Donald Trump has long ascribed to the theory that US presidents can do whatever they want. Trump in 2019 famously, and wrongly, claimed that the US Constitution gives him the right to do ‘whatever he wants’ as president.
He has behaved more like a king than a president during his time in office. However, Trump is now experiencing the limits of presidential power. This is because number of court have struck down a number of Trump initiatives – from cuts to Harvard to his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs and the use of the Alien Enemies Act.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Let’s take a closer look
Harvard cuts
On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the
Trump administration’s cuts to Harvard University are illegal. US district judge Allison Burroughs wrote in her 84-page order, “All freezes and terminations of funding to Harvard made pursuant to the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters on or after April 14, 2025 are vacated and set aside.”
Burroughs wrote that while Harvard has been “plagued by antisemitism” in recent years and should “have done a better job of dealing with the issue” she said “there is,
in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism”.
“In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI,” Burroughs concluded.
The Trump administration had cut $2.2 billion in federal funds to the elite university earlier this year. This was part of a larger campaign mostly against Ivy League schools including Cornell, Brown, Columbia and Princeton. Trump also froze $60 million in government contracts for Harvard – which has refused to back down – and threatened the university’s tax-exempt status. The administration had barred Harvard from accepting foreign students.
The Trump government has accused college administrators of not doing enough to tamp down on ‘anti-Semitism’, and claimed that the students were engaging in acts of ‘radicalism’. The Trump administration was referring to protest that broke out at these elite colleges against Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Trump administration, which has
accused these universities of “being woke” and indoctrinating the students against the American way of life.
Some universities have struck deals with the Trump government.
Columbia University for example, has agreed to pay $220 million – resulting in it many criticising in many quarters for bowing to the government’s demands and warning that it sets a dire precedent.
Columbia law professor David Pozen called the agreement a “shakedown” and said it set a precedent for “pay-to-play” deals the Trump administration is seeking with other schools. “The agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,” Pozen said in a blog post.
The Trump government has accused college administrators of not doing enough to tamp down on ‘anti-Semitism’, and claimed that the students were engaging in acts of ‘radicalism’. Reuters
However, Acting President Claire Shipman has rebuffed such allegations. “This was not capitulation,” Shipman said, claiming that the deal protected the university’s “academic integrity.”
The University of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has banned trans women from its sports teams as a sop to the Trump regime. Brown has settled with the US government for $50 million. While Trump has demanded that Harvard pay at least $500 million to the US government, the university has thus far resisted such demands.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The White House has slammed the ruling.
“Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favour, regardless of the facts,” White House spokesperson Liz Huston said.
“To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years. Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future,” Huston added.
National Guard
On September 2, a federal court in California ruled against Trump sending the National Guard to Los Angeles. Trump in June sent around 4000 National Guard personnel to the city. The US president was aiming to tamp down on protests that were taking place against operations by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the city.
There were the reports at the time that ICE, rather than target criminals, was going to places such as Home Depot parking lots and picking up people who were looking for work.
District Judge Charles R Breyer in his ruling said Trump’s move violated the “Posse Comitatus Act” – which does not allow the military to act as law enforcement. Breyer in his 52-page ruling relied on evidence supplied by witnesses in about how Tark Force 51, part of the National Guard in Los Angeles, behaved.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADMembers of the California National Guard are deployed outside a complex of federal buildings in Santa Ana, California. Reuters
“The record is replete with evidence that Task Force 51 executed domestic law in these prohibited ways,” Breyer concluded. He said troops had conducted raids of marijuana farms alongside federal agents and set up traffic blockades to help federal agents. “Bystanders at multiple locations and even federal officials at trial were unable to distinguish Task Force 51 troops from federal law enforcement agents.”
This was Breyer’s second ruling against Trump sending the National Guard personnel to Los Angeles. Breyer in June held that the move was illegal because there was no rebellion in Los Angeles, which Trump had cited as the reason for the move. Breyer’s ruling takes effect on September 12 – giving the Trump administration the chance to appeal. His June ruling was overturned by the California appeals court.
The White House has vowed to appeal the ruling.
“Once again, a rogue judge is trying to usurp the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to protect American cities from violence and destruction,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Trump has also sent the National Guard personnel to Washington, DC, and vowed to them to Democratic-run cities such as Chicago, Baltimore and New York in the near future.
Alien Enemies Act
Also this week, a federal appeals court blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. The US president in March had used the 1798 law – which has been employed just thrice in American history – to hasten the deportations of alleged members of a Venezuelan drug gang. Trump’s use of the law has been challenged in several US courts by a number of litigants including human rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.
This week, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling held Trump’s use of the act illegal. Judge Leslie Southwick, who wrote the opinion alongside judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, rejected Trump’s claims that , Tren de Aragua – the Venezuelan gang in question – had conducted a “predatory incursion” or “invasion” of the United States.
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” Southwick wrote in her opinion. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces. It is an action that would have been possible when the AEA was written, and the AEA would not have covered it. The AEA does not apply today either.”
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADNeiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel, who has filed a formal complaint against the U.S. government for sending him to El Salvador’s most notorious prison, claiming he was falsely accused of gang membership by US President Donald Trump’s administration. Reuters
“We conclude that the findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred,” Southwick wrote in the majority opinion.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson claimed Trump had the authority to use the Alien Enemies Act and had done so in accordance with the law.
“The authority to conduct national security operations in defence of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the President,” Jackson said.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the ruling “will not be the final say on the matter”. “Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people”, the spokesperson added.
Tariffs
In late August, a US court struck down most of the “reciprocal tariffs” Trump had imposed in April trading partners such as China, Mexico and India. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handed down the decision in a 7-4 ruling, said the Trump administration’s arguments an emergency situation allows him to impose the tariffs are “invalid as contrary to law”.
Under the US Constitution, the president is not allowed to impose tariffs. Instead, that power rests with US congress which also controls the country’s purse. Trump had claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives him latitude to act unilaterally.
The court in its 127-page verdict noted that the IEEPA “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs”.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It pointed out that only Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs. It noted that it is unlikely that when the Congress passed the law in 1977 it planned to “depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs”.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Donald Trump’s claims that an emergency gave him the power to impose tariffs. Reuters
“Whenever Congress intends to delegate to the president the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted. The ruling will take effect from October 14.
Trump had imposed a 10 per cent initial tariff plus a reciprocal tariff on dozens of trading partners in April. Trump has been obsessed with trade deficits during his time in office, accusing countries which run a trade surplus with the US as ‘trying to rip off’ America.
The US president had slammed the verdict on Truth Social.
“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America”, Trump wrote. “Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”
The US President has vowed to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court – which has a 6-3 Republican majority, of whom three justices Trump has personally appointed.
Birthright citizenship
Trump on the campaign trail had vowed to end birthright citizenship – a pillar of the US Constitution. Trump as president had passed an executive order (EO) doing so. However, a number of courts took Trump to task for the EO and put the ruling on hold.
In July, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco in another 2-1 ruling held that Trump’s order was unlawful. It yet again reiterated that the policy was on hold across the nation.
“The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief,” appeals court Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the majority.
“The states would suffer the same irreparable harms under a geographically-limited injunction as they would without an injunction,” Gould wrote.
U. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks to the media after the US Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases. Reuters
A federal judge in New Hampshire also in July in a ruling stopped Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. US District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect.
These decisions gain even more significance as it came after the Supreme Court in June asked the lower courts to take another look at the executive order. However, the court did not rule on the legality of the executive order. It could be years before the Supreme Court takes up the matter.
It must be noted that though Trump has lost in the lower courts, the US Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice John Roberts has seemed amenable to rule in his favour. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the administration looked forward to “being vindicated on appeal.” For now, birthright citizenship remains guaranteed under the US Constitution and Trump is still not a king.
With inputs from agencies