By Mel Wilson, NASW Senior Policy Adviser
There are signs the strategy of using federal courts to challenge many of President Trump’s appalling Executive Orders (EOs) is having some early success. This approach, which is being used by the social justice community, has deep roots the Civil Rights Movement. However, given the ferocity and volume of the Trump administration’s EOs, there has been a degree of uncertainty about the effectiveness of this strategy in the MAGA era.
Since his inauguration on January 20, Trump has signed a record 142 executive orders, far more than any other U.S. president in the same time period. The EOs range from declaring a national emergency on the southern border over illegal immigration; ordering federal agencies to scrap Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives; to penalizing schools that allow transgender individuals to participate in girl sports.
With that in mind, it is encouraging that over the last few weeks the federal judiciary – mostly at the district court level – has made significant decisions to halt several of President Trump’s troublesome EOs. In taking these actions, the federal judiciary – in contrast to the U.S. Congress – appears to be embracing its role of safeguarding constitutional principles.
While there have been dozens of lawsuits filed against Trump’s executive orders, the most recent court decisions focus on immigration, DEI, and transgender rights. For example, federal judges blocked or suspended efforts by the Trump administration to ban transgender people from the military, abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and place restrictions on birthright citizenship.
Here is a more detailed overview of these rulings and their implications:
Judgement concerning Sanctuary City Executive Order
A U.S. District Courts judge on April 24 ruled that an EO issued by Trump to block federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to fully cooperate with immigration enforcement is likely unconstitutional. For that reason, the judge stated that the administration could not enforce this executive order in the 16 cities and counties that brought the case. This decision is important because sanctuary cities came into being as an affirmative statement that these jurisdictions support protecting the basic civil and human rights of non-citizen residents. The court’s actions has put a pause on Trump’s threat.
Rulings on Federal Election Laws Executive Order
Also on April 24 a federal judge blocked the Trump Administration’s so-called voting protection EO which, among other things, would add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form.
This particular EO was seen as being both an anti-immigrant policy and a mechanism for voter suppression. The EO is also aligned with almost identical far-right legislation – the Save Act – that passed the House of Representatives.
So, it should not be surprising that a coalition of groups, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the League of United Latin American Citizens, filed a legal challenge by arguing the “Voting Protection” EO was unconstitutional.
In reviewing their challenge, a federal judge supported the coalition’s argument. When issuing her decision, the judge stated that the U.S. Constitution makes the election regulation a responsibility of the individual states and Congress rather than the president. The implications of this ruling are significant. Had the court allowed the EO to stand, that decision would have legitimized the far right’s decades-old effort to suppress voting in communities of color.
Court Challenges of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Executive Orders
There were several important rulings related to the Trump DEI executive action, during the week of April 21. The first came from a New Hampshire based U.S. District Court judge, who stated that the Trump EO that would allow federal funding to be cut from public schools that operate DEI programs could violate the First Amendment rights of teachers and may also be unconstitutionally vague.
A second ruling by a U.S. Court District in Maryland ordered the Department of Education directive to be postponed after concluding it could force teachers to select between “being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.”
The third similar decision was a preliminary injunction against the directive’s enforcement that was also issued by a judge in Washington D.C. This action was in response to a case brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
It should be noted that 19 states are suing the Trump administration over the Department of Education EO and its threat to pull funding from non-compliant states and school districts. These states are not just concerned about the Trump EO’s negative impact on funding available to their school districts. They are also resisting new federal certification requirements that are stipulated under the Trump executive order. Signing the certification would have forced them to end post-secondary education financial aid such as Pell Grants.
Lawsuits to End Alien Enemies Act – El Salvador Deportations
The Project 2025 driven blueprint for the Trump Mass Deportation EO articulated plans to use the Alien Enemies Act as a key tool for achieving its objectives. Therefore, when the administration made the initial action to employ that act as the legal basis for deporting so-called gang members from Venezuela to El Salvador, the immigration and civil rights communities were not caught off guard.
As a reaction to a sequence of mass deportation actions by the Trump administration, well-prepared legal challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others were rapidly moved forward. What followed was a series of significant court rulings. A summary of those rulings can be seen in the timeline below:
- March 15, 2025: President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, to deport hundreds of immigrants, primarily Venezuelans, to El Salvador.
- March 15, 2025 (early morning): The ACLU and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelans in immigration detention, fearing wrongful deportation under the Act.
- March 15, 2025 (afternoon): A U.S. District Judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the government from deporting the plaintiffs.
- April 7, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals threatened with deportation under the Alien Enemies Act have a due process right to challenge their designation through habeas corpus petitions.
- April 18, 2025: The Department of Homeland Security prepared to deport another group of Venezuelan men to El Salvador, prompting emergency legal action by the ACLU.
- April 22, 2025: The Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to pause deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, at least temporarily.
This timeline demonstrates the complexities and potential legal entanglements – not to mention the human rights implications – of the Trump Mass Deportation agenda. It also demonstrates the need for a well-thought-out strategyby immigration rights legal experts who are prepared for the many court challenges to come.
Federal Courts Alone are not the Answer for Preserving Democracy
This sequence of events emphasizes an essential fact that, while there has been encouraging court ruling that temporarily stalls the Trump and far-right agenda, the legal battles are by no means over. Civil rights groups and social justice advocates must be prepared to continue their push back against harmful Trump administration’s executive orders,
