Who Will Win in Donald Trump and Judiciary's Power Battle?

Across the U.S., federal judges are blocking many of President Donald Trump's executive orders, leading to a standoff in the legal system.

From Trump's order on birthright citizenship to the creation of his budget slashing Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), federal judges have been busy imposing restraining orders.

While only temporary restraining orders have been imposed, they could transform into longer-lasting orders, given the visceral denunciations of Trump's policies by some of the judges involved. That could have major implications for massive areas of Trump's presidential agenda, affects vast areas of U.S. life from immigration to medical care, the future of the aid agency USAID and the size of the federal budget.

In a statement on February 11, the American Bar Association strongly denounced the Trump administration's attempts to undermine judicial power.

It said the Trump administration is continuing with "the misleading assertion that judges cannot control the executive's legitimate power" and calling for for the "impeachment of a judge who did not rule in the administration's favor."

"It is also not acceptable to attack the judge making the ruling or try to interfere with the independence of the court," it said. "These statements attack the legitimacy of judicial oversight just because a court's ruling is not what the administration wants in a particular case."

Newsweek sought email comment on Tuesday from DOGE head Elon Musk, Trump's lawyer, the American Bar Association and Judge John Bates.

Thomas Moukawsh, a former Connecticut Superior Court judge, told Newsweek Trump might not always be able to rely on the majoritively conservative US Supreme Court.

However at midnight Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a court-imposed midnight deadline that had tried to force the administration to release $2 billion in foreign aid. It was the first time Trump's efforts to remake the federal government reached the highest court.

Professor Anthony Alfieri, director of the Center for Ethics and Public Service at the University of Miami School of Law, told Newsweek that the number of lawsuits is likely to increase and there it will bring major confusion to the federal court system.

One of the most prominent cases was heard by Washington, D.C., Judge John Bates, who has become a target of Musk and pro-Trump members of Congress.

Medical Websites and Transgender 'Ideology'

Bates agreed to impose a temporary restraining order against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had been ordered to remove any website pages that promoted transgender "ideology" or used the word "gender" instead of sex.

A Chicago doctor, Stephanie Liou, and others argued that Trump's order was affecting their ability to check statistics and treatments on a wide range of topics.

In a court filing, she told Bates she was trying to contain a chlamydia outbreak in her area, part of what the CDC said is an "epidemic" of sexually transmitted diseases.

In February, she went to access online CDC data on chlamydia but discovered it had been removed because the documents included the words "gender" instead of "sex" and some referred to "person" rather than "woman."

Bates, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, agreed "it is not merely that the lack of information makes it harder for her to do her job. Dr. Liou cannot effectively do her job to address a 'time-sensitive' chlamydia outbreak that is happening now."

Another plaintiff, Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, had submitted documents to the court showing that she needed the CDC documents while prescribing preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, which reduces the chances of contracting HIV.

"Put simply, just as Dr. Liou has a time-limited ability to assist the chlamydia outbreak, Dr. Ramachandran has a time-limited ability to treat certain patients at her clinic," Bates wrote.

He agreed to place a temporary restraining order to restore the medical information to the CDC and FDA websites.

Elon Musk called the judge's ruling, "Truly absurd."

"Judges as website editors!? We should at least ATTEMPT to fire this junky jurist," he wrote on X, formerly Twitter on February 11. "The notion of having a judge job for life, no matter how bad the judgments, is ridiculous! Enough is enough."

Gender Care for Minors

In Washington state in February, Judge Lauren King granted a temporary restraining order after the Democratic attorneys general of Washington state, Oregon and Minnesota sued the Trump administration to stop Trump's order on gender care.

The order banned doctors from giving puberty blockers, hormones or any kind of gender-altering surgery to minors.

That temporary restraining order came one day after a federal judge in Baltimore temporarily blocked the executive order in response to a separate lawsuit filed on behalf of families with transgender or nonbinary children.

Birthright Citizenship

On January 23, Washington state Judge John Coughenour sharply denounced Trump's attempts to remove citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

"I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," he said, while imposing a temporary restraining order.

"Given the 'shock and awe' political strategy of the Trump administration, both the number and pace of litigation seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to enjoin controversial executive orders is likely to increase, at least during the first 100 days of his term.

"Because the emergency court orders are by definition limited in duration, they are likely to generate expedited discovery schedules, evidentiary hearings, and appellate briefings and arguments, including cert petition battles before the U.S. Supreme Court, generating chaos across a wide range of federal courts.

"With luck, federal courts will prove to be resilient institutions and wise managers of the common weal and, thus, steer clear of the much anticipated constitutional crisis precipitated by the White House and federal agency refusal to abide by court mandates and orders."

What Happens Next?

After granting temporary restraining orders, federal judges have to decide whether to grant preliminary injunctions, which are longer in duration and can be appealed to higher federal courts.

The Trump administration's solicitor general and legal team are already preparing appeals and the entire process is likely to consume years of legal argument.

Thomas Moukawsh, a legal commentator and former Connecticut Superior Court judge, agreed that Trump's battle with federal judges could "drag on for years."

"For now, the battle is about what will happen while the parties wait for hearings. This usually depends on whether irreparable harm will occur if the status quo is disrupted," he told Newsweek.

"If USAID or other key financial programs are shut down and people starve, there is a good case to be made of irreparable harm. Where an ex-employee sues for damages for lost salary, many times courts would say the harm could be made up for later with money, so it is not irreparable."

Supreme Court May Disappoint Trump

While conservative have a 6-3 majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, Moukawsh is not convinced they will necessarily side with Trump on some issues, such as his impoundment of money Congress has set aside for federal projects.

He said that Chief Justice John Roberts has already declared the practice illegal and is unlikely to move from that position.

Moukawsh also said he "can't imagine a world in which the Supreme Court would support Trump's view of birthright citizenship.

"Trump's claim turns on interpreting the last part of the Fourteenth Amendment language that: "All persons...born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...are citizens of the United States."

Not only did the Supreme Court interpret this language against Trump's view in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but federal law also says that persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States include, "any person within the United States," he said.

There is some signs of early Supreme Court victories for Trump.

On Wednesday, February 26, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a court-imposed midnight deadline to release $2 billion in foreign aid.

The emergency appeal is the first time Trump's efforts to remake the federal government have reached the highest court.

Washington, D.C federal judge, Amir Ali, had given the State Department and the aid agency, USAID, until 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday to pay foreign contractors for work completed before February 13.

Roberts granted an "administrative stay" to allow the Supreme Court to consider arguments in the case.