After a flurry of legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive actions prompted courts to block parts of his agenda, several recent rulings suggest the Trump administration’s legal arguments are beginning to gain traction.
While judges have blocked major initiatives, including an attempt to freeze foreign aid funding and impose new restrictions on birthright citizenship, Trump has scored wins in cases concerning federal workforce changes, the Department of Government Efficiency, and the firing of inspectors general.
Judge declines immediate halt to Trump’s crackdown on DEI programs
In a small courtroom triumph on Wednesday, a federal judge in Baltimore declined to issue an immediate order pausing executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, grants, and contracts, marking another procedural win for the administration.
U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said he would take the motion under advisement but was “not in a position to rule at this time.”
The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward and backed by Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, challenges Trump’s executive orders 14151 and 14173, arguing they exceed presidential authority and infringe on congressional power.
Scott, who announced the lawsuit while unveiling Black History Month celebrations, called Trump’s rollback of DEI initiatives a “brazenly political attack” and vowed to fight back. Plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.
While the case is far from over, Abelson’s decision means Trump’s DEI restrictions remain in effect for now, adding to the administration’s recent courtroom successes in defending its executive actions.
Trump’s mass federal employee resignation plan moves forward
One of Trump’s biggest legal victories came on Feb. 12 when U.S. District Judge George O’Toole, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, ruled that labor unions lacked standing to challenge the administration’s “Fork in the Road” mass resignation deadline for federal employees. The policy, modeled after a similar directive used by Elon Musk before Twitter became X, allowed federal employees to receive pay through September if they voluntarily resign.
Initially, O’Toole had temporarily paused the policy, but he later dissolved that order, finding that the unions could not prove direct harm. “Instead, they allege that the directive subjects them to upstream effects including a diversion of resources … and possible reputational harm,” he wrote. The ruling allows the administration to proceed with its plan, which led to 75,000 federal employees accepting the offer before the deadline earlier this month, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
DOGE secures legal wins amid growing lawsuits
DOGE, spearheaded by Musk, has faced a barrage of lawsuits from state governments and labor organizations. However, courts have not yet dealt a serious blow to the administration’s effort to streamline federal spending.
On Feb. 15, U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled against efforts to block DOGE’s access to sensitive records from multiple federal agencies. The lawsuit, filed by the American Federation of Labor with backing from the Government Fairness Initiative, aimed to limit DOGE’s reach, but Bates’s ruling affirmed the agency’s ability to continue its work.
Similarly, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, declined to grant an emergency restraining order requested by 14 states seeking to halt DOGE’s operations. She found that the states failed to show “imminent, irreparable harm,” handing Trump a procedural victory.
Despite these wins, DOGE has also suffered setbacks. U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas extended a restraining order preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury Department systems, citing cybersecurity risks and constitutional concerns.
Judge denies immediate reinstatement of fired inspectors general
In another legal victory for Trump, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, rejected an emergency request to reinstate eight inspectors general who were fired by the administration. Reyes criticized the plaintiffs’ lawyers for failing to act sooner and questioned whether the court had the authority to intervene.
“Are we really here … given the circumstances that you guys could not even bother filing a [restraining order] for 21 days?” she asked.
While the case will proceed in a longer time frame, her scrutiny of the lawyers marked a rare rebuke from the courts of the tactics Trump’s opponents have used to secure temporary restraining orders and other measures pausing Trump’s actions.
More legal battles ahead
Trump’s wins so far are notable, but they remain early procedural victories in broader legal fights. The courts have so far blocked many of his more sweeping efforts, from halting foreign aid to preventing drastic National Institutes of Health funding cuts.
However, not every setback in court has stopped Trump from continuing his agenda. In court filings late Tuesday, lawyers for the Justice Department said the administration will not begin disbursing funds for thousands of foreign aid contracts despite U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, imposing a temporary restraining order on the funding freeze.
Supreme Court to decide on Trump’s power to fire independent agency heads
One of the most consequential legal battles to unfold so far is now before the Supreme Court, where Trump has asked the justices to intervene in his attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel.
A federal judge initially reinstated Dellinger after his firing, barring Trump from replacing him and restricting any interference with the office’s resources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that ruling in a split decision, with Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, warning in dissent that an order preventing the president from firing an agency head “is virtually unheard of.”
The DOJ called the appeals court’s decision an “unprecedented assault on the separation of powers” and is urging the Supreme Court to strike down the lower court’s ruling.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has argued that the Constitution gives the president unrestricted authority over executive branch officials, including those in so-called independent agencies.
JUDGE REINSTATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD CHAIRWOMAN FIRED BY TRUMP
If the Supreme Court takes up the case, it could have far-reaching implications for presidential control over the federal bureaucracy and test Trump’s ability to remove holdovers from the previous administration.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this week whether to intervene, marking a pivotal moment in Trump’s broader legal battle to consolidate executive power.
