WASHINGTON – Recent criticisms from federal judges across the country have highlighted concerns about the Trump administration’s explanations for its efforts to reshape the federal government. Judges overseeing legal challenges to these efforts are not just evaluating their constitutionality, but also scrutinizing the administration’s handling of the facts. This could be significant if any cases reach the Supreme Court, as seen in past rulings that blocked certain actions due to lack of transparency. Here’s a summary of recent events:
Judge William Alsup in San Francisco issued a significant setback to the administration’s attempts to downsize the federal workforce. Alsup, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, ordered six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary workers who were terminated. He criticized the Justice Department for lack of transparency and misleading explanations.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Maryland also expressed doubts about the government’s claims regarding the review process for terminated employees. The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, questioned the government’s assertion of individual assessments.
The White House pushed back against Alsup’s ruling, accusing him of overstepping his authority. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the judge’s decision, suggesting he was trying to usurp executive powers.
In a separate hearing in Washington, D.C., Justice Department attorneys defended the ban on transgender troops in the military, using what some critics described as “cherry-picked” data. The courts were urged to defer to military judgment on the matter.
These developments underscore the ongoing legal battles surrounding the administration’s policies and the role of the judiciary in scrutinizing government actions.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, questioned the evidence presented in a case regarding transgender individuals in the military. She criticized the misrepresentation of data from a military report, pointing out that cherry-picking information without providing a comparison to overall deployment rates was misleading. The judge also expressed skepticism towards the Defense Department’s argument that the study showing 40% of transgender servicemembers as non-deployable was significant without proper context.
Jason Manion, a Justice Department attorney, argued that judges should defer to the professional judgment of military leaders and not reassess evidence. However, Judge Reyes emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors before making a decision.
In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, also appointed by President Biden, determined that the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid lacked a rational basis. Ali criticized the administration for suspending funding without sufficient explanation, causing disruption and uncertainty for businesses and organizations reliant on humanitarian assistance.
Although the administration claimed that some programs were exempt from the freeze, Judge Ali found that these waivers did not provide meaningful relief. He ordered the administration to pay for completed aid work but did not require the restart of canceled contracts, acknowledging the State Department’s discretion in allocating funds.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the permanent end of 83% of programs previously managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, describing it as a significant reform. These legal challenges are ongoing, providing opportunities for the administration to defend its policies in court, potentially reaching the Supreme Court for further review.
During the proceedings in front of the high court, Roberts may be vigilant for “contrived reasons,” akin to his actions in 2019 when he halted the inclusion of a citizenship question on the Census, citing that the evidence did not align with the given rationale. This article was first published on USA TODAY, highlighting judges’ criticism of the Trump administration’s weak legal arguments.
