President Donald Trump v. Federal Courts

Presidents Day 2026, one full year into Donald Trump’s second term, is an occasion to measure his relentless push to test the boundaries of his power and the responding effort by federal judges to keep the nation’s constitutional guardrails in place.

Last year, there were an unprecedented 160 judicial rulings declaring Trump administration actions illegal or unconstitutional, a trend accelerating in 2026. Last year’s rulings were handed down by 109 different federal judges. These judges, lifetime appointees, were put on the bench by seven different presidents and include 15 judges who were appointed by Trump, according to Senate testimony last month by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor and federal courts scholar.

The cases include challenges to the cutoff of federal funding, the firing of federal workers and efforts to have the National Guard police cities run by Democratic governors. The majority of the judicial rebukes, though, stem from the Department of Homeland Security’s aggressive effort to meet its deportation quotas. The latest was Thursday when U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel found that DHS “failed to plan for the constitutional rights of its civil detainees” in a Minneapolis detention facility. Most significantly, Brasel, who was appointed by Trump, said detainees there had to have time to engage a lawyer to represent them.

Also last week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston, who sits in West Virginia, wrote forcefully about the implications of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s denial of due process rights to a Venezuelan man stopped because of temporary license plates on his car who was held for weeks “without explanation, without a hearing, without notice, or without any means of challenging that detention.” The judge, appointed by George W. Bush, noted that Danny Solano had entered the country illegally but has a valid work permit while his asylum claim is being processed. Johnston wrote:

A threat to anyone’s constitutional rights is a threat to us all. Today, immigrants are being detained without due process. Tomorrow, under the Government’s interpretation of the law, American citizens could be subject to the same treatment. This Court will not allow such an unraveling of the Constitution.

-- Judge Johnston

The most revelatory look at the role of the judiciary in the deportation effort came from U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge in Minnesota, who last month criticized the administration for defying 96 court rulings all ordering the release of detainees until the legality of their status can determined.

“This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law,” he wrote. Schiltz, also appointed by Bush, clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and was a mentor at Notre Dame Law School to current Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

COURT CHAOS

The high profile Minnesota surge caused deaths and chaos in the streets, and the Trump administration is struggling to defend some of its approximately 4,000 arrests since Dec. 1. In the first five weeks of 2026, more than 500 habeas corpus petitions were filed demanding the release of a detainee. The Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office, already decimated by the resignations of career prosecutors, is overwhelmed and is often unable to get the Department of Homeland Security to comply with release orders.

Federal courts around the nation are experiencing the same deluge of cases, as judges try to ensure that DHS complies with legal requirements while removing those here unlawfully. Politico reports that 373 federal judges have ruled against ICE’s mass detention policy and 28 in favor. More than 19,000 habeas corpus petitions have been filed nationwide since the start of the immigration crackdown — and that represents only a small percentage of those who have been detained by ICE. These court challenges demanding that due process requirements be met offer a wide-lens view of the difficulty the administration is having executing its mass deportation plans.

ATTACKING THE JUDGES

The administration’s response to adverse rulings is not to criticize the substance or legal merits of the court orders but to harshly attack the judges making them. Refusing to recognize the judiciary as an equal branch of government is dangerous. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is the most frequent offender, denouncing rulings as “judicial insurrection” or a “judicial coup.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration is “at war” with the courts. Sen. Ted Cruz, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, last month called for the impeachment of judges who rule against the administration.

There were 564 threats against federal judges in 2025, according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Our national dialogue has become so toxic that on Thursday, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued new ethics guidance for judges saying that they may advocate for greater security and can defend colleagues from “illegitimate” attacks.

Intense, bitter disagreement with court rulings, especially those of the Supreme Court, has occurred throughout the nation’s 250-year history on every contentious social issue — slavery, abortion, economic regulation, and who won the presidency in 2000. Public outcry is a mark of a healthy political culture and a way for judges to get what Chief Justice John Roberts called “informed criticism.”

A democracy can survive unpopular judicial decisions. It cannot survive a steady corrosive campaign that our constitutional referees are the enemy of the people.