Trump’s Judicial Setbacks: Migratory, Electoral, and Anti-Immigration Policies
Trump Governance Faces Legal Challenges on immigration, Elections, adn DEI Policies
Table of Contents
WASHINGTON – Teh Trump administration recently encountered a series of legal setbacks concerning its policies on immigration, elections, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in schools. These judicial defeats occurred Wednesday and Thursday, highlighting ongoing disputes over the administration’s executive actions.
Despite these rulings, the legal battles are far from over. Government lawyers have already filed appeals, urging federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to overturn several of the unfavorable decisions. The administration is contesting over 170 demands filed against Trump’s executive orders.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Federal judges have blocked the government from enforcing its restrictions on DEI programs in education in at least two separate cases. These decisions came before a deadline set by the Department of Education for states to certify they would not engage in what the department termed “illegal practices” related to DEI.
In New Hampshire, a federal judge halted the implementation of several department of Education guidelines. These included a memorandum seeking to end practices that differentiate between individuals based on race and another requiring assurances that schools where not using discriminatory practices. Similar actions halting parts of the department’s efforts were also taken by judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C.
Elections
A federal judge prevented the Trump administration from immediately implementing changes to federal elections,specifically the addition of a citizenship verification requirement to the Federal Voting Registration Form. However, other aspects of the executive order, such as stricter deadlines for mail-in ballots, were allowed to proceed.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the District Court in Washington sided with voting rights groups and Democrats, asserting that the Constitution grants the power to regulate federal elections to states and Congress, not the president. She noted that federal legislators are currently drafting their own bill to mandate proof of citizenship for voting.
Immigration
The Trump administration is appealing a judge’s order that prevents the deportation of individuals from Colorado under a rarely invoked 1798 law.
Government lawyers filed the appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the District Court in Denver lacks jurisdiction and that invoking the law against foreign enemies is valid against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
U.S. National Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Center for Confinement of Terrorism in Tecoluca,El Salvador,wednesday,March 26,2025.
In Maryland, a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate the return of a man deported to El Salvador last month, despite his pending asylum application. Judge stephanie Gallagher of the District Court in Maryland stated that the government violated a 2019 settlement agreement when it deported the 20-year-old Venezuelan man,identified as Cristian in court documents. Gallagher referenced another judge’s order for the government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran who had been living in Maryland and was mistakenly deported on the same day as Cristian.
In a Texas lawsuit, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official’s court document revealed that migrants facing deportation under the foreign enemies law are given approximately 12 hours to decide whether to challenge their deportation to a prison in El Salvador. Previously, government lawyers in Colorado stated that migrants were given 24 hours for this decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues that this timeframe violates a Supreme Court order that allowed deportations to continue but required the government to provide detainees with a “reasonable time” to argue against deportation.
Separately, a federal judge in san Francisco prohibited the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from “sanctuary” cities that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement.
Judge William Orrick stated that the temporary injunction was appropriate as the executive orders are unconstitutional, similar to when Trump announced a comparable order in 2017. Orrick indicated that the government cannot freeze federal funds in San Francisco or other municipalities involved in the lawsuit until the matter is resolved.
Transgender Rights
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the enforcement of a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military while legal challenges to the ban are ongoing. The request to the Supreme Court followed a Federal Court of Appeals order that maintained a lower court’s injunction blocking the policy nationwide.
An executive order issued early in Trump’s second term stated that the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with the commitment of a soldier to bring an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in her personal life” and is detrimental to military readiness. Afterward,Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that effectively disqualifies transgender individuals from military service.
however, in March, Judge Benjamin Settle of the district Court in Tacoma, Washington, ruled in favor of several transgender service members who argued that the ban is discriminatory.
Trump Governance Legal Challenges: A Q&A
What legal challenges did the Trump administration face?
The Trump administration recently encountered a series of legal setbacks concerning its policies on immigration, elections, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI