least until a clear decision as to the constitutionality of their dismissal is reached.

But not every lawsuit leads to immediate action from the courts. When DOGE attempted to take control of the U.S. Institute of Peace, its suddenly former director filed a complaint. The judge hearing the case, despite voicing that she was “deeply uncomfortable” with what was happening and characterizing DOGE’s actions as showing “deep disrespect for people,” still ruled that there were no legal grounds to block the move.

Executive orders related to mass layoffs and shutting down government offices are being challenged by both employees and their unions. One high-profile case involves the denial of birthright citizenship, with civil rights groups — and even a few pregnant women — suing the government. Orders related to immigration are being fought by those facing deportation, and, of course, by human rights organizations.

These advocacy groups are also stepping in to defend government agencies and officials targeted by Trump and his team. For example, the president recently fired two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission board — very likely breaking the law — and the pair havetaken their case to court. In addition, several Inspectors General also sued after being fired.

A lot of these lawsuits come down to the principle of separation of powers. For example, when DOGE or the White House attempts to shut down an agency or cut off its funding, they commit a direct violation of the law. Congress decides where American taxpayers’ money goes — not the executive branch. When Trump’s team acts otherwise, they’re stepping into unconstitutional territory.

In theory, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should challenge the White House when it commits such abuses, as the DOJ’s role is to defend the Constitution and the American people — not the president. However, Trump learned his lesson from his first term in the Oval Office and now appoints only loyalists to key positions overseeing such matters. As a result, the DOJ has not contested Trump’s actions — not even when it refuses to abide by court decisions.

Trump is also going after specific law firms, banning them from working with federal agencies or accessing classified information. One of these firms had offered free legal help to Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed in the waning days of the Biden administration to oversee the department’s criminal investigations involving Trump’s activities as a private citizen. Another firm that attracted president Trump’s ire was Perkins Coie LLP, which represented Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Trump claims they tried to rig the election by commissioning the Steele dossier.

A judge stepped in and blocked Trump’s order against Perkins Coie, saying it likely violates the Constitution. But that didn’t stop Trump — the very next day, he issued a nearly identical order against another firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. That firm had worked on prosecutions related to the January 6 riot. One of its former lawyers, Mark Pomerantz, later helped investigate Trump’s hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. The new executive order literally mentions Trump’s personal issues with Pomerantz — making it clear that the president’s actions are motivated by a desire for revenge.

Trump’s supporters are also lashing out at judges. In March, Republicans criticized Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who Trump appointed in 2020 — for voting the “wrong” way in a case and thereby “betraying” Trump.

Another judge facing backlash is James Boasberg, a federal judge in D.C. In March, Boasberg stopped the deportation of over 200 Venezuelans, who Trump wanted removed using an old law called the Alien Enemies Act. Republicans called for Boasberg to be impeached, and Trump accused him of violating the Constitution and interfering with presidential powers. On April 8, after the Supreme Court ruled that the 1798 law did indeed permit Trump to deport alleged gang members, Boasberg cancelled a hearing that had been scheduled to challenge the legality of the president’s actions.

The DOGE dilemma — no one knows who to sue

Before the election, Donald Trump promised to slash government spending. To do that, he leaned on two business advisers — Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. But Ramaswamy, for reasons that were never adequately explained, ended up stepping away from that role, leaving Musk as the key figure. When the lawsuits started flying, they were directed at the newly created Department of Government Efficiency — DOGE — and at Musk personally, as a co-defendant. That’s when things started to get really strange.

It was widely assumed Musk was running DOGE. But Justice Department lawyers claimed they had no information showing Musk was in charge of the semi-official department. Then the White House press secretary announced that DOGE was actually headed by Amy Gleason. Gleason herself testified that she does not report to Musk, that Musk does not report to her, that Musk is not employed by DOGE at all, and that, in fact, the billionaire entrepreneur has no official ties to the department — he’s just a White House adviser. Despite all that, Trump recently asked Congress to give Musk a round of applause for his “outstanding leadership” of DOGE.

In a recent affidavit, Amy Gleason stated that DOGE does not even have a formal organizational structure. No one really knows how it operates internally, who reports to whom, or what departments exist within it. Given this confusion, courts in at least two lawsuits sided with plaintiffs and allowed discovery to move forward.

This means DOGE staff — and potentially Musk himself — could be subpoenaed and questioned. The Justice Department is now trying to block that discovery process, arguing that it intrudes on executive authority. In one case, an appeals court has paused the discovery until a lower court hears a motion to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.

DOGE’s actual output also raises eyebrows. Instead of issuing formal reports, Musk or Trump would simply announce big savings — for example, canceling “multi-billion-dollar contracts” for things like experiments involving “transgender mice” (confusing them with transgenic mice). The public brushed it off, mocking such scientific pursuits as a waste of taxpayer money. But no one ever saw actual proof that the contracts existed, that they cost as much as claimed, or that they were even canceled. In court, the DOJ failed to present any evidence of the fraud Trump or Musk alleged.

Eventually, DOGE launched a website featuring a “wall of receipts,” supposedly listing terminated contracts. They boasted savings of over $50 billion. But the first journalist to fact-check the list quickly slashed that figure to about $2 billion. One supposed $8 billion cancellation turned out to be $8 million. In short, no one really knows how much money, if any, DOGE has actually saved. On March 31, Trump announced that DOGE would eventually wind down, since Musk can only serve as a special government employee for 130 days.

A legal flood and the spaghetti test

Many of Trump’s decisions may stand — even if courts rule against them. Rumor has it the strategy of “flooding the zone” was first suggested to Trump by Steve Bannon, a chief strategist during the early days of his first term. That flood is producing results. Some federal agencies have already shut down, and others are bleeding staff. In the case of USAID, the court ordered all fired employees to be reinstated. But during the legal battle, 90% of USAID’s contracts and grants were canceled. Because the agency has the right to unilaterally terminate grants, the damage is already done — and it is irreversible.

The shuttering of Voice of America and attempts to shut down Radio Free Europe are also part of this wave. Under pressure from the judiciary, the U.S. Agency for Global Media decided to temporarily keep Radio Free Europe running, but contract reviews are still pending. A court found that tens of thousands of probationary workers had been fired unlawfully. They’ve been reinstated, but many have already been, or are about to be, placed on paid leave. It’s clear that some will quit — working in constant limbo is exhausting — and that’s the point.

That’s exactly what Trump wants — not only in state-funded media outlets, but in the various government departments and agencies that have come in for similar treatment. In effect, he is working to dismantle the very idea of a career civil servant: someone who keeps doing their job regardless of who is in the White House.

Legal battles are still ongoing, and eyes are on what the Supreme Court will do. Take the case about ending birthright citizenship: just about everyone expects lower courts to rule against the administration. Even the administration seems to expect that. But they’re betting on the Supreme Court — which has surprised many by siding with Trump and defending conservative values. This is the same court that overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that the president has immunity from criminal prosecution. If the court decides to strike down birthright citizenship, it will not be a surprise — it will simply be yet another instance in a growing pattern.

It might be more accurate to describe Supreme Court justices not as “Republican” or “Democratic,” but rather as “conservative” or “liberal.” The question is not so much about party lines — it’s about values. Right now, the court has six conservatives and three liberals. Of course, if Trump issued a blatantly illegal order — to carry out the capital punishment of his political opponents, say — the court wouldn’t uphold it. But there’s a lot of gray area in which justices have leeway to make interpretations, and within that space, this court is likely to favor conservative principles.

That said, serious disagreements between the administration and the court are still possible. For example, in a recent case, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals, and many believe Barrett and Roberts will continue to be swing votes. Some justices will always support Trump and conservative values. Others will reliably vote liberal. In the middle are Barrett, Roberts, and maybe Brett Kavanaugh. It is that persuadable few whose votes will decide many key rulings.

All of this is speculation for now, but we won’t have to wait long to find out. The case over the 14th Amendment — the one that guarantees birthright citizenship — has already reached the Supreme Court. And there are subtle signs the court isn’t in a rush to revoke the right — they’ve given the parties plenty of time to present their arguments, and when the court wants to overturn something, it usually moves much faster.

Besides “flooding the zone,” legal insiders use another metaphor to describe Trump’s tactics: “throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.” In sales, they call this a funnel. If you have 10 leads, maybe 1 will close. But if you have 100 leads, you’ll get 10 wins. Trump’s thinking is the same. If he issues one executive order, chances are it’ll be ruled unconstitutional. But if he signs 100 of them, some will slip through, some will be only partially struck down, and some will take time. The case of USAID is a perfect example: by the time the courts reinstated the staff, almost all of the agency’s contracts had already been canceled. Now the agency has no choice but to start laying people off — through proper channels, yes, but layoffs all the same. After all, with a tenfold reduction in workload, there just isn’t enough work left to justify so many jobs.

On the other side, there’s Project 2025 — a document nearly a thousand pages long that was put together by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It lays out, in painstaking detail, a plan for how the executive branch should operate in a future conservative administration. By the end of January, CNN journalists calculated that Trump had already signed executive orders that matched nearly two-thirds of the proposals in Project 2025.

Will the courts come for Trump?

Less than a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed all presidents a major gift by recognizing presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. That means Trump cannot be held criminally liable for any decisions he has made in his official capacity as president.

However, even before the 2024 election Trump had already been convicted of 34 felony counts by a New York court. However, at his sentencing in January, Trump was granted an “unconditional discharge” allowing him to avoid any punishment. But the question remains: what will happen in 2029 after he is no longer president?

There are still several criminal indictments against Trump that remain outstanding. The Georgia case — which centers on Trump’s alleged efforts to interfere with the 2020 election results — is currently paused, but prosecutors could resume it once his presidency ends. Special Counsel Jack Smith took the unusual step of voluntarily dismissing the case for now — but left the door open to bringing charges again later. Whether that happens depends entirely on the political will of the Department of Justice.

Then there’s the Florida classified documents case, which is even more complicated. It was dismissed by a judge, a move that many prominent legal scholars in the U.S. consider legally questionable. Smith tried to appeal the dismissal but didn’t make the deadline. That means this case, too, is closed — for now.