This month, the Trump administration’s attorneys have spent considerable time in court fighting dozens of requests from legal groups, union organizations, and other state and local plaintiffs throughout the country. Most judges, however, have not granted these requests. The courts are “rightfully” saying they don’t “have jurisdiction over this,” or in some cases, plaintiffs have “not proven harm.”
Over 80 lawsuits are meant to block or reverse some of Trump’s controversial executive orders and actions. Most plaintiffs, along with the injunctive long-term relief, also seek a temporary restraining order TRO from a federal court that will prevent the policy or order from going into effect until the merits can be determined.
Most of these emergency requests have been denied by the courts, who noted that the plaintiffs did not possess standing and ordered both parties to come back for an upcoming hearing to discuss the merits.
Trump’s allies, as well as legal commentators, have criticised the lawsuits for being a means by which plaintiffs bypass the administrative appeals system and instead take their cases directly to court. They say this pattern is what has led to a wave of federal judge rejections.
The agency’s actions and directives are subject to an internal review, which is appealable before administrative law judges or a court specific to the agency. It is more challenging to do this for presidential orders and executive actions.
The Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Register information indicate that a presidential executive order may only be modified or revoked by the President or the Legislative Branch if it was issued by Congress.
As the Trump-era actions and orders are not directly applicable, the court is the only one that can decide whether the order or action should be upheld.
The requests for preliminary injunctions and TROs are therefore considered as part of a two-part process because most – if not all – Trump era complaints also include the TRO request. These TRO requests represent the “mini-arguments” that will be presented to the U.S. Judges who are reviewing these complaints.
The plaintiff must prove that they would suffer irreparable harm or injury if the request is denied. This can be a very difficult task, particularly if an order or policy has not yet been implemented. As one judge said earlier in the month, a court can’t grant TROs based on speculation.
Both parties are then ordered to appear at a future date for the consideration of the preliminary injunction request. This allows for both sides to make a complete argument, and the court can take into account any damages or harm incurred.
In a recent op-ed, Suzanne Goldberg, professor and Lawfare contributing editor at Columbia Law School, wrote: “The bottom line is that most courts do not grant emergency relief requests at the beginning of a case.” They wait until both sides have presented their legal arguments and introduced evidence (including evidence obtained by the other party through discovery) before deciding what, if anything, remedies the plaintiff is entitled to.
These near-term court victories have buoyed Trump allies and the Department of Government Efficiency, allowing DOGE, at least for now, to continue carrying out their ambitious early-days agenda and claiming “victory.”
“LFG,” Elon Musk cheered on X recently in response to a court’s rejection of a request from labor unions seeking to block DOGE access to federal agency information.
Legal experts caution that this characterization is premature. They’ve noted that the nature of the calendar and the fact that it takes a long time to resolve legal issues are not bugs but features.
These include efforts to restrict or block DOGE’s access to internal government information or fire agency employees. They also include lawsuits to stop the Trump administration from implementing its transgender ban on the military.
It’s not that all of these acts are legal. Legal experts claim that the “victories” in the short term are based on the judge’s limited powers to grant temporary restraining orders or prove emergency relief.
The U.S. district judge Tanya Chutkan has previously stated that mere fear or speculation is not sufficient to restrict DOGE access. Plaintiffs need to prove with clear evidence that the harm they have caused was permanent and “irreparable”.
According to Rule 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs who request a TRO must show that a particular rule, policy, or action will cause “immediate and irreparable damage”. It’s difficult for the plaintiffs to meet this burden, particularly for a case that is not yet in effect.
The Trump administration has made an exception to its ban on birthright citizenship.
Multiple U.S. District Court judges granted the Request for Immediate Relief. They sided with plaintiffs and ruled that hundreds of American-born children were in real danger. Last week, a U.S. appellate court upheld the ruling. This could lead to a Supreme Court battle.
But barring that, most of the lawsuits will play out in the longer term, Goldberg wrote in the Lawfare op-ed. She said: “When viewed in the context of the many provisional injunctions, it is clear that the actions the government has threatened are even more outrageous, in terms of their likelihood to be illegal and the potential irreparable damage they could cause.”