{"id":129262,"date":"2026-01-11T15:15:12","date_gmt":"2026-01-11T15:15:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/129262\/"},"modified":"2026-01-11T15:15:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-11T15:15:12","slug":"trumps-first-year-actions-sparked-a-legal-war-and-rebukes-from-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/129262\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump’s first-year actions sparked a legal war and rebukes from judges"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A few months into President Trump\u2019s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III<\/a> \u2014 a conservative appointee of President Reagan \u2014 issued a scathing opinion denouncing what he found to be the Trump administration\u2019s unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador, despite a previous court order barring it.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,\u201d Wilkinson wrote<\/a>. \u201cThis should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two months later, U.S. District Judge William G. Young<\/a>, also a Reagan appointee, ripped into the Trump administration<\/a> from the bench for its unprecedented decision to terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants<\/a> based on their perceived nexus to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.<\/p>\n

Young ruled the cuts were \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d and therefore illegal. But he also said there was a \u201cdarker aspect\u201d to the case that he had an \u201cunflinching obligation\u201d to call out \u2014 that the administration\u2019s actions amounted to \u201cracial discrimination and discrimination against America\u2019s LGBTQ community.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I\u2019ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,\u201d Young said, explaining a decision the Supreme Court later reversed<\/a>. \u201cHave we fallen so low? Have we no shame?\u201d<\/p>\n

In the year since an aggrieved and combative<\/a> Trump returned to the White House, his administration has strained the American legal system by testing and rejecting laws and other long-standing policies and defending those actions by arguing the president has a broad scope of authority<\/a> under the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

Administration officials and Justice Department attorneys have argued that the executive branch is essentially the president\u2019s to bend to his will<\/a>. They have argued its employees are his to fire, its funds his to spend and its enforcement powers \u2014 to retaliate against his enemies<\/a>, blast alleged drug-runners<\/a> out of international waters or detain anyone agents believe looks, sounds and labors<\/a> like a foreigner \u2014 all but unrestrained.<\/p>\n

The approach has repeatedly been met by frustrated federal judges issuing repudiations of the administration\u2019s actions, but also grave warnings about a broader threat they see to American jurisprudence and democracy.<\/p>\n

When questioning administration attorneys in court, in stern written rulings at the district and appellate levels and in blistering dissents at the Supreme Court \u2014 which has often backed the administration<\/a>, particularly with temporary orders on its emergency docket \u2014 federal judges have used remarkably strong language to call out what they see as a startling disregard for the rule of law.<\/p>\n

Legal critics, including more than a hundred former federal and state judges, have decried Trump\u2019s attacks on individual judges<\/a> and law firms<\/a>, \u201cdeeply inappropriate\u201d nominations<\/a> to the bench, \u201cunlawful\u201d appointments of unconfirmed and inexperienced U.S. attorneys<\/a> and targeting of his political opponents<\/a> for prosecution based on weak allegations of years-old mortgage fraud.<\/p>\n

In response, Trump and his supporters have articulated their own concerns with the legal system, accusing judges of siding with progressive groups to cement a liberal federal agenda despite the nation voting Trump back into office. Trump has labeled judges \u201clunatics\u201d<\/a> and called for at least one\u2019s impeachment, which drew a rare rebuke<\/a> from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.<\/p>\n

After District Judge Brian E. Murphy temporarily blocked the administration from deporting eight men to South Sudan \u2014 a nation to which they had no connection, and which has a record of human rights abuses<\/a> \u2014 Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration\u2019s top litigator, called the order \u201ca lawless act of defiance\u201d<\/a> that ignored a recent Supreme Court ruling.<\/p>\n

After District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation<\/a> into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison<\/a> despite Boasberg having previously ordered the planes turned back to the U.S., government attorneys said it portended a \u201ccircus\u201d that threatened the separation of powers.<\/p>\n

While more measured than the nation\u2019s coarse political rhetoric<\/a>, the legal exchanges have nonetheless been stunning by judicial standards \u2014 a sign of boiling anger among judges, rising indignation among administration officials and a wide gulf between them as to the limits of their respective legal powers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese judges, these Democrat activist judges, are the ones who are 100% at fault,\u201d said Mike Davis, a prominent Republican lawyer and Trump ally<\/a> who advocates for sweeping executive authority. \u201cThey are taking the country to the cliff.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"U.S. <\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison.<\/p>\n

(Valerie Plesch \/ Bloomberg via Getty Images)<\/p>\n

The judges \u201csee \u2014 and have articulated \u2014 an unprecedented threat to democracy,\u201d said UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. \u201cThey really are sounding the alarm.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism from radical left-wing judges,\u201d said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. \u201cIf this trend continues it threatens to undermine the rule-of-law for all future presidencies.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cRegardless of which side you\u2019re on on these issues, the lasting impact is that people mistrust the courts and, quite frankly, do not understand the role that a strong, independent judiciary plays in the rule of law, in our democracy and in our economy,\u201d said John A. Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. \u201cThat is very, very troubling to anybody who looks at this with a shred of objectivity.\u201d<\/p>\n

California in the fight<\/p>\n

Last month, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office\u2019s 50th lawsuit against the Trump administration<\/a> \u2014 an average of about one lawsuit per week since Trump\u2019s inauguration.<\/p>\n

The litigation has challenged a range of Trump administration policies, including his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of many immigrants; his unilateral imposition of stiff tariffs around the world; the administration\u2019s attempt to slash trillions of dollars in federal funding from states, and its deployment of National Guard troops to American cities.<\/p>\n

The battles have produced some of the year\u2019s most eye-popping legal exchanges.<\/p>\n

In June, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled against<\/a> the Trump administration\u2019s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, after days of protest over immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n

An attorney for the administration had argued that federal law gave Trump such authority in instances of domestic \u201crebellion\u201d or when the president is unable to execute the nation\u2019s laws with regular forces, and said the court had no authority to question Trump\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\n

But Breyer wasn\u2019t buying it, ruling Trump\u2019s authority was \u201cof course limited.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI mean, that\u2019s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,\u201d he said from the bench. \u201cThis country was founded in response to a monarchy. And the Constitution is a document of limitations \u2014 frequent limitations \u2014 and enunciation of rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"A <\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled against the Trump administration\u2019s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops to Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

(Santiago Mejia \/ San Francisco Chronicle)<\/p>\n

Francesca Gessner, Bonta\u2019s acting chief deputy, said she took Breyer\u2019s remarks as his way of telling Trump and his administration that \u201cwe don\u2019t have kings in America\u201d \u2014 which she said was \u201creally remarkable to watch\u201d in an American courtroom.<\/p>\n

\u201cI remember just sitting there thinking, wow, he\u2019s right,\u201d Gessner said.<\/p>\n

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently paused Breyer\u2019s order, allowing the troops to remain in Trump\u2019s control.<\/p>\n

In early October, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut barred the deployment<\/a> of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, finding that the conditions on the ground didn\u2019t warrant such militarization. The next day, both Oregon and California asked her to expand that ruling to include California National Guard troops, after the Trump administration sent them to Portland in lieu of Oregon\u2019s troops.<\/p>\n

Before issuing a second restraining order barring deployments of any National Guard troops in Oregon, a frustrated Immergut laid into the Justice Department attorney defending the administration. \u201cYou\u2019re an officer of the court,\u201d she said. \u201cAren\u2019t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland?\u201d<\/p>\n

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration<\/a> in a similar case out of Chicago, finding the administration lacked any legal justification for Guard deployments there. Trump subsequently announced he was pulling troops out<\/a> of Chicago, Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities, with California and other states that had resisted claiming a major victory.<\/p>\n

Bonta said he\u2019s been pleased to see judges pushing back against the president\u2019s power grabs, including by using sharp language that makes their alarm clear.<\/p>\n

\"U.S. <\/p>\n

U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut, shown at her 2018 confirmation hearing, barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.<\/p>\n

(Win McNamee \/ Getty Images)<\/p>\n

\u201cGenerally, courts and judges are tempered and restrained,\u201d Bonta said. \u201cThe statements that you\u2019re seeing from them are carefully chosen to be commensurate with the extreme nature of the moment \u2014 the actions of the Trump administration that are so unlawful.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, and other Trump administration officials defended their actions to The Times, including by citing wins before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Justice Department \u201chas spent the past year righting the wrongs of the previous administration\u201d and \u201cworking tirelessly to successfully advance President Trump\u2019s agenda and keep Americans safe.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sauer said it has won rulings \u201con key priorities of this administration, including stopping nationwide injunctions from lower courts, defending ICE\u2019s ability to carry out law enforcement duties, and removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country,\u201d and that those decisions \u201crespect the role\u201d of the courts, Trump\u2019s \u201cconstitutional authority\u201d and the \u201crule of law.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Imperial executive\u2019 or \u2018imperial judiciary\u2019?<\/p>\n

Just after taking office, Trump said he was ending birthright citizenship. California and others sued, and several lower court judges blocked the order with nationwide or \u201cuniversal\u201d injunctions \u2014 with one calling it \u201cblatantly unconstitutional.\u201d<\/a> <\/p>\n

In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court challenging the ability of district court judges to issue such sweeping injunctions. In June, the high court largely sided with the administration<\/a>, ruling 6 to 3 that many such injunctions likely exceed the lower courts\u2019 authority.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s policy remains on hold based on other litigation. But the case laid bare a stark divide on the high court.<\/p>\n

In her opinion for the conservative majority<\/a>, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that universal injunctions were not used in early English and U.S. history, and that while the president has a \u201cduty to follow the law,\u201d the judiciary \u201cdoes not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Supreme <\/p>\n

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of pursuing a \u201cstartling line of attack\u201d that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the president.<\/p>\n

(Mario Tama \/ Getty Images)<\/p>\n

In a dissent joined by fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that enforcement of Trump\u2019s order against even a single U.S.-born child would be an \u201cassault on our constitutional order,\u201d and that Barrett\u2019s opinion was \u201cnot just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson, in her own dissent,<\/a> wrote that the majority opinion created \u201ca zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law\u2019s protection become subject to the Executive\u2019s whims instead.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a result, the president\u2019s allies will fare well, the \u201cwealthy and the well connected\u201d will be able to hire lawyers and go to court to defend their rights, and the poor will have no such relief, Jackson wrote \u2014 creating a tiered system of justice \u201ceerily echoing history\u2019s horrors.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a footnote, she cited \u201cThe Dual State\u201d by Jewish lawyer and writer Ernst Fraenkel<\/a>, about Adolf Hitler creating a similar system in Germany. <\/p>\n

Barrett accused Jackson of pursuing a \u201cstartling line of attack\u201d that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the executive. \u201cJustice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson questioned why the majority saw a \u201cpower grab\u201d by the courts instead of by \u201ca presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

What\u2019s ahead?<\/p>\n

Legal observers across the political spectrum said they see danger in the tumult.<\/p>\n

\u201cI never have been so afraid, or imagined being so afraid, for the future of democracy as I am right now,\u201d Chemerinsky said.<\/p>\n

He said Trump is \u201ccontinually violating the Constitution and laws\u201d in unprecedented ways to increase his own power and diminish the power of the other branches of government, and neither Republicans in Congress nor Trump\u2019s cabinet are doing anything to stop him.<\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court has also showed great deference to Trump, Chemerinsky said he is hoping it will begin reaffirming legal boundaries for him.<\/p>\n

\u201cIs the court just going to be a rubber stamp for Trump, or, at least in some areas, is it going to be a check?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Davis said Trump has faced \u201cunprecedented, unrelenting lawfare from his Democrat opponents\u201d for years, but now has \u201ca broad electoral mandate to lead\u201d and must be allowed to exercise his powers under Article II of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese Democrat activist judges need to get the hell out of his way, because if they don\u2019t, the federal judiciary is gonna lose its legitimacy,\u201d Davis said. \u201cAnd once it loses its legitimacy, it loses everything.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bonta said the Constitution is being \u201cstress tested,\u201d but he thinks it\u2019s been \u201ca good year for the rule of law\u201d overall, thanks to lower court judges standing up to the administration\u2019s excesses. \u201cThey have courage. They are doing their job.\u201d<\/p>\n

Day, of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump \u201cbelieves he is putting the country on the right path\u201d and wants judges to get out of his way, while many Democrats feel \u201cwe\u2019re going entirely in the wrong direction and that the Supreme Court is against them and bowing to the wishes of the executive.\u201d<\/p>\n

His advice to both, he said, is to keep faith in the nation\u2019s legal system \u2014 which \u201cis not very efficient, but was designed to work in the long run.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A few months into President Trump\u2019s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III \u2014 a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":129263,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[2672,6577,1732,66540,7736,66538,16047,48,52,51,721,47,50,49,1524,52632,3020,2214,1519,1695,66539],"class_list":["post-129262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-los-angeles","tag-administration","tag-authority","tag-bench","tag-constitutional-order","tag-deployment","tag-first-year-action","tag-judge","tag-la","tag-la-headlines","tag-la-news","tag-law","tag-los-angeles","tag-los-angeles-headlines","tag-los-angeles-news","tag-nation","tag-national-guard-troop","tag-president-trump","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump","tag-trump-administration","tag-unprecedented-decision"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129262\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}