The Trump administration experienced a string of legal defeats related to its policies on immigration, election processes, and its efforts to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. These rulings, delivered by various courts on Wednesday and Thursday, represent just a few among the many legal challenges faced by the administration.
Despite these setbacks, the legal battles continue, with administration lawyers seeking to appeal these decisions in higher courts, including federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is an update on some of the key legal battles stemming from over 170 lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
On Thursday, judges halted the administration’s enforcement of its DEI crackdown in educational institutions, blocking it in at least two separate lawsuits. These rulings came on the eve of a crucial deadline set by the Education Department, which required states to certify that they would not implement “illegal DEI practices.”
In New Hampshire, a federal judge impeded several directives from the Education Department, including a memo prohibiting practices that differentiate based on race. Meanwhile, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., also paused components of the department’s anti-DEI initiatives.
Elections
A federal judge prevented the Trump administration from implementing certain immediate changes to the federal electoral process, such as introducing a proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form. However, the judge did allow other elements of Trump’s executive order on elections, like adhering to stricter mail ballot deadlines, to proceed temporarily.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in favor of voting rights groups and Democrats, emphasizing that the Constitution delegates the regulation of federal elections to states and Congress—not the presidency. She also referenced ongoing legislative efforts by federal lawmakers to mandate citizenship proof for voters.
Immigration
The administration is appealing a ruling that blocks it from deporting individuals from Colorado under an infrequently used 1798 statute. In this appeal, administration attorneys argued before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court that the presiding judge overstepped her jurisdiction and defended the legality of invoking the Alien Enemies Act concerning the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.
In a separate case from Maryland, the Trump administration was directed to arrange the return of a man deported to El Salvador despite having an active asylum application. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher found the government in violation of a prior 2019 settlement when it deported the man, Cristian, whose case had parallels to another individual mistakenly deported.
Additionally, in Texas, unsealed documents revealed that migrants facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act are only given about 12 hours to object to their scheduled deportation to El Salvador. Earlier statements in a related lawsuit indicated that migrants were provided 24 hours to make this decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union contends that this timeframe breaches a U.S. Supreme Court order that allowed the continuation of deportations under the precondition of granting detainees sufficient time to argue against their removal.
Moreover, another federal judge in San Francisco restricted the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from “sanctuary” cities that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement. U.S. Judge William Orrick cited constitutional grounds, recalling 2017, when a similar order from Trump was deemed unconstitutional.
Transgender Rights
The Trump administration reached out to the Supreme Court to enforce its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, pending ongoing litigation. This request followed a federal appeals court’s order maintaining a nationwide blockage of this policy.
One of the initial executive orders signed by Trump during his presidency argued that transgender service members could disrupt military discipline and readiness due to their sexual identity. Consequently, a policy introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aimed to disqualify transgender people from military service.
However, in March, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled in favor of several experienced transgender military members, labeling the ban as both offensive and discriminatory.