Trump’s administration hit more than 100 demands from the inauguration

While Donald Trump seeks to remodel the federal government at dizzying speed, his administration has encountered an avalanche of litigation that challenges the legality of his first actions in office.

With more than 100 federal demands presented from the inauguration, Trump and its administration have been sued three times for each business day that the Oval Office has occupied.

Approximately 30 of the 100 demands are related to Trump’s immigration policies, while more than 20 of cases directly challenge the actions of the Elon Musk government efficiency department. Ten of cases challenge Trump policies related to transgender people, and more than 20 cases oppose the unilateral changes of the president to federal financing, government hiring and the structure of agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development and the Office of Financial Financial Protection of the Consumer.

With Trump signing more than 75 executive orders since he assumed the position, the avalanche of unprecedented litigation has yielded mixed results in blocking the unilateral efforts of the president to remodel the federal government. Their attempts to freeze funds or rewrite long -standing laws have generally been blocked, but some federal judges have implicitly gave the green light to carry out part of their plan to remodel the federal workforce.

The American district judge John Couchnour, who was nominated for the bank by Ronald Reagan, gave the Trump administration one of his first legal defeats by blocking Trump’s executive order on the citizenship of birth rights and offered one of the most fierce criticisms of the first actions of his presidency.

“It has become increasingly evident than for our president, the rule of law is nothing more than an impediment to his policy objectives,” said Judge Couchnour. “There are times in the history of the world when people look back and ask: ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges? At the moment, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon darkened today.”

But other judges have stopped completely blocking policies that believe they could be illegal, demonstrating how a judicial power that moves slower can be overcome by a quickly moving administration. In a case that challenges the effort of the Trump administration to fire thousands of evidence, US district judge William Alsup rebuked the actions of the administration, but did not intervene to stop the indiscriminate dismissal of employees, despite recognizing their continuous damage.

“That is not correct in our country, that we direct our agencies with lies like that and we stain someone’s registration for the rest of his life? Who will want to work in a government that would do that to them? Testing employees are the soul of our government,” he said.

The number of lawsuits seems to have tried the boundaries of the Court’s capacity to listen to emergency applications, particularly in the DC District Court, where 51 of cases have been submitted. During a contentious hearing, the United States District Judge, Ana Reyes, threatened to sanction a lawyer who pressed the court to accept an emergency appeal while the court personnel had been “working throughout the day in affairs sensitive to really monumental time,” Reyes said.

“Why did you not have discovered that with the defendants before coming and charging and charging the defendants and burn my staff on this subject?” Reyes told Seth Waxman, a former attorney general from the United States under President Bill Clinton, who now represents eight former general inspectors fired by Trump.

The demands that challenge the Trump administration have reached the Supreme Court twice, and the Department of Justice has begun their appeals to the circuit court in approximately a dozen cases.

While no judge has found that the President has openly challenged an court order, the Trump administration has been found in hot water for not complying with multiple judicial orders, including orders to stop unilaterally freezing funds to the states and retain more than $ 1.9 billion in foreign aid.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied the application of the Trump administration to block that payment, marking the first time during this administration that the Supreme Court ruled against the president who nominated three of the nine judges of the Court. In a dissident opinion, Judge Samuel Alito commented that he was “stunned” by the decision.

“A judge of the District court who probably lacks jurisdiction has power without control to force the United States government to pay (and probably losing forever) 2 billion dollars of taxpayers? The answer to that question should be an” not “emphatic, but most of this court apparently thinks otherwise,” said Alito.

Alito’s criticism occurs when Trump’s allies, including vice president JD Vance and Elon Musk, have criticized the power of the Judiciary to delay part of the administration’s agenda. Vance publicly suggested to challenge a court order, and Musk is increasingly asking the judges to block the administration to be accused.

“The only way to restore people’s rule in the United States is to accuse the judges. No one is above the law, including judges, ”Musk said in a recent publication about X.

Although the first two months of the Trump administration have produced a torrent of demands, it is expected that the cases themselves will take months and potentially years to play as the courts weigh the limits of Trump’s authority.