The Trump administration’s ongoing defiance of court rulings was exposed this week, as it faced more legal setbacks in its attempts to shrink the government. Plaintiffs in various cases accused the administration of trying to bypass court orders. A federal judge in California deemed a memo from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management directing the firing of probationary employees unlawful and ordered its rescission. Meanwhile, a judge in Washington, D.C. mandated the release of foreign aid that had been delayed. Plaintiffs in these cases criticized the government for stalling and failing to comply with court mandates. The following is an overview of the recent legal developments:
– Illegal Mass Firings: A federal judge in California ruled that the OPM did not have the authority to order the dismissal of probationary employees from other agencies, calling the actions illegal. While the ruling did not reinstate the terminated employees, it prevented further terminations.
– Delay in Foreign Aid Release: A D.C. federal judge repeatedly ordered the government to comply with an order to unfreeze foreign aid, criticizing their delay tactics. Despite the government’s claims of compliance, the plaintiffs argued that the delays had dire consequences, including deaths and impoverishment.
The government’s efforts to circumvent court orders have raised concerns and led to legal battles over the past week.
Around the globe, critics argue that the recent freeze on refugee admissions by the Trump administration is leading to the loss of numerous American jobs. A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked the executive order, stating that the president’s authority to suspend refugee admissions is not limitless and must adhere to Congress’s guidelines. The judge is expected to issue a written decision soon, amidst concerns that the government may be attempting to circumvent the ruling by terminating refugee assistance contracts. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is also pursuing legal action, claiming that the suspension has hindered their ability to aid refugees under their care. Another federal judge in Maryland has issued a restraining order preventing certain government personnel from accessing sensitive personal information, citing violations of the Privacy Act. Additionally, a judge in D.C. has ordered a DOGE official to provide information about the office’s operations in a separate case involving access to Labor Department data.
A judge was described as “opaque.” ICE was banned from entering some houses of worship in Maryland. This decision came from a federal judge who issued an order that put restrictions on immigration raids at or in close proximity to houses of worship owned by a group of religious organizations. These organizations had filed a lawsuit challenging a new policy that allowed such raids. The previous policy, in place since the early 1990s, had safeguarded “sensitive locations” like churches from immigration enforcement without special approval. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of Maryland’s order only pertains to the religious organizations involved in the lawsuit.
In a separate matter, a federal judge in Washington issued a preliminary injunction on federal funding freeze. This freeze was directed by the Office of Management and Budget and had caused widespread chaos and confusion across the country. Judge Loren AliKhan’s order highlighted the detrimental impact the freeze had on critical programs for children, the elderly, and various other groups. She emphasized the public interest in not allowing trillions of dollars to be arbitrarily frozen. Although the OMB directive was rescinded, the White House’s statement regarding the matter further contributed to the confusion. Judges AliKhan and John J. McConnell of Rhode Island issued restraining orders to prevent the freeze from being reinstated, with the latter yet to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction in that case.
Furthermore, for the second time within a week, a panel of federal appeals court judges ruled against the Justice Department’s attempts to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The government had sought a stay of a lower court’s ruling that blocked the order from being enforced pending an appeal. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied this request in a ruling issued on a Friday. The three-judge panel expressed that the government had not made a ‘strong showing’ that it is ‘likely to succeed on the merits’ of its argument. Trump’s order intended to restrict birthright citizenship to individuals with at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident. Multiple judges have blocked the directive, deeming it a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
