Multiple Lawsuits Hold Up The Trump Admin
Alright, folks, let’s talk about something that’s unfolding right before our eyes—a legal battle that, in a surprising twist, could actually work in favor of Donald Trump’s long-term agenda. That’s right, the wave of lawsuits attempting to block Trump’s early executive actions might just be setting him up for a huge win in reshaping executive power for generations to come.
Here’s what’s happening. Since returning to office, Trump has issued a series of executive orders aimed at reining in bureaucratic overreach, cutting certain funding programs, and taking back control of federal agencies. Predictably, activist judges have swooped in with temporary injunctions, blocking some of these moves. A federal judge in Maryland, for example, just halted Trump’s plan to restrict federal funds from going to hospitals that offer child sex-change procedures. Another judge in D.C. blocked him from cutting foreign aid contracts issued before he took office. And yet another put a freeze on his broader funding restrictions—though with a small caveat allowing some cuts to continue.
Now, for most presidents, this would be frustrating. But Trump? He’s playing a different game. Legal experts are pointing out that these rulings are actually giving him exactly what he wants: a direct path to the Supreme Court to challenge and potentially overturn long-standing precedents that have limited presidential authority.
It's a media hoax that President Trump is causing a “constitutional crisis.”
The real crisis is taking place within our judiciary, where activist judges are abusing their power to unilaterally block the President's basic executive authority and thwart the will of the people. pic.twitter.com/YnaL4EmSoV
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) February 13, 2025
GianCarlo Canaparo of The Heritage Foundation put it bluntly: these judges may think they’re tripping up Trump, but they’re actually giving him the legal cases he needs to reshape executive power. If some of these cases reach the Supreme Court—and it looks like they will—it could mean the end of nationwide injunctions, a rollback of judicial overreach, and a dramatic shift in how much authority the president has over executive agencies.
This is especially important because Trump isn’t just fighting over policy—he’s aiming for something bigger. His administration is already signaling that they want to challenge a nearly 100-year-old Supreme Court precedent that limits a president’s ability to fire agency officials. The argument? That the president, as the sole head of the executive branch, should have the power to remove any unelected bureaucrat who isn’t carrying out his vision. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris made it clear that the Department of Justice will push for the complete reversal of that precedent. If they succeed, it would give Trump—and any future president—far more direct control over the sprawling federal bureaucracy.
And let’s not forget the ultimate legal battle: Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship. With four federal judges already blocking it, this case is almost guaranteed to land before the Supreme Court. And if Trump’s legal team has their way, they’ll use it as a vehicle to reinforce the idea that the president has sole authority over immigration policy.
Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen pointed out something fascinating about all of this. In her view, Trump’s legal team knew these lawsuits were coming. They knew the courts would try to block his actions. And they planned for it. This isn’t just chaos—it’s a deliberate strategy to push cases up the judicial ladder until they land before a Supreme Court that now leans heavily in Trump’s favor.
So, what does all this mean? It means we’re watching a major constitutional showdown unfold in real time. If Trump and his legal team succeed, they won’t just win these individual cases—they could fundamentally change the balance of power between the presidency and the courts. And if that happens, future presidents will have far fewer obstacles standing in their way when it comes to enacting policy.