A Nation Divided: The Legal Battles Defining Trump’s Second Term

The Front Line of Resistance: Federal Courts and the Fight Against Trump’s Executive Actions

In the opening weeks of Donald Trump’s second term as president, the federal judiciary has emerged as the primary battleground against a flurry of executive actions that have upended the federal government and challenged the constitutional system of checks and balances. More than 40 lawsuits, filed by state attorneys general, unions, and nonprofits, are seeking to halt what many view as an unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional blitz of policies introduced by the Trump administration. Unlike Trump’s first term, where resistance was vocal in the streets, Congress, and even within his own party, the second term has seen little pushback from these quarters. Instead, the judiciary has become the last line of defense for those seeking to rein in Trump’s unilateral actions.

“The courts really are the front line,” said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, a nonprofit that has filed nine lawsuits and secured four court orders against the Trump administration. The legal challenges have already yielded some quick, albeit potentially temporary, victories. Judicial orders in nine federal cases have partially blocked the administration from advancing key goals, such as ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants on U.S. soil, transferring transgender female inmates to male-only prisons, and exposing the identities of FBI personnel involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack investigation. These rulings have also frozen as much as $3 trillion in domestic spending and halted attempts to coerce federal workers into accepting “deferred resignation” under tight deadlines.

One notable ruling came from Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump-appointed district judge, who issued a temporary restraining order to halt the administrative leave of 2,200 employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development and the withdrawal of nearly all agency workers from overseas. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, an Obama nominee, restricted access by Elon Musk’s government efficiency program to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems, citing the risk of “irreparable harm.” These decisions underscore the judiciary’s willingness to step in when it perceives executive overreach, even if the slower pace of the courts may struggle to keep up with the administration’s rapid fire of disruptive actions.

The Nature of the Challenge: Trump’s Executive Power and the Constitution

Trump’s second term has been marked by a series of executive orders that seek to upend American foreign aid, domestic spending, and social policy. Many of these actions appear to defy existing law and precedent, prompting accusations that the president is attempting to rewrite over a century of constitutional interpretation with the stroke of a pen. Without consultation or buy-in from the legislative branch, Trump has unilaterally wielded executive power to dismantle parts of the federal government, override civil service regulations, and rollback advancements in diversity, equity, and transgender rights. His actions have drawn fierce legal challenges, with critics arguing that no president should have the authority to unilaterally rewrite constitutional interpretations.

Dan Rayfield, Oregon’s attorney general, described the situation as an “existential threat” to the constitutional order. “No president should be able to rewrite 120-plus years of interpretation of the Constitution with a stroke of a pen,” he said. “That is the existential threat.” Legal experts warn that the administration’s strategy may be to overwhelm the judiciary and public attention with a relentless barrage of challenges, forcing the courts to make precedent-shattering decisions.

Judith Resnik, a Yale Law professor, noted that the administration seems to be deliberately pushing the boundaries of legality, knowing that the provisions do not align with existing law. “The administration seems to have wanted challenges that consume a ton of resources—of opponents, courts, and public attention—even as members