Legal and Judicial Rulings - Against The President
Evidence from Donald Trump's first term as president indicates a substantially higher volume of legal and judicial challenges against his administration than those faced by previous presidents. While in his first 100 days of his second term, the volume of legal and judicial actions are seemingly to remain high, or even exceed that of his first term, based on existing trends and the nature of political and legal challenges. While trying to be inclusive, the objective of this page is to provide an updated overview on the status and outcomes of the most significant legal and judicial actions.
Judicial Rebuke of Trump: A Growing Pattern of Legal Setbacks and Accountability Question
Glenn Kirschner’s latest video highlights how, one after another, federal judges—including many appointed by Republicans and even some appointed by Trump himself—have been ruling against Trump's actions, citing illegality, unconstitutionality, and abuse of power. The video reviews some of the key events during Trump's first 100 days, illustrating a challenging streak for him that appears to be ongoing. It also explores what may happen to the DOJ lawyers who have been criticized by judges for engaging in "falsehoods" and "willful, bad faith conduct," raising important questions about accountability and the future of these legal battles.
PERKINS COIE LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
A judge has ruled that President Trump's executive order aimed at punishing the law firm Perkins Coie is unconstitutional and null and void.
On May 3, 1025, a District of Columbia Federal Court Judge, Beryl Howell, found President Trump's Executive Order against the law firm Perkins Coie to be unconstitutional. In summary, Judge Beryl Howell, clearly examined an determined that the executive order at issue in this lawsuit is unprecedented in its direct targeting of a prominent law firm for adverse actions by all Executive branch agencies. This action, as described by Judge Beryl Howell, in its purpose and effect, echoes the sentiment of Shakespeare's famous line, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." This phrase is understood to signify that the removal of lawyers, who serve as guardians of the rule of law, facilitates a move towards totalitarianism. Judge Beryl Howell, further concludes, "Government officials, including the President, may not “subject individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.” Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys., 595 U.S. at 474 (quoting Nieves, 587 U.S. at 398). They may neither “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 188, nor engage in the use of “purely personal and arbitrary power,” Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 370. In this case, these and other foundational protections were violated by EO 14230. On that basis, this Court has found that EO 14230 violates the Constitution and is thus null and void. For the reasons explained, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment and declaratory and permanent injunctive relief on Counts II through IX of the Amended Complaint. The government’s motion to dismiss is denied." Read the full memorandum.
What Can You Do?
We encourage you to contact your members of Congress to express your concerns about the ongoing legal and judicial challenges facing President Trump’s administration. The high volume of legal actions reflects serious questions about accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. It is crucial that Congress stays vigilant and takes appropriate steps to uphold justice and protect our democracy. Your voice can help ensure that these issues are addressed and that accountability remains a priority—reach out today to make your concerns heard.
