‘This is quite rare, if not unprecedented’: Trump’s Justice Department faces criticism amid legal defeats

The Justice Department under the Trump administration is receiving heavy criticism after a string of legal losses. This has led to questions about whether it can successfully defend the president’s policies in court.

As reported by AP News, several court rulings stopped important White House policies. A proposal to include a citizenship question on the federal voter registration form was put on hold. Judges found that the administration broke a legal agreement by deporting a man to El Salvador. Additionally, efforts to withhold funding from public schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs were blocked.

These losses are part of a broader pattern. According to an Associated Press count, courts have partially or fully blocked Trump’s executive actions at least 64 times while they were in effect, across roughly 45 cases, with many more still awaiting decisions.

Trump isn’t winning in courts

The problems go beyond just the number of losses. Justice Department lawyers have had trouble in court explaining the reasoning and execution of various policies. In one case, a judge said a Justice Department lawyer’s answers about executive orders targeting a major law firm lacked even “basic” details.

In another instance, a judge scolded a lawyer for making claims that did not match “facts on the ground,” saying such carelessness was unacceptable, even for the Department of Justice. In at least one situation, a government lawyer, visibly frustrated by the lack of guidance from the administration, was later fired.

This struggle to answer basic questions from judges about policies is made worse by the steady departure of experienced career lawyers from the Justice Department. As a result, some critical legal arguments are being handled by newly hired lawyers in politically appointed roles rather than by long-term professionals. The department has recently brought in lawyers with conservative backgrounds from Washington law firms and state or local government agencies.

Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield called this situation “quite rare, if not unprecedented,” pointing out that many losses stem from arguments that are clearly flawed. Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have blamed the losses on “activist” judges. Some allies of the White House have even suggested impeaching judges, calling the situation a “judicial coup.”

However, this argument is weakened by the fact that some of the harshest criticisms of the Justice Department’s legal positions have come from conservative judges, including J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who Ronald Reagan appointed. In one ruling, Wilkinson called the administration’s stance “shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley warned against jumping to conclusions. He noted that the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority (including three Trump appointees), has not yet ruled on most of these cases. A Justice Department spokesperson said they plan to keep defending President Trump’s agenda and expressed confidence that they would ultimately win.

While many of the administration’s executive actions have faced legal setbacks, there have been some successes. Some early losses in trial courts were later overturned on appeal. For example, a federal appeals court allowed the administration to dismiss thousands of probationary workers despite an earlier judge’s ruling against it.

Additionally, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision that had blocked the administration from using an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants (though the Court required due process before deportation). The Supreme Court also permitted the administration to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher training funds while legal challenges continue.