Week 7: Wait, this isn’t legal, is it?

by Marybeth O’Mara

03/19/2025

Well, I am glad I waited a week to tackle the courts’ response to the Trump administration and DOGE shenanigans, because a LOT happened this week, and we seem to be in a genuine constitutional crisis.

First of all, there have been at least 129 cases filed in federal courts around the country against actions taken by the Trump administration, and while the pace of legal action is typically sloooow, there actually has been some surprisingly quick (for the courts) action taken by judges of all political stripes and backgrounds. The New York Times reports, “As of March 15, at least 46 of those rulings have at least temporarily paused some of the president’s initiatives.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/politics/trump-policy-executive-orders-rulings.html

Most of the decisions (so far) have been in the form of temporary stays (to actions proposed or initiated by the Administration), orders to reverse actions such as terminating employees, or temporary restraining orders (TROs) while the usual routines of movement through the court system can be scheduled and implemented. So these are temporary first steps. However, over 80% of these actions, temporary or permanent, have been in favor of the plaintiffs AGAINST the Trump Administration's actions. Moreover, judicial history and inferred political leanings of the judges have not been factors–judges of all political stripes and the party of the president who nominated each of them has not led to any appreciable difference in how they have ruled.

It seems that the judicial branch (for now) appreciates that this is a legit head-to-head battle between two branches of government, the Executive and the Judicial, and are ruling in favor of the Constitutional principle of checks and balances, wherein each of the three branches faces some checks from the other two branches of the federal government.

In spite of this–or because of this unity among judicial appointees–Trump and his spokespeople have become more and more strident in giving voice to “reasons” that the judges’s decisions are invalid and claiming that the administration does not need to comply with them. There have already been calls for impeachment of some judges who have ruled unfavorably, doxxing of judges and their family members, and legally specious arguments justifying executive defiance of judicial rulings. There was open defiance of a judicial order over the weekend to turn around planeloads of migrants in the process of being deported; the planes landed in El Salvador, the “deportees” transferred into Salvadoran “holding stations,” and there has still been no identification of them or any attempt at complying with the court’s order. Likewise, former Columbia student and green card holder Mahmoud Khalil is well into his second week in a Louisiana detention center without the same level of outrage or progress we all witnessed last week. It is just too hard to keep up the anger and action needed to make any change!

There is increasing attention to these behaviors and the courts are more outspoken than they have been, including a public scolding by SCOTUS Chief John Roberts about the calls for impeachment rather than appealing unpopular decisions. So far, the judiciary seems to be holding firm as these cases churn through the system, but some of the DOGE momentum has been interrupted.

Journalist and Substacker Dan Froomkin is concentrating on these cases:

Lawsuits Watch

Just Security’s tracker of legal challenges to Trump administration actions now lists 129.

Four in particular are making big news:

“A federal judge on Monday expressed skepticism at the Trump administration’s assertion that it hadn’t violated a court order by deporting dozens of alleged Venezuelan gang members whose removal he had temporarily blocked.” (Wall Street Journal)
“Efforts by Elon Musk and his team to permanently shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development likely violated the Constitution ‘in multiple ways’ and robbed Congress of its authority to oversee the dissolution of an agency it created, a federal judge found on Tuesday.” (New York Times)
“The Trump administration has moved to reinstate at least 24,000 federal probationary employees fired in the president’s push to shrink the government, according to filings in one of two cases in which a federal judge ruled the terminations illegal.” (Washington Post)
“A federal judge blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from military service on Tuesday, the latest in a string of legal setbacks for his sweeping agenda.” (Associated Press)

The New York Times is tracking all of the lawsuits in an interactive tracker:

Trump Administration Lawsuits Tracker: DOGE, Transgender Rights and More - The New York Times

Follow the lawsuits and rulings that are challenging President Trump's executive orders.

How to keep up with these legal issues?

Who do I consult for reporting and analysis on this fast-changing issue? I listen to several podcasts with a focus on American jurisprudence:

Strict Scrutiny with legal scholars Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and (Chicagoan) Kate Shaw

Strict Scrutiny | Crooked Media

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

A legal podcast with Slate's Dahlia Lithwick.

Law and Chaos with Liz Dye and Andrew Torres

Law and Chaos Podcast | Liz Dye | Substack

Ignorance of the law is no excuse! That’s true for a traffic stop, and it’s true if you want to participate in whatever’s left of American democracy. If the events since the 2016 election taught us anything, it’s that tuning out is not an option. Legal journalist Liz Dye and practicing lawyer Andrew Torrez break down the week’s most important courtroom stories, so you can keep on top of this crazy news cycle. Whether it’s Texas giving two middle fingers to the Supreme Court, or Donald Trump in a...

I also follow the case trackers linked above (by The New York Times and Just Security), and I click on article links from legal reporters as they come across my Bluesky feed.

Actions for this week (and next)

This past Saturday, I had to choose between attending a Tesla Takedown protest and canvassing for the April 1 Wisconsin state election. Jeff and I chose to join lots of Illinois volunteers to canvass in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, figuring that the Tesla protests are growing organically and will be available when I am also available, and that there will not be any voter canvass in Wisconsin after the election in 2 weeks.

The Wisconsin election has several key issues: Susan Crawford is running for WI Supreme Court against an Elon Musk-supported, MAGA-aligned opponent. This is a really important election because it would secure or lose the liberal 4:3 majority on the Court, which will decide Wisconsin election and abortion laws in the upcoming term. In addition, there is a vote on whether to make Voter ID laws part of the Constitution, which is unnecessary since Wisconsin already has a Voter ID law. Finally, the Superintendent for Public Education is running for re-election, a position that will be even more important as the Federal Department of Education is being reduced and more responsibilities will fall to individual states.

We enjoyed the canvass, and had some lovely chats with eager voters.

On April 5, marches are being planned to protest, well, everything! The primary march is in Washington DC, and there are local marches being organized across the country. Track your community’s march, and sign up here: