Trump Finds New Legal Obstacles From His Own Judicial Appointees

Some of President Donald Trump’s appointees to federal courts are ruling against his administration.

The three recent cases—in Texas, Rhode Island, and Washington, DC—mark a relatively rare face-off between Trump and his judicial nominees, as most challenges against his policies are presided over by Democratic appointees. Experts said the decisions are certain to bolster the administration’s goal of appointing future judges who aren’t traditional legal conservatives.

Trump-appointed judges are probably sympathetic to his policies, but are still ruling against them, said Maya Sen, a political science professor at Harvard who studies the judiciary. Judges frequently say they rule based on the law, and not in line with the president who appointed them.

“That’s suggesting to us that what Trump is doing is pretty far out there,” Sen said. “It’s pretty ideologically extreme, even to judges who are like-minded.”

Sen said the judges may also be sending a signal to others on appeals courts and the Supreme Court that they believe the Trump administration is going too far, even in the eyes of his own appointees.

Kimi King, a political science professor at the University of North Texas, said that judges will also have their reputations in mind as they approach a ruling.

“They have to think about their judicial legacy, being reversed, because few cases are reversed on appeal,” King said. “Then they have to think about their political ambition, whether they think that they might want to leave the judiciary, because it’s not the same kind of hallowed, protected place that it used to be. It’s open to that political squabbling, or maybe they like the political squabbling and they want to get off the bench and they want to run for office.”

District Rulings

US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., of the Southern District of Texas, quickly granted a temporary restraining order on April 11 to prevent the deportation of Venezuelans held in the state, after the Supreme Court said it was the proper venue for the legal fight over the removal of alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The judge set April 24 arguments on whether he should issue a preliminary injunction.

And US District Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island on Tuesday issued a national injunction, instructing the government to release funds that were appropriated under a pair of Biden-era laws.

“The Court wants to be crystal clear: elections have consequences and the President is entitled to enact his agenda. The judiciary does not and cannot decide whether his policies are sound,” McElroy wrote in her ruling. However, she said, the government’s process in blocking the funds violated administrative law.

US District Judge Trevor McFadden on April 8 ordered the White House to allow the Associated Press back into the press pool, after the outlet was blocked for not updating its style guide to refer to the “Gulf of America,” after Trump signed an order purporting to change its name from the Gulf of Mexico.

McFadden wrote that his order doesn’t touch on government officials excluding reporters for other reasons, mandate that journalists be given access to certain spaces, or block officials from sharing their own views. But he said the Constitution “requires” that outlets not be shut out over their viewpoints.

While Democratic appointees who’ve blocked Trump policies have been attacked by high-profile figures like Elon Musk, the Trump appointees haven’t been subject to the same level of criticism.

Sen said that conservatives’ criticism of judges may backfire in the future. She said Republicans could notch a number of wins from friendly courts, but that trust in the judiciary could fall on the right due to the attacks.

Early challenges to Trump executive orders and other significant actions have been filed in largely liberal-leaning courts, according to Bloomberg Law’s tracker of more than 100 major challenges to the administration’s use of executive power. However the administration recently looked to a pair of conservative courts in Texas and Kentucky to file preemptive lawsuits over union contracts for federal workers.

New Judges

The rulings come ahead of Trump naming any new appointees to the courts.

Trump has far fewer seats to fill than he did when he entered the White House in 2017. But his administration is expected to appoint a slate of judges less aligned with traditional conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society, which played an outsized role in picking nominees during his first term.

The recent rulings from the current Trump appointees are certain to make those tasked with picking future judges determined to avoid similar decisions from those they choose for the federal bench, Sen and King said.

“Everything is part of the calculations for judicial nominee,” King said. “Much of that will depend upon the propensity of a judge to be willing to put themselves forward like that, whether they are deciding against or in favor of the president, and what that means for their political career and personal well-being.”

Robert Luther III, a law professor at George Mason University, said in an email that he wouldn’t be surprised if judicial candidates are being asked about their views on executive power.

“This is nothing new—this is not a ‘loyalty oath’ or any sort of implied promise to rule in favor of the administration—it’s simply a recognition of the obvious—which is that President Trump has the right to know what his judicial candidates think about the separation of powers before he invests his political capital into a nominee,” Luther said.