Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration

News

Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Justice Department March 14, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

How many legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration since January 2025?


Since January 2025, over 186 legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration. These lawsuits challenge various executive orders and actions, including immigration policies and the use of the Alien Enemies Act. For example, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell alone has filed 11 lawsuits targeting issues like birthright citizenship and federal worker firings.

What is an amicus brief and how many have been filed against the Trump administration so far?

An amicus brief, or "amicus curiae" (Latin for "friend of the court"), is a legal document filed in appellate courts by individuals or entities who are not directly involved in a case but who have a vested interest in its outcome. These briefs provide additional information, arguments, or perspectives to assist the court in making its decision.

As for the Trump administration, numerous amicus briefs have been filed against its actions, particularly challenging executive orders and policies. For example, a coalition of 20 state attorneys general recently filed amicus briefs opposing executive orders that target law firms that represented clients or causes disfavored by the Trump administration. Additionally, hundreds of law professors submitted an amicus brief against the administration's actions on Big Law. The exact total number of amicus briefs filed against the Trump administration is difficult to pinpoint but they have been a significant tool in legal challenges throughout its tenure.

Are the 186 actions taken against the administration extremely high compared to former Presidents in the first 100 days?

The 186 legal actions against the Trump administration in its first 100 days are notably high compared to previous presidents. For example, during President Biden's first 100 days, there were fewer than 50 lawsuits filed against his administration. Similarly, President Obama faced around 30 legal challenges in the same timeframe. This surge in litigation reflects the contentious nature of Trump's policies and executive orders.

How many of the 186 legal actions have been adjudicated and how many are in favor of the Trump administration and how many are against it?

Out of the 186 legal actions filed against the Trump administration since January 2025, four cases have been adjudicated so far. The outcomes have been mixed, with two rulings favoring the administration and two rulings against it. The remaining cases are either ongoing or awaiting decisions.

How many Supreme Court rulings have gone for and against the Trump administration in 2025?

In 2025, the Supreme Court issued several rulings involving the Trump administration.

  • Deportations under the Alien Enemies Act: The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals. The court ordered the administration to pause deportations and ensure due process for those affected.
  • A Mistaken Deportation Case: The court required the administration to "facilitate" the return of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. While the administration argued it couldn't be compelled to bring him back, the court upheld the lower court's directive to ensure his case was handled properly.
  • Teacher Training Grants: The court sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to halt millions of dollars in teacher training grants.
  • Federal Workers' Reinstatement: The court supported the administration by blocking the reinstatement of 16,000 fired federal workers.

Are there any estimates at this point as to how many current cases will go to the Supreme Court and if so when?

Several additional legal challenges against the Trump administration are expected to reach the Supreme Court. For instance, the court has already agreed to hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding restrictions on birthright citizenship. Additionally, emergency applications related to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have been filed and the Supreme Court has issued temporary rulings in some cases.

The timeline for other cases depends on how quickly lower courts resolve them and whether the Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari.

What happens if the President defies a ruling of the Supreme Court?

If a president defies a Supreme Court ruling, it can trigger a constitutional crisis. The judiciary relies on the executive branch to enforce its rulings, as the courts themselves lack enforcement power. In the event of defiance, several outcomes could unfold:

  • Political Pushback: Congress or other political bodies may intervene, potentially through impeachment proceedings if the defiance is deemed an abuse of power.
  • Public Opinion: Pressure from the public and media can influence the administration to comply, as ignoring the judiciary undermines the rule of law.
  • Legal Challenges: Individuals, states, or organizations affected by the defiance can file lawsuits to compel compliance or address the consequences.

Such a scenario has historical precedents, such as President Andrew Jackson's famous defiance of a Supreme Court ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia. While rare, defiance poses risks to the balance of power and the integrity of democratic governance.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

Day of Endangered Lawyer
woman in gold dress holding sword figurine

Day of Endangered Lawyer

Each year in January a variety of international organizations of lawyers including several Bar Associations and Law Societies commemorate the International Day of the Endangered Lawyer. The recognition began in 2009, dedicated to the memory of five lawyers murdered in the 1977 Atocha massacre in Madrid. The day marks the observance that, around the world (usually in tyrannical regimes), lawyers face threats, intimidation, and retaliation for carrying out their legitimate professional responsibilities of defending human rights and liberties while upholding the rule of law. Historically, the recognitions have focused on, for example, Belarus 2025; Iran 2024; Afghanistan 2023; Colombia 2022; Azerbaijan 2021; Pakistan 2020; Turkey 2019; Egypt 2028; China 2017, and so on. Traditionally, the focus has been on countries; we in the common law system might have considered them less developed than, say, the UK, US, Canada, and Australia.

This year is different. This year, the international organizations chose to focus on the United States of America as the place where lawyers and the rule of law are under severe threat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Bamilia Delcine Olistin restocks product at Bon Samaritain Grocery, a Haitian-owned grocery, on February 3, 2026 in Springfield, Ohio. A federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration's attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, but Haitian TPS beneficiaries and residents of Springfield continue to face uncertainty over their protected status.

Getty Images, Jon Cherry

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Warrantless Surveillance

Almost 3 weeks ago, House Republicans appeared to be spitting mad because the Senate had had the temerity to pass a DHS funding agreement overnight by unanimous consent and then recess. The Senate did that because it was the best deal that could get passed. (The House still hasn’t acted on that Senate DHS funding bill.)

But last night, around 2 am, the House passed a 10 day extension of existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 authorities by unanimous consent and then recessed until Monday. Apparently, it’s fine when the House does it. Why did the House do this? Because it was the best deal that could get passed.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, sitting behind a desk, appearing for a hearing.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FLA) appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill on March 26, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Faces Expulsion Over Pocketing Overpayment

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL20) has been charged by the federal government with “stealing federal disaster funds, laundering the proceeds, and using the money to support her 2021 congressional campaign.” The House Ethics Committee additionally is investigating her for incorrectly filing financial disclosures, accepting voluntary services for work that should have been paid, and of using her position to direct community project funding requests.

It all started with two extra zeros. Cherfilus-McCormick’s family business Trinity Health Care billed the state of Florida for $50,578.50 but mistakenly received $5,057,850.00. Rather than return the overpayment, she and other family members seem to have used most of that overpayment to fund her election campaign. She is also accused of setting up straw donor systems and filing false 2021 tax returns.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women gathered in circle.

Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.

Patty Tang

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process

Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.

In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.

Keep ReadingShow less