No previous administration has ever tested the limits of Article II executive power like this.
Through broad legal battles over national firings, emigration crackdowns, resources authority, and attacks on democratic institutions, Trump is aiming to alter the office’s reach for decades— and the courts have been the battleground since the first weeks of his reunion with Washington, D. C.
Legitimate scientists who spoke to the Washington Examiner say the results may permanently change the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, while sparking some of the most significant immigration prosecution in U. S. story.
suing federal authorities
Trump has aggressively targeted federal workers seen as impediments to his mission, from career officials to political officials.
His administration is pursuing a 1935 decision that unanimously declared that presidents lacked the authority to remove the heads of independent agencies arbitrarily. Humphrey’s Executor is a landmark Supreme Court precedent.
” The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s Executor is widely considered to be incorrect”, said Chad Squitieri, a law professor at the Columbus School of Law.  ,
This word, Trump has tested constitutional limits by seeking to eliminate officials from bodies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board, claiming broad political power under Article II. The Supreme Court is currently hearing that request, which is likely to determine the justices ‘ next significant power conflict.
He has also leaned on Cabinet secretaries ‘ discretion and civil service loopholes to oust probationary employees and senior figures like Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden and served at the U. S. Office of Special Counsel until his firing earlier this year.
Dellinger filed a lawsuit against his firing in court, but the case was ultimately lost during his second examination in Washington, D.C., on the federal appeals court, which resulted in the dismissal of his case.
” The Court has, for some years now, taken a series of steps to move away from that mistaken precedent”, Squitieri said. I believe the Supreme Court would overrule the decision if the Supreme Court had the opportunity to formally reconsider Humphrey’s Executor outright.
Legal fights over his removal of lower federal worker positions have played out across the courts.
In a move that gave his administration more assurance that they are on the right side of Chief Justice John Roberts ‘ jurisprudence, the Supreme Court paused a lower court’s order in April that required the reinstatement of 16, 000 federal employees fired from six agencies.
Other appeals courts have issued similar stays on orders protecting probationary workers, with no clear timeline for final arguments.
deporting foreign nationals
Trump’s immigration moves are at the heart of what some experts call the most pivotal era of immigration law since the nation’s founding.
He has cited the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which was historically only used during wartime, to speed up the deportations of alleged gang members, including those in Tren de Aragua and MS-13.
But on May 1, a federal judge in Texas dealt a major blow to that strategy — for now.
No evidence that Tren de Aragua was invading the United States on behalf of the Venezuelan government had been provided, according to Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, who determined that Trump did not meet the requirements under the AEA to justify the widespread removal of Venezuelan migrants.
” The historical record renders clear that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms” , , Rodriguez wrote in his order. He argued that allowing the president to define invasion conditions unilaterally would impose statutory limitations on the executive and weaken the authority of the courts to review such decisions.
The case, brought by three Venezuelan nationals with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged their imminent deportation under the law. Legal experts claim that Rodriguez ‘ decision approved class certification for all potential deportees in the Southern District of Texas, which is unusual in this kind of immigration case.
” You can’t do class actions” , , said Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. There should be individual cases, according to ” Not everyone in that class is exactly the same.”
Arthur added that the ruling was surprising given the historic deference courts have shown to presidential authority during times of invasion or threat, dating back to World War II.
The majority of American press outlets don’t really understand Tren de Aragua, according to Arthur, or they place it in the same category as MS-13, citing the gang’s presence in parts of Colombia, Chile, and Brazil.
Arthur explained that the administration is making the pitch that Tren de Aragua could also attempt to gain further footholds in the United States without these deportation efforts, thus creating an argument that their members ‘ presence is a significant national security threat.
Professor Josh Blackman from South Texas College of Law Houston agreed in part with Arthur’s assertions.
” Traditionally, the Alien Enemies Act was invoked when there was an actual war. Trump is using it in this context as a response to his proclaimed “invasion or incursion.” I don’t think it should make a difference what the basis is”, Blackman said, adding that most importantly, courts lack “authority to scrutinize his actions under the law”.
Legal experts anticipate the administration will file an appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Arthur believes the government might perform better than the Trump-appointed judge in South Texas, despite last week’s setback before the judge-appointed judge in South Texas.
A senior DHS official told the Washington Examiner that Rodriguez’s decision will not stop their immigration agenda, saying,” A single judge cannot stop the will , of , the American people for a safe and secure , homeland”.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani argued that he could “easily see a judge in a different jurisdiction ruling that there is an invasion,” underscoring the chaotic nature of having a single district judge as the judge’s jurisdiction determines the validity of the 18th-century law.
” This is 100 % going to be appealed”, he said.
halting government spending
Trump’s moves to slash government spending have revived sharp legal fights over the president’s power to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated funds.
Money can only be drawn from the Treasury “in consequence of appropriations made by law,” according to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which was passed in response to President Richard Nixon’s refusal to spend funds for programs he opposed.
Trump, however, has treated congressional appropriations as ceilings, not floors — arguing the executive has discretion to spend less than allocated.
Trump’s actions are in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which was intended to forbid presidents from withholding or redirecting funds without the express permission of Congress, according to George Carrillo, CEO of the Hispanic Construction Council.  ,
Trump is testing whether the courts will uphold the ICA’s restrictions by freezing funds for programs like infrastructure or climate initiatives. So far, courts have blocked these actions, but the administration seems intent on provoking a Supreme Court review”, Carrillo said.
preserving liberal institutions
Trump’s legal agenda has also targeted DEI initiatives, higher education policies, and even major law firms he views as hostile to his administration.
His administration has used Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to challenge racial-conscious policies in colleges and universities.
” Not only is the administration on firm legal ground withholding funding, this is exactly what Title VI is for” , , said Shawna Bray, general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity. The end is stated as follows:” You may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
” People want to believe there’s discrimination that should be allowable because they’d like it to be, but it’s simply not supportable under any statute” , , Bray added. Many DEI trainings and initiatives “push concepts that veer off the course of the Civil Rights Act’s intended message,” according to quot;they’re teaching something entirely entirely, and in some cases, they’re effectively training people who break the law.”
The administration’s transgender military ban, blocked by lower courts, has also reached the Supreme Court in the form of a petition to the justices. The administration contends that the ban is necessary to ensure military readiness, while opponents contend that there was no harm after four years of open service under the Biden administration.
Trump’s aggressive targeting of major law firms, many of which have advocated liberal policy positions and clients, also marks a striking new front in his second-term legal battles, as the administration pressures firms seen as politically hostile or unwilling to back its agenda.
The administration has expanded its tools to counteract the legal industry’s influence, using everything from cutting off government contracts to raising security clearance questions. This is a move that critics call retaliatory and supporters say is overdue.
” The president has the right to say which law firms the government will or won’t hire” , , said Raul Gastesi, partner and co-founder at Gastesi Lopez Mestre &, Cobiella. However, I don’t know if he ever gets his security clearances back once you start removing them.
Courts, Congress, and crisis
Liberals are concerned about a so-called” constitutional crisis” because of Trump’s public attacks on judges who vehemently oppose his policies.
On social media, Trump has lambasted them:  ,” These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings” . , He has accused the courts of ignoring the 77 million votes that returned him to office and treating the presidency as if it required 80 million votes to govern.
Trump’s outrage is not entirely unjustifiable, though. No modern president has faced as many nationwide injunctions as he has. Compared to 12 under Barack Obama, 12 under Bill Clinton, 14 under Joe Biden, and just 6 under George W. Bush, courts issued 64 nationwide injunctions against his administration during his first term. Already in his second term, Trump has racked up , 17 more , as of this spring, fueling his argument that the judiciary is overreaching and unfairly targeting his policies at a scale no prior president has experienced.
A bill that would restrict individual federal judges ‘ authority to issue nationwide injunctions was passed in the House in April, but its fate in the Senate is uncertain.
Meanwhile, two federal judges are investigating whether the Trump administration has defied their orders, a possible trigger for contempt proceedings. James Boasberg, a U.S. District Judge, charged the administration with “willful disregard” for his order to stop some deportations under the AEA.
The final Supreme Court argument on May 15 will be one to watch on the issue of Trump’s gripes with nationwide injunctions. Justices will hear a case involving three lower courts that prevented him from attempting to halt his right to birthright citizenship, but the underlying issue will be more closely related to whether the justices have the desire to restrict lower courts ‘ ability to impose policies on the entire court.
What’s at stake for the next 100 days and beyond?
More court decisions will be made as Trump moves forward to the next 100 days and beyond his second term, and the more likely it is that he will see final resolutions in some of his more contentious executive order fights.
Other experts also agreed that these court clashes could force Congress to revisit its broad delegation of powers to the executive branch and reshape the fundamental architecture of governance.
Former prosecutor Rahmani suggested that lawmakers should step in and “do their job”
” Congress can say,’ You don’t have a right to see an immigration judge in these types of cases.’ According to Rahmani, DHS doesn’t have to force things through like a square peg in a round hole.
” If immigration courts are backed up, and you don’t want to give people these rights, then you don’t have to give them”, he added.
TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE POWER STRUGGLES: WHAT’S STALLED AND WHAT’S ADVANCING
Time is also of the essence for Trump. His administration has until the midterm elections of 2026 to pass any of his administration’s agendas that are most likely to face legal scrutiny, or risk having some of his agenda blocked.
As more court challenges pile up, the closer the Supreme Court will get to taking on more challenges over his orders on the merits, and it is likely the fall term will include multiple oral argument hearings over the cases being adjudicated in lower courts now.
