U.S. appeals courts are currently reversing or upholding decisions that block former President Donald Trump’s policies at a significantly higher rate than during President Joe Biden’s administration. This difference is pointed out as evidence of Trump’s impressive performance in appellate courts.
Chad Mizell, a former senior official at the Justice Department, emphasized this contrast. He noted that district court rulings against the Trump administration—temporary measures as well—were reversed or upheld on appeal far more often than similar actions during Biden’s time in office. “In the four years of the Biden administration, nine district court decisions against the administration were overturned on appeal,” Mizell mentioned, making it around 2.25 cases yearly.
When comparing this with the first year of Trump’s presidency in 2025, Mizell pointed out, “Thirty-two district judges made 133 decisions against the Trump administration that were either stayed or overturned on appeal.” Essentially, district court judges are now rejecting decisions on appeal more than 50 times compared to their decisions under Biden.
As this unfolds, senior officials from the Trump administration have criticized the judges blocking the president’s major policy initiatives, labeling them as “activist judges” who are overstepping their authority and encroaching on executive power.
While it is true that Trump’s victories in appeals courts exceed those of his predecessors, this scenario only partially illustrates the legal landscape of his second term. Trump’s appeals court success rates are high, but they also arise in response to an unprecedented number of executive orders and policies.
During his early days in office, Trump issued numerous executive orders aimed at implementing key policies, like reducing government spending and tightening immigration rules, which triggered a surge of lawsuits aimed at halting or suspending these policies. This led to intense legal battles over the extent of Trump’s power under Article II, as courts assess when they should intervene.
Many initial lawsuits requested temporary restraining orders or universal injunctions to pause the administration’s actions, giving courts more time to evaluate the legal merits. Others were focused on achieving long-term relief with preliminary injunctions, where plaintiffs needed to meet a stricter legal threshold.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court limited the authority of district court judges to grant universal injunctions that could block presidential policies on a nationwide scale, with a 6-3 decision allowing such injunctions only in specific circumstances.
According to Just Security, there are currently 597 lawsuits targeting various actions of the Trump administration. Most cases are not fully resolved at lower courts; rather, interim rulings are often appealed by the administration to higher courts for urgent assistance, typically through emergency stays.
The Trump administration has achieved a remarkable number of Supreme Court victories this past year, predominantly via emergency or “shadow docket” challenges. These allow the administration to seek immediate court intervention from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.
Mizell highlighted Trump’s “win rate” at the Supreme Court to be around 90%. These decisions aren’t permanent, but the so-called “Shadow Docket” has enabled the administration to proceed with various policies, including a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and cuts to millions in Education Department funding.
At a recent cabinet meeting, Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed Mizell’s points, stating the administration had faced 575 lawsuits, more than any administration since Reagan’s. She remarked on Trump’s Supreme Court success, claiming a 92% rate of wins for him.
