Many Americans in positions of power, including corporate executives and members of Congress, seem too afraid of President Trump to stand up to his anti-democratic behavior. Federal judges have shown themselves to be exceptions. “Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,” said Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University.
These rulings have halted Mr. Trump’s vengeful attempts to destroy law firms, forestalled some of his budget cuts and kept him from deporting additional immigrants. Yes, the Supreme Court has often been more deferential to the president. Still, it has let stand many lower-court rulings and has itself constrained Mr. Trump in some cases.
The bipartisan alarm from federal judges offers a roadmap for others to respond to Mr. Trump’s often illegal behavior. His actions deserve to be called out in plain language for what they really are. And people in positions of influence should do what they can to stand up for American values, as many judges have done.
Here, we’ve compiled quotations from judges’ recent rulings and bench comments.
Immigration
Courts have blocked some policies, including the deportation of additional detainees to a Salvadoran prison. Other policies remain in effect, including the confinement of immigrants previously deported to El Salvador. Many cases are still being heard.
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On the refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador:
“It is a path of good lawlessness, one which courts can’t condone.”
Leonie M. Brinkema, Jap District of Virginia
Appointed by Invoice Clinton
On an ICE official’s inconsistent affidavit:
“It is a horrible, horrible affidavit. If this have been earlier than me in a legal case and also you have been asking to get a warrant issued on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers.”
James E. Boasberg, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Barack Obama
On a judge’s order blocking deportations:
“In an egregious case of cherry-picking, defendants selectively quote solely a fraction of the courtroom’s response right here to mischaracterize its place.”
Patrick J. Schiltz, District of Minnesota
Appointed by George W. Bush
On the revocation of a student’s visa:
“The courtroom can’t think about how the general public curiosity could be served by allowing federal officers to flaunt the very legal guidelines that they’ve sworn to implement.”
Charlotte N. Sweeney, District of Colorado
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that courts “do not have a role” in regards to the Aliens Enemies Act:
“This sentence staggers. It’s improper as a matter of legislation and makes an attempt to learn a whole provision out of the Structure.”
Clay D. Land, Center District of Georgia
Appointed by George W. Bush
On an attempt to designate someone as an “alien enemy” without due process:
“Permitting constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace of the chief department can be a dereliction of responsibility by this third and impartial department of presidency and can be towards the general public curiosity.”
David Briones, Western District of Texas
Appointed by Invoice Clinton
On inconsistent evidence about gang affiliation:
“Of nice concern to this courtroom is that respondents contradict themselves all through all the report.”
DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Fourth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals
Appointed by Joe Biden
On plaintiffs’ argument that the government issued a document under false pretenses:
“The federal government has no response to this cost — a deafening silence.”
Jamal N. Whitehead, Western District of Washington
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that a court order applied to fewer than 200 refugees:
“The federal government’s interpretation is, to place it mildly, ‘interpretive jiggery-pokery’ of the best order. … It requires not simply studying between the strains, however hallucinating new textual content that merely just isn’t there.”
Paula Xinis, District of Maryland
Appointed by Barack Obama
On a failure to identify many officials involved in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s removal:
“Defendants have failed to reply in good religion, and their refusal to take action can solely be seen as willful and intentional noncompliance.”
Roger L. Gregory, Fourth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals
Appointed by George W. Bush
On a claim that Venezuela has invaded the U.S.:
“As is turning into far too frequent, we’re confronted once more with the efforts of the chief department to put aside the rule of legislation in pursuit of its targets.”
Stephanie D. Thacker, Fourth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals
Appointed by Barack Obama
On the need for due process before deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia:
“The federal government’s rivalry in any other case, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District of Maryland
Appointed by Donald Trump
On the deportation of an asylum seeker to El Salvador:
“Defendants have offered no proof, and even any particular allegations, as to how Cristian, or some other class member, poses a risk to public security. … It is a courtroom of proof.”
Patricia A. Millett, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Barack Obama
On the deportation of more than 200 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador:
“Nazis obtained higher remedy below the Alien Enemies Act than has occurred right here.”
Edward M. Chen, Northern District of California
Appointed by Barack Obama
On insinuations that Venezuelan immigrants are gang members:
“Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan T.P.S. inhabitants as an entire is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes.”
Executive orders targeting critics
All four law firms that sued the Trump administration have won their cases, and none of the executive orders regarding them are in effect. The Associated Press partly won its case contesting Mr. Trump’s restrictions on its White House access.
Richard J. Leon, District of Columbia District
Appointed by George W. Bush
On an executive order targeting the law firm WilmerHale:
“There isn’t a doubt this retaliatory motion chills speech and authorized advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional hurt.”
John D. Bates, District of Columbia District
Appointed by George W. Bush
On an executive order targeting Jenner & Block:
“In brief, the order raises constitutional eyebrows many instances over. It punishes and seeks to silence speech ‘on the very heart of the First Modification.’”
Beryl A. Howell, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Barack Obama
On an executive order targeting Perkins Coie:
“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all of the legal professionals,’ E.O. 14230 takes the strategy of ‘Let’s kill the legal professionals I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: Attorneys should follow the celebration line, or else.”
Trevor N. McFadden, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Donald Trump
On The Associated Press’s access to the White House being restricted for not using “Gulf of America”:
“Certainly, the federal government has been brazen.”
Transgender issues
A ban on transgender people in the military has taken effect while legal challenges continue. Other rulings have prevented the freezing of various funds related to trans policies.
Benjamin H. Settle, Western District of Washington
Appointed by George W. Bush
On the lack of evidence about negative effects from trans troops:
“The federal government’s arguments usually are not persuasive, and it isn’t an particularly shut query on this report.”
Lauren J. King, Western District of Washington
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that medical funding cuts would not cause harm because they hadn’t happened yet:
“Defendants’ argument is disingenuous at greatest.”
Ana C. Reyes, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Joe Biden
On conflicting government descriptions of the trans ban:
“I’m not going to abide by authorities officers saying one factor to the general public — saying what they actually imply to the general public — and coming in right here to the courtroom and telling me one thing totally different, like I’m an fool. … I’m not an fool.”
Christine P. O’Hearn, District of New Jersey
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a previous case involving military discharges:
“It’s exhausting to think about how defendants can cite Nelson v. Miller with a straight face. … Nelson really helps plaintiffs’ place — not defendants’ place.”
John A. Woodcock Jr., District of Maine
Appointed by George W. Bush
On a funding freeze because of the state’s trans policies:
“[The law] imposes quite a few steps an company should take earlier than refusing or terminating funding for noncompliance. … The factual report doesn’t point out the federal defendants took any of those actions earlier than freezing Maine’s federal funds.”
Citizenship
Mr. Trump’s order denying birthright citizenship remains the subject of legal challenges. Separately, rulings have blocked Mr. Trump’s order requiring voters to produce proof of citizenship.
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Bill Clinton
On a claim that Mr. Trump’s voting policy was merely a suggestion:
“This argument fails to influence as a result of it misconceives (and in a single occasion misrepresents) the chief order, plaintiffs’ claims, the legislation, and the details.”
John C. Coughenour, Western District of Washington
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On the order denying birthright citizenship:
“I’ve been on the bench for over 4 a long time. I can’t bear in mind one other case the place the query offered is as clear as this one. It is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Deborah L. Boardman, District of Maryland
Appointed by Joe Biden
On the order denying birthright citizenship:
“The manager order flouts the plain language of the 14th Modification to the USA Structure, conflicts with binding Supreme Courtroom precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year historical past of citizenship by start.”
Joseph N. Laplante, District of New Hampshire
Appointed by George W. Bush
On the order denying birthright citizenship:
“The manager order contradicts the textual content of the 14th Modification and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.”
Leo T. Sorokin, District of Massachusetts
Appointed by Barack Obama
On the order denying birthright citizenship:
“In opposition to this backdrop, it verges on frivolous to counsel that Congress drafted, debated and handed a constitutional modification, thereafter enacted by the states, that imposed a consent requirement essentially excluding the one group of individuals the legislators and enactors most particularly supposed to guard.”
Pamela A. Harris, Fourth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals
Appointed by Barack Obama
On the order denying birthright citizenship:
“It’s exhausting to overstate the confusion and upheaval that can accompany any implementation of the chief order.”
Budget cuts and funding freezes
Judges have prevented some cuts from going into effect, such as the dismantling of the Education Department. Other cuts remain in effect, and courts are still considering several cases.
Amir H. Ali, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction:
“Defendants’ prompt movement doesn’t meaningfully interact with the big physique of precedent on this query.”
John J. McConnell Jr., District of Rhode Island
Appointed by Barack Obama
On a suspension of congressionally approved spending:
“It’s greater than financial hurt that’s at stake right here. As Justice Anthony Kennedy reminds us, ‘Liberty is all the time at stake when a number of of the branches search to transgress the separation of powers.’”
Royce C. Lamberth, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On a funding cut for the agency overseeing Voice of America:
“It’s exhausting to fathom a extra easy show of arbitrary and capricious actions than the defendants’ actions right here.”
Julie R. Rubin, District of Maryland
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a prior ruling calling for the restoration of grants:
“Defendants proceed to disregard or misapprehend the courtroom’s evaluation.”
Myong J. Joun, District of Massachusetts
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a plan to cut the Department of Education’s staff in half:
“None of those statements quantity to a reasoned rationalization, not to mention a proof in any respect.”
Mary S. McElroy, District of Rhode Island
Appointed by Donald Trump
On a claim that an agency was not responsible for a funding freeze it had announced:
“In brief, the federal government asks the courtroom ‘to miss the only, most reasonable rationalization’ for what occurred. The courtroom declines.”
Lewis J. Liman, Southern District of New York
Appointed by Donald Trump
On an attempt to terminate New York City’s congestion-pricing plan:
“That argument is nonsensical.”
Loren L. AliKhan, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Joe Biden
On a disparity between the Office of Management and Budget’s statements and policy:
“It seems that O.M.B. sought to beat a judicially imposed impediment with out really ceasing the challenged conduct. The courtroom can consider few issues extra disingenuous.”
William G. Younger, District of Massachusetts
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
On a cut in funding for research into health disparities:
“I’ve by no means seen authorities racial discrimination like this.”
DOGE and the firing of federal workers
Judges temporarily reinstated government watchdogs and thousands of federal workers who had been fired. This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could resume its mass layoffs.
Amy Berman Jackson, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Barack Obama
On the firing of the head of a watchdog agency:
“In sum, it could be antithetical to the very existence of this specific authorities company and … a constitutional license to bully officers within the government department into doing his will.”
Jeannette A. Vargas, Southern District of New York
Appointed by Joe Biden
On the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Treasury Department systems:
“This rationalization is riddled with inconsistencies.”
Denise L. Cote, Southern District of New York
Appointed by Invoice Clinton
On concerns that unauthorized DOGE employees could see personal data:
“The defendants’ Kafkaesque argument on the contrary would deprive the plaintiffs of any recourse below the legislation.”
Tanya S. Chutkan, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Barack Obama
On DOGE’s attempts to hire and fire federal workers:
“Protection counsel is reminded of their responsibility to make truthful representations to the courtroom.”
Reggie B. Walton, District of Columbia District
Appointed by George W. Bush
On the firing of two Democrats on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board:
“To carry in any other case can be to bless the president’s apparent try and train energy past that granted to him by the Structure and defend the chief department’s counterterrorism actions from impartial oversight, public scrutiny and bipartisan congressional perception relating to these actions.”
Sparkle L. Sooknanan, District of Columbia District
Appointed by Joe Biden
On the firing of a Democrat on the Federal Labor Relations Authority:
“The federal government’s arguments paint with a broad brush and threaten to upend basic protections in our Structure. However ours just isn’t an autocracy; it’s a system of checks and balances.”
Susan Illston, Northern District of California
Appointed by Invoice Clinton
On a plan to lay off thousands of federal workers:
“Defendants need the courtroom to both declare that 9 presidents and 21 Congresses didn’t correctly perceive the separation of powers, or ignore how the chief department is implementing large-scale reductions in pressure and reorganizations.”
William A. Fletcher, Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals
Appointed by Invoice Clinton
On a claim that an executive order was merely guidance:
“Such a characterization is at greatest disingenuous, and at worst flatly contradictory to the report.”
William Alsup, Northern District of California
Appointed by Invoice Clinton
On the withdrawal of an agency director’s sworn declaration:
“Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me. I need you to know that I’ve been working towards or serving on this courtroom for over 50 years. And I understand how that we get on the reality, and also you’re not serving to me get so as to add to the reality. You’re giving me press releases — sham paperwork.”
What Happens Next?
The judiciary’s willingness to confront Mr. Trump over the past six months has been vital. In other democracies that have slid toward autocracy, the complicity of judges has frequently been a key reason. For now, many American judges are standing firm. They have done so even as Mr. Trump and his allies have personally threatened judges and made many feel unsafe.
It remains unclear what will happen next. One scenario is optimistic — namely, that judges on lower courts will continue to constrain Mr. Trump, the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold most of these rulings and the administration will largely obey them. (An example came on Thursday, when a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the executive order denying birthright citizenship, while also complying with a recent Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide rulings.) Other scenarios are more disturbing: that the Supreme Court becomes even more deferential to him, or that the administration flouts court rulings more blatantly than it already has.
Either way, federal judges have made clear that they consider Mr. Trump’s conduct to be more worrisome than the conduct of any other modern president.
