WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has recently faced a series of legal setbacks in its representation of President Donald Trump’s policies, reflecting various judicial rulings that have disrupted the administration’s strategy.
In a swift series of court decisions, different judges have halted a White House initiative aimed at adding a citizenship proof requirement to the federal voter registration form, deemed the government’s deportation of an individual to El Salvador a violation of an existing settlement, and prevented threats to withhold federal funding from public schools participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. These events underscore the challenges the administration faces in its legal battles.
Moreover, confrontations in court also involved judges questioning Justice Department lawyers about the legality of Trump’s executive orders, which target large law firms. A significant blunder occurred when a department lawyer inadvertently submitted an internal memo in court, criticizing the administration’s strategy against a congestion toll in Manhattan—a move criticized by the Transportation Department as “legal malpractice.”
The tumult within the Trump administration’s legal efforts is evident as judges, irrespective of their philosophical standings, resist policies such as curbing illegal immigration and reducing federal control. At times, Justice Department lawyers have struggled to provide clear rationales for their policies, often failing to address judges’ inquiries about the implementation. This confusion has resulted in the termination of a government lawyer vocal about the administration’s vague guidelines.
The situation has been exacerbated by a departure of seasoned career lawyers, who have traditionally represented the federal government. The Justice Department has recently hired individuals for political rather than career positions, often lacking substantial federal experience. This shift has hindered the presentation of coherent arguments in court, with newcomers often struggling to defend the administration’s positions.
Notably, some Trump allies have attributed these legal failures to what they describe as “activist” judges impeding the administration’s aims. Suggestions to impeach judges have emerged, reflecting concerns over the judiciary’s role in obstructing policy implementations. However, even judges with conservative backgrounds have voiced skepticism over some government actions, challenging the administration’s narrative.
Despite these hurdles, some legal battles have swayed in the administration’s favor. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has ruled in favor of Trump in several instances, including dismissing a lower court’s block on deportations under an 18th-century law and allowing the administration to withdraw funding for teacher training.
The challenges faced by Justice Department officials came to light during recent court sessions when Richard Lawson, a new deputy associate attorney general, faltered in providing essential details concerning executive orders against a law firm facing sanctions. This situation illustrated a lack of comprehensive knowledge among the department’s recent hires, which has implications for the administration’s litigation success.
The legal difficulties were further highlighted by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell’s pointed questions toward Lawson regarding the specifics of the sanctions, to which he failed to provide satisfactory answers. This type of scenario illustrates the broader issue of underprepared Justice Department lawyers struggling to defend consequential policies.
Judges have consistently pressured Justice Department representatives to furnish credible explanations for key policy decisions, an obligation they have sometimes failed to fulfill effectively. This critique comes amid observations that the Trump administration may be dispatching its legal defenders ill-equipped with the necessary information and directives.
Stuart Gerson, a former leader of the Justice Department’s civil division, noted how the administration’s legal representatives often appear under-informed, suggesting a disconnect between the preparatory stages of legal action and courtroom performances. He expressed sympathy for those lawyers thrust into challenging scenarios made more complex by inadequate briefing.