This week, President Trump experienced a surprising legal setback that could impact his plans moving forward.
Despite considering an appeal for a seemingly inevitable verdict, this ruling could complicate his broader asset acquisition strategies.
On Tuesday, the court addressed two significant Trump policies, declaring the earlier deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles illegal and blocking the use of alien enemy laws to remove Venezuelan immigrants.
Additionally, the appeals court ruled against Trump’s attempt to dismiss Rebecca Kelly from her position as a federal trade commissioner. Prior decisions had already mandated that her case be reinstated, and the court denied the administration’s request to delay that ruling.
The following day, another court rejected the administration’s attempt to restrict Harvard from accessing more than $2 billion in research funds, a continuation of the long-standing conflict between Trump and the prestigious university.
In response, the president has initiated measures to overturn unfavorable rulings from the previous week.
Last Friday, a U.S. Court of Appeals determined it lacked authority, under a 1977 law, to enforce many of Trump’s key responsibilities. Following that, Trump took to social media to criticize the “radical judges” who ruled 7-4 against him.
The administration’s lawyers are now pushing the Supreme Court to quickly overturn this decision. Attorney General John Saurer has indicated they plan to file a lawsuit and hopes for oral arguments to occur in early November.
Given that Trump appointed three justices during his first term, the Supreme Court currently leans conservative with a 6-3 majority. The court has previously shown a willingness to support Trump against various judicial restrictions.
This situation has raised concerns, particularly regarding the use of “shadow dockets,” where decisions can be made with little explanation, which has drawn criticism from some observers.
Alice Bannon from the Brennan Judicial Center noted that the administration’s reliance on “shadow dockets” has surged, with numerous emergency actions taken in just the initial weeks of Trump’s second term.
Moreover, the decisions favoring Trump from the conservative majority have prompted notable distress among liberal justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has called out recent rulings as a potential “existential threat to the rule of law.”
The recent court challenges pose significant complications for Trump. Some decisions, like the one involving Harvard, limit his negotiating power, while others undermine his aims on sensitive topics like immigration and crime.
An example is the administration’s argument for using alien enemy laws to deport Venezuelan individuals.
The law from 1798 permits the removal of “alien enemies” during times of war or if the country is under threat from foreign entities.
The administration contends that the actions of gang members constitute such a threat. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, “We can’t find invasions or predatory invasions,” which invalidated their claims.
Regarding the National Guard, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer noted that Los Angeles broke long-standing laws that typically prevent military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
Judicial actions like this carry notable political repercussions, particularly as Trump discusses deploying federal forces elsewhere.
Trump has historically found himself at odds with the judiciary, often labeling judges as too liberal or biased when rulings don’t go his way. Supporters have rallied around him, claiming these unfavorable decisions represent a “judicial coup.”
Yet, amidst these challenges, the appeals court ruled that a controversial detention center in Florida, referred to as the “Wannial Catraz,” will remain operational for now.
This comes as Trump continues to face political opposition while striving to assert his influence against media critics, law firms, and personal adversaries.
So far, the courts have proven resistant to his ambitions.
