“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.

Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”*

— JD Vance, US Vice President, via X

President Donald Trump’s aggressive use of executive power since returning to office in January has sparked an escalating conflict with federal courts, raising concerns about a potential constitutional crisis. While many of Trump’s executive orders fall within traditional presidential authority, federal judges have blocked several major initiatives, including those related to his efforts to end birthright citizenship and restructure federal agencies. The administration’s suggestion that it might not comply with certain court orders has brought the country’s system of checks and balances under unprecedented strain. This explainer examines the key legal battles, the administration’s response to judicial oversight, and the implications for American democracy.

What are some of the obstacles Trump has faced in federal court since returning to the White House? 

On Day One of his second term as president, Trump issued dozens of executive orders and actions. Some of those — particularly those that fell beyond the clear scope of executive powers — attracted swift legal action. The following federal orders provide several examples of judges having recently endeavored to temper the White House’s reach pending further judicial review.

• On January 31, 2025, John J. McConnell, Jr., Chief Judge of the US District Court for Rhode Island, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funds. The case was brought by the attorneys general of 22 states, who argued the freeze violated the Constitution and federal law. Holding that “the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims,” the judge rejected the administration’s claim that the issue was moot, citing continued implementation of the policy.
• On February 7, Judge Carl J. Nichols of the US District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the Trump administration from placing USAID employees on administrative leave or forcing rapid evacuations from foreign posts. The ruling came in response to abrupt efforts by the White House to dismantle the aid organization. The judge found these actions could cause irreparable harm but declined to block a funding freeze.
• On February 8, US District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Treasury Department from giving political appointees and special government employees access to payment systems and sensitive data. This order followed from Trump’s creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, which has gained unprecedented access to private information stored in various US Government databases. Responding to a complaint filed by the attorneys general of 19 states, Engelmayer barred anyone except properly cleared civil servants from accessing Treasury payment systems and sensitive data, blockd political appointees and special employees from such access, and required anyone who accessed this data since January 20, 2025 — the day Trump returned to the White House — to destroy their copies.
• As of February 10, 2025, federal judges in New Hampshire, Washington, and Maryland had blocked an executive order attempting to ban birthright citizenship.

Note: This list is meant to provide examples, and is thus not comprehensive; for a more detailed overview of pending cases, see Just Security’s Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions.

What does US law say about executive-judicial checks and balances?

The current standoff between executive authority and judicial review strikes at the heart of America’s constitutional framework, a system carefully designed by the nation’s founders to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. This principle of checks and balances was enshrined in the Constitution following the framers’ deep concerns about concentrated power, shaped by their experience with monarchical rule.

Executive orders, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, have been a tool of presidential power since George Washington’s administration. These directives allow presidents to manage federal operations and implement statutory or constitutional powers. However, their scope isn’t unlimited. The landmark 1952 Supreme Court decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established crucial boundaries when the Court blocked President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills during the Korean War. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black emphasized that the president’s power to issue such orders must stem either from the Constitution or from Congress.

Throughout history, tensions between the executive and judiciary have flared during national emergencies. President Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, a move initially rejected by Chief Justice Roger Taney. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme in 1937, though unsuccessful, represented another dramatic challenge to judicial authority. More recently, presidents from both parties have tested the limits of executive power, particularly in areas of immigration, environmental regulation, and national security.

The role of federal courts in reviewing executive actions was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which cemented the judiciary’s power of constitutional review. This authority to check executive overreach has remained a cornerstone of American democracy, though its effectiveness relies largely on the executive branch’s willing compliance with court orders.

What is the current state of executive-judicial checks and balances?

The White House has responded defensively to this spate of federal rulings. In an X post on February 9, Vice President JD Vance wrote:

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.

It was unclear which ruling he was referring to specifically.

The same day, in an interview with Fox News, Trump said of Engelmayer’s DOGE ruling:

I disagree with it 100%. I think it’s crazy. And we have to solve the efficiency problem. We have to solve the fraud, waste, abuse … under the government.

But two days later said:

I always abide by the courts. … I’ll have to appeal.

But alongside signaling a reluctant willingness to comply, Trump also indicated plans to scrutinize the judges who have gotten in the way of his reform attempts. “Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth, much more than that, in just a short period of time. We want to weed out the corruption. It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that,’ so, maybe we have to look at the judges,. … I think it’s a very serious violation,” Trump said, as quoted in The New Republic.

So on one hand, Trump says he always complies with the courts; on the other, he is threatening to investigate judges endeavoring to impose constitutional checks on his executive powers. Meanwhile Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer, appears to be laying the groundwork for a constitutional challenge.

Ultimateley, words are one thing and actions another. And while it remains to be seen whether the White House will comply, investigate, or attempt to reinterpret the Constitution, it bears noting that on February 10, Judge McConnell of Rhode Island found the Trump administration had violated the January 31 restraining order pausing the federal funding freeze, and ordered immediate compliance

What comes next?

Traditionally, courts have relied on good faith compliance and established norms rather than strict enforcement mechanisms when imposing orders against sitting officials. If these break down, the main constitutional remedy would lie with Congress, which could theoretically act to limit presidential authority through new legislation. However, with Republicans controlling both chambers of the US legislature, such congressional intervention appears unlikely.

For a recent article, NPR spoke with several law professors about the federal courts’ theoretical enforcement mechanisms, but all face significant practical limitations. While judges can impose fines, issue contempt orders, or even theoretically mandate jail time, these tools may prove ineffective in practice. The key challenge is that enforcement ultimately relies on the US Marshals Service, which falls under the Department of Justice — part of the executive branch itself.

When it comes to the rule of law, the US is in uncharted territory. In other words, what happens next is anyone’s guess.