Washington (AP) – A familiar scheme has appeared since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: he made an impetuous proposal, his opponents put legal action and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.
This happened with Trump’s attempts to freeze certain federal funds, undermine citizenship of birth law and repel government employees.
Find out more: What you need to know about the firing and how Trump promises to use it
Now, the question is whether court’s decisions are just a simple slowdown or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican President, who is determined to extend the limits of his power – sometimes simply ignoring the laws.
Although Democrats can be encouraged by the initial tour of judicial resistance, legal battles are just beginning. Prosecutions from more liberal jurisdictions like Boston, Seattle and Washington, DC, could find their way before the Supreme Court of the United States, where a conservative majority demonstrated its will to overthrow the previous one.
“What is constitutional or not is as good as the last court decision,” said Philip Joyce, professor of public policy at the University of Maryland.
About three dozen proceedings have already been filed, in particular by FBI agents who fear that they are purged for political reasons and families who are concerned with new limits to health care for young transgender people.
The spotlights on the judiciary are brighter because the congress controlled by the Republican has essentially abdicated its role of verification of the presidency. Trump’s party legislators have accessed their requests to unilaterally reduce expenses and to draw without notice.
This leaves only the courts as a potential railing on the president’s ambitions.
“We are two branches from the government,” said Justin Levitt, professor at Loyola Law School.
The latest setbacks for Trump came on Thursday.
In Seattle, the American district judge John Coughhenour blocked Trump’s decree on the citizenship of the birth law, which was intended to illegally prevent the children of the parents who are in the country from being automatically considered to be Americans.
Coughhenour has described citizenship of the right of birth, which was created by the 14th amendment, as “a fundamental constitutional right” and he assailed Trump in scathing terms.
“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate or simply ignore, whether for a political or personal gain,” said the judge, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
“There are moments in the history of the world where people look back and ask:” Where were the lawyers? ” Where were the judges? “Added Coughhenour. “In these moments, the rule of law becomes particularly vulnerable. I refuse to let this tag are darkening today.
The judge had previously called the “manifestly unconstitutional” order when publication of a temporary decision.
“I have been on the bench for more than four decades,” said Coughhenour. “I do not remember another case where the question presented was as clear as it.”
WATCH: Democracy lawyer examines how Trump changes the US government
Also Thursday in Boston, the American district judge George O’Toole Jr. arrested Trump’s plan to encourage federal workers to resign by offering them paid leave.
O’Toole, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, did not express an opinion on the delayed resignation program, which is commonly described as a takeover. He planned an audience for Monday afternoon to examine the arguments.
“We continue to believe that this program violates the law, and we will continue to defend the rights of our members aggressively,” said national president of employees of the US Federation of employees of the Everett Kelley government in a statement.
The White House said that at least 40,000 federal workers had already agreed to resign for being paid until September 30.
“We are grateful to the judge to have extended the deadline so that more federal workers who refuse to present themselves to the office can take the administration on this very generous offer, once in life,” said the press secretary From the White House, Karoline Leavitt in a declaration.
We do not know which legal battles will reach the Supreme Court of the United States, where judges can choose the cases to consider. But Trump appointed three new members, and the court adopted an expansive view of the presidential power.
In a case involving criminal charges against Trump, the judges judged that the presidents are sheltered from prosecution for any official measure taken during their mandate.
WATCH: The deadline for federal workers to resign delayed while Democrats get up against Musk
Sonia Sotomayor, one of the few liberal judges on the bench, said that the decision would make the American president “a king above the law”.
Steve Vladeck, professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, said the courts pushed Trump in his second term. But he warned that legal decisions should be applied.
“The collapse of all declines in the congress, any responsibility for the congress, I think it is a worrying sign for what would happen if this administration openly begins to challenge the judicial orders,” said Vladeck.
Historically, it would be a political non-starter and would leave a president vulnerable to dismissal. But Trump was acquitted by the US Senate despite two dismissal of the chamber of his first mandate, then re -elected by American voters, leaving him little fear of punishment.
A closely regarded legal question implies the capacity of the president to retain the funding authorized by the congress, a practice known as the deduction. Although it was limited by the legislation adopted in 1974, after the scandals involving former president Richard Nixon, some of Trump’s allies described the law as an unconstitutional limit to the authority of the White House.
The concept was tested by Trump when the management and budget office decided to freeze federal subsidies and loans while the administration made an ideological expenditure exam.
The directive was blocked by the American district judge Loren Alikhan, who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023.
“The actions of the defendants in this case are potentially to the test of a” bulwark of the Constitution “by interfering with the appropriation of federal funds by the congress,” wrote Alikhan.
The writer Associated Press, Nicholas Riccardi, contributed Washington’s reports.