In a week marked by a flurry of legal developments, the boundaries of presidential power and the independence of American institutions have come under intense scrutiny. From the federal courts of Washington, D.C., to the Senate chambers in Missouri, and even to the heart of Alabama’s legal battles over transgender rights, the actions of President Donald Trump’s administration continue to stir debate and controversy. As the dust settles, questions about the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the future of key federal agencies loom larger than ever.
On September 10, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to assert control over the U.S. Copyright Office. According to reporting by CNN, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked Trump’s attempt to replace Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights, who had been appointed in 2020. Perlmutter’s firing in May 2025 came after she prepared a report on artificial intelligence for Congress—one that Trump allegedly found objectionable. In her lawsuit, Perlmutter argued that the president’s move violated the separation of powers, a claim that resonated with the appeals court majority.
In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that the Register of Copyrights is a legislative branch official, not subject to presidential removal. Judge Florence Pan, writing for the majority, stated, “The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before.” Pan likened Trump’s action to the president attempting “to fire a federal judge’s law clerk”—an analogy that underscores the gravity of the encroachment.
The court also questioned the legality of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s appointment as acting Librarian of Congress, suggesting it was likely unlawful since Blanche had not been confirmed by the Senate. Trump had installed Blanche in that role before appointing Justice Department official Paul Perkins to replace Perlmutter. The ruling means Perlmutter should retain her position, at least for now, pending further legal proceedings. Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both Democratic appointees, formed the majority, while Trump appointee Justin Walker dissented, arguing that Supreme Court precedent should allow the president’s actions to stand.
This case is just one of several this year testing the reach of presidential authority over legislative branch appointees and independent agencies. The Supreme Court has often sided with the executive, but lower courts have delivered mixed decisions, reflecting the ongoing uncertainty at the heart of America’s constitutional structure.
Meanwhile, the independence of another crucial institution—the Federal Reserve—was also thrust into the spotlight. As reported by The Legal File, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., temporarily blocked President Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Trump had moved to fire Cook in late August 2025, citing allegations of mortgage fraud that predated her appointment. However, Judge Cobb found the administration’s rationale insufficient, writing, “President Trump has not identified anything related to Cook’s conduct or job performance as a Board member that would indicate that she is harming the Board or the public interest by executing her duties unfaithfully or ineffectively.”
The preliminary ruling is an early setback for the White House in a case with potentially far-reaching consequences. The Federal Reserve’s independence in setting interest rates—long viewed as essential to controlling inflation and shielding monetary policy from political whims—now hangs in the balance. The case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the outcome could reshape the relationship between the executive branch and the nation’s central bank.
While the courts wrestle with these high-stakes questions, the Supreme Court itself is under scrutiny for how it handles politically charged cases. The so-called “shadow docket”—a process for issuing emergency rulings outside the normal appeals process—has been a particular flashpoint. According to The Legal File, the Trump administration has filed 25 emergency applications with the Supreme Court this year, challenging rulings that impeded its policies. The court has acted in 24 of these cases, siding with Trump entirely or in part 21 times and ruling against him only twice.
This expedited process, which lacks the usual transparency and deliberation, has sparked frustration among lower court judges. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, for example, lamented in a recent ruling that the Supreme Court’s emergency docket decisions “have not been models of clarity, and have left many issues unresolved.” Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by fellow Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, pushed back against such criticism, insisting in a concurring opinion that “all Supreme Court orders carry the weight of precedent, regardless of whether or not they were issued in a shadow docket ruling.” Gorsuch added pointedly, “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”
In the legislative arena, Trump’s influence continues to reshape the federal judiciary. On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Senate confirmed Maria Lanahan as a federal judge in St. Louis, cementing a conservative majority in the Eastern District of Missouri. According to The Legal File, Lanahan’s confirmation means that eight of the district’s nine judges are now appointees of Republican presidents, with seven chosen by Trump. Lanahan, who previously helped litigate Missouri’s restrictive abortion laws, was confirmed on a 52-45 vote, marking the culmination of a long campaign by the state’s Republican senators to shift the court’s ideological balance.
Elsewhere, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice has intensified its scrutiny of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. On September 8, 2025, federal prosecutors indicted Carl Charles, an LGBTQ rights attorney, for allegedly lying during a judicial inquiry into “judge shopping” in a case challenging Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care. Charles, an attorney with Lambda Legal, was one of three lawyers sanctioned earlier this year for pursuing legal challenges to the state’s ban. The indictment is a rare instance of criminal charges arising from the widespread practice of steering cases to sympathetic judges, and it highlights the ongoing culture wars over transgender rights and medical care in the United States.
As the week’s events make clear, the tug-of-war between the branches of government is far from settled. The courts, Congress, and the executive continue to test the limits of their authority, with the outcomes shaping not only the fate of individual officials but also the very structure of American democracy. For now, the nation watches as these legal battles play out, knowing that the decisions made today will echo for years to come.
