How the courts became the biggest roadblock to Trump’s plans | US news

The decision of a federal judge to maintain a comprehensive ban on the citizenship order of Donald Trump last week emphasizes the dizzying legal war and the courts, which define the opening months of the administration, and the courts arrange dozens of orders to systematically stop the abrasive elements of the President’s agenda.

The US Regional Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston rejected Trump administration arguments to take a precautionary measure decision, which is a court order that prohibits not only people who have legal difficulties of the federal government, but to the application of a law or policy against everyone throughout the country.

The decision represents only one case in a wider judicial resistance model against Trump management actions. According to the protective analysis of the court records, the courts made approximately 35 measures against various Trump executive orders and policy changes until the Supreme Court intervened on 27 June. Congress Research Service data.

There is no standard legal definition for a country -wide precautionary measure decision, so it is not possible to provide a single precise count, but in the second period of Trump, 35 orders have stopped a wide range of policies, from the attempt to end the citizenship of the President of the President’s attempt to end the citizenship of the President and to restrictions on re -establishment of the loan.

In June, the Supreme Court significantly limited the capability of the courts to make a precautionary decision -making decision; This reshapened how competitors could challenge the executive excessive access and that some law experts have dismantled the most powerful weapon against comprehensive presidential policies. Without precautionary measures across the country, competitors have to sue more than one cases between the judicial regions to follow the cases of class case cases or to obtain the same blocking effect, but the Supreme Court has left the possibility of exceptions in some cases such as Sorokin’s decision, and this is necessary to protect the Americans from damage.

Donald Sherman, Deputy Director of Ethical Citizen in Washington, said, “President Trump’s illegal power abuses, farmers, students, working families and retirees demanding a national response to Americans,” he said. “The decision of the Supreme Court has made it more complicated to challenge President Trump’s unlawful executive actions and to create an unnecessary coercion on judicial sources, but legal advocates and related citizens will not be deterred from holding the administration responsible in court.”

During the first presidency of Trump, the Federal Courts caused at least 64 prudence against his administration, compared with only six in Barack Obama under the eight -year presidency of Barack Obama, and only six in both periods of George W Bush.

The White House praised the Supreme Court’s June decision by saying that Trump is “benefiting from low -level activist judges positions to deliberately reduce the policy agenda. According to the Guardian analysis, these precautionary measures were mostly published by Washington DC, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Texas, Massachusetts, New York and others.

Harvard Law Review research Since the first period of Trump, 92.2% of the region’s precautionary measures come from democratic judges, and 100% of similar measures against Biden came from the Republican appointed judges.

The analysis of the guardian of 35 measures in the first six months of the Trump administration shows the policy types blocked by the courts using this tool. At least eight major countries, including immigration practice and citizenship changes, the turning point of citizenship, the lawsuits targeting the refugee program, and the deportation accelerations, made a precautionary measure.

Federal financing policies created a wave of lawsuits, at least six cautiously, national profit -free organizations, including groups of groups aimed at the equipment of groups and arising from the lawsuits of the American Medical Colleges to target the national institutes of health grants by the Association of various financing freezing and restrictions.

The policies related to diversity, equality and involvement and civil rights have faced many legal difficulties and have resulted in measures in at least five cases, including a lawsuit struggling with the restrictions under the executive orders of Trump by the National Association of Diversity Officials.

While at least two cases arising from military service requirements stopped by precautionary measures across the country entered the same category, the federal agency has filed a lawsuit from multiple state government and federal employee unions and ended with precautionary measures throughout the country.

While some precautionary measures focus on execution of excessive access and legal targeting, additional measures have stopped emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Authorities Law, and the restrictions on law firms that have previously opposed Trump policies.

“Since President Trump took office, low -level activist judges have benefited from their positions to kneel the agenda,” the White House said after the decision of the Supreme Court in June. He said. “In fact, in the second period, 35 of the 40 measures made against President Trump’s executive actions came from only five left judicial powers: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington and Columbia region.”

Guardian could not independently determine 40 precautionary measures throughout the country. The White House and the Ministry of Justice did not respond to the requests for comments on which precautionary measures they had on their lists.

Ministry of Justice It has been reported that it was faced with difficulties By defending the volume of Trump’s executive orders, lawyers to answer judicial questions and correct the registration in the court, the Ministry of Justice encourages the transfer of a quick lawyer to the department of Trump policy defenses. It is believed that management also tested The traditional presidencyThe long -standing implementation, which has been postponed to the executive authority for national security and foreign affairs for the national security and foreign affairs, is taking an unprecedented step to file a lawsuit, while defending the policies of aggressive migration, trade and economic.

Legal challenges have targeted more special policies in federal prisons, which lead gender maintenance restrictions, changes in passport gender markers and federal employment termination affecting thousands of employees.

Following the Supreme Court decision in Trump V casa in June, it is forbidden for the courts to make a precautionary decision against the presidential policies. However, as a judge decides that the right to birth is the only way to protect the people who bring the case, as in the struggle for citizenship.

The White House said: “Now, the Trump administration can continue with critical action to end the country, to end innate citizenship, to stop the shelter city financing, to suspend the refugee re -settlement of the refugee, to freeze unnecessary financing, to finance the transgender surgeries of taxpayers and to save the country.” He said.

However, some legal experts are not so sure of the long -term impact of the Supreme Court’s restrictions on the region -wide precautionary measures.

“The US lawyer Barbara Mcquade, who was appointed by former Obama University of Michigan University, said,“ The Supreme Court continues to see how the practical consequences of the decision were shaken, ”he said. “Many of the justice argued that class actions would provide a mechanism to prevent unlawful executive orders and prevent irreparable damage, but of course, class actions may be cumbersome and slower than a simple temporary limitation order.

McQuade said, “We will have to see how lower courts take the exception of the high court when necessary,” Mcquade said.

Trump policies can be measured within weeks or months, such as undocumented immigrants and non-profit organizations that lose federal funds. The decision of the Supreme Court did not eliminate the legal challenges for the presidential power, but fundamentally changed its speeds and scope.