When President Donald Trump hosted El Salvador’s counterpart, Naive Buquere on Monday, much of the public part of their conversation revolved around transporting prisoners from the United States to Central American countries.
El Salvador has already taken away hundreds of Venezuelans and Salvadorans who have been deported by the Trump administration as part of the contract. They include Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvador man who was deported by the Trump administration last month due to a “mistake.”
At the White House, Buquere and the Trump administration refused to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
But Abrego Garcia’s future is not Limbo’s only thing. His case highlights the growing tension between the Trump administration and the US justice system. As the president attempts to implement a series of controversial enforcement moves and orders, lawsuits against his administration are piling up in courts around the country, and in some cases judges have put Trump’s plans on hold.
We’ll get a grasp of some of the major legal challenges to Trump’s orders and take a look at whether the United States is heading towards a constitutional crisis.
Use alien enemies to deport immigrants
The Trump administration used the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 to deport suspected members, such as Venezuelan gang members, and the legality of the move was under judicial scrutiny.
On March 15, James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in the District Court in Washington, D.C., issued a temporary restraining order to halt deportation due to constitutional concerns about how the Trump administration has used more than 200 years of law.
However, the US Supreme Court overturned that order last week with a narrow 5-4 ruling, allowing it to proceed with deportation under alien enemy laws.
“The Supreme Court upheld the rule of law in our country by allowing a president to secure our borders and protect our families and our nation,” Trump posted in The Truth Society.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson opposed the verdict.
“I lament that the court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural fluctuations, and that it did so in such a casual, unfair, and in my opinion inappropriate ways,” Jackson writes.
Prohibiting military transgender people
On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from US military service. The administration defended the policy decision by pointing out alleged concerns about unit cohesion, healthcare costs and overall military preparation.
This order characterizes the gender-maintaining care of minors as “chemical and surgical amputations of children,” claiming that such treatment results in “lifetime medical complications” and sterilization. The federal government says that “all laws must be strictly enforced” to end these practices.
However, federal courts in Washington, D.C., New Jersey and California have issued injunctions blocking the implementation of the order.
“Gender Affirmation” Care for Trans Teenagers
On January 28th, Trump signed an executive order banning federal assistance for all programs that help people under the age of 19 change gender through the medical process.
The order said the US government would no longer “fund, sponsor, promote, support or support” them in gender transitions.
On February 13th, Maryland District Court Judge Brendan Herson issued a temporary restraining order and a provisional injunction blocking the executive order.
Additionally, on February 28, a U.S. District Judge in Washington issued a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit filed by Washington, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado. Trump allegedly violated constitutional principles and was discriminated against certain groups, potentially obstructing life-saving medical care.
Limiting birthright citizenship
On January 20th, Trump issued an executive order aimed at changing birthright citizenship by excluded children with automated citizenship born in US soils to parents who hold temporary visas, such as work visas, student visas and tourist visas.
On January 23, Washington US District Judge John Corneau blocked the order in a case brought by four states, declaring it “unconstitutional.” Then, on February 5th, Maryland federal judge Deborah Boardman issued a nationwide injunction in another lawsuit filed for expecting a mother, further preventing enforcement.
Many constitutional experts argue that the order violates the 14th amendment. This guarantees birthright citizenship to all children born “within the United States jurisdiction” regardless of their parents’ status.
On February 10, 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire expanded the scope of the injunction and strengthened legal barriers to the order. Collectively, these decisions from multiple courts effectively halted the administration’s nationwide attempt to limit birthright citizenship.
On March 14, the Trump administration filed three filings with the Supreme Court, demanding a narrowing of a lower court order that is currently applicable nationwide. This allows the administration to begin implementing new policies that challenge birthright citizenship. Topcoat has not yet decided on those petitions.
A Pew Research Center survey released in February found that 56% of US adults disapproved of Trump’s targeting executive orders, with 43% approved.
Federal Funding Freeze
Also, on January 20, the Trump administration instructed federal agencies to temporarily suspend all financial aid commitments and payments, including administration, loans and cooperation agreements.
On January 31, 2025, Judge John McConnell of Providence, Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the enforcement of a freezing federal funds.
The judge found the freeze outweighed the administrative authorities and violated the Congress’s constitutional authority regarding expenditure. Federal agencies are prohibited from suspending or canceling awards under memos or executive orders.
Doge terminates federal employees
Based on recommendations from the Elon Musk-led Bureau of Government Efficiency, the Trump administration has fired thousands of federal employees. Probable workers and workers associated with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are being targeted specifically.
On March 13, 2025, US District Judge William Alsap for the Northern District of California issued an interim injunction directing six federal agencies to revive approximately 16,000 probation employees. Judge Alsup determined that their mass shootings were illegal and were carried out without following the required procedures, calling the process a “false” that bypassed the protections of civil servants.
However, last week’s recent 7-2 Supreme Court decision suspends the rehiring of 16,000 probation employees, allowing the Trump administration to continue efforts to cut government size while eliminating certain federal agencies.
The majority ruled that the nonprofit plaintiffs do not have legal status to pursue lawsuits. Justices Sotomayor and Brown Jackson disagreed.
How rare is it that a presidential order faces legal challenges?
University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost said President Trump is far from president, and faces legal surveillance over his executive order.
In 2016, a tied Supreme Court vote prevented former President Barack Obama’s executive order by granting legal recognition to four million immigrants who had lived in the United States for more than five years.
“Has the President issued an executive order that was previously held to violate law or constitutional provisions? Yes, they have one,” Frost said. “Are there any executives? [office] Do you issue an order that interprets or enforces the law in a way that the court ultimately finds to be in violation of those laws? Yes, they did that. ”
But this time there is a difference, she said.
“It is not unprecedented for executives to write executive orders or issue policies at the end of the day. [are] It turns out to be illegal,” she told Al Jazeera.
Is the United States in a constitutional crisis?
According to Frost, it’s not yet, but it could be bordered towards it.
Already, the United States has surpassed what frost has identified as the first step in the direction of such a crisis. It issues decisions that violate the law. In many cases, we have reached the second stage. The judiciary is intervening to inform enforcement that it violates the law.
According to frost, the third and most dangerous step is where executives respond by denying court powers, even after all appeal options have been exhausted.
And she said it has an impact on the economy as well as the constitutionality.
“If it weren’t for the rule of law, it would hurt our markets and our economy for those who care about it,” she said. “I don’t think people understand how much of our strong economy is based. [the] The rule of law and the fact that individuals feel they have to follow what the courts are saying. I think [of] Disclaimer idea. [If] You don’t have to do what the courts say, there’s nothing like the rule of law.
“And more, laws, parliaments, and actions are worthless, constitutional provisions are worthless, and we will not check the executive powers that the constitution intends.”
Source link
