In a flurry of courtroom drama and policy showdowns, the Trump administration has faced a series of legal setbacks over its aggressive moves on gender policy, federal employment, and, most contentiously, immigration enforcement. Over the past week, federal judges from coast to coast have blocked or sharply criticized White House orders, underscoring the judiciary’s pivotal role as a check on executive power in a politically divided era.
On September 19, 2025, Senior District Judge William Smith in Rhode Island delivered a significant blow to President Trump’s executive order targeting what it called "gender ideology extremism." The order, issued on January 20, declared that the federal government would recognize only two genders—male and female—and forbade federal funds from supporting "gender ideology." According to Newsweek, Judge Smith ruled that the order could not be enforced against grantees of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), finding that such a restriction would violate the First Amendment. In a pointed rebuke, Smith wrote, "Defendants are therefore enjoined from applying a viewpoint-based standard of review to Plaintiffs that disfavor applications deemed 'to promote gender ideology,' and the Court vacates and sets aside Defendants' current plans to implement the Executive Order."
The ruling means that NEA grantees cannot be penalized or disfavored for projects that touch on gender identity or related themes, at least for now. The White House and Department of Justice, when reached by Newsweek, did not immediately comment on the decision. Legal experts note that with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, the courts have become a primary battleground for contesting Trump administration policies, especially those that touch on constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, on the same day in California, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s order demanding the Trump administration release documents tied to the firing of thousands of federal workers. The layoffs, orchestrated after Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, were spearheaded by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. Plaintiffs—a coalition of labor groups, nonprofits, cities, and a Texas county—argued that the mass firings exceeded presidential authority and required congressional approval.
Judge William Fletcher, writing for the majority, stated, "We nowhere find clear error by the district court nor a clear entitlement to relief on the part of the government. Our denial of mandamus accords with the longstanding presumption that district courts have broad latitude to control discovery matters. Far from abusing its discretion, the district court has exercised care and restraint in managing discovery, affording 'careful consideration' to the government's assertion of privilege." Plaintiff attorney Elena Goldstein told Newsweek, "The Trump-Vance administration tried to hide its sweeping plans to dismiss civil servants and dismantle the programs Americans depend on. The court made it clear that these documents—and the truth about what the administration is doing—are essential to this case."
But perhaps the most dramatic legal conflict surrounds the administration’s new policy of mass immigrant detention. As Politico and other outlets have reported, the Trump administration, since July 8, 2025, has systematically detained undocumented immigrants—including those with decades-long U.S. residence and no criminal record—while they contest deportation. This shift came after a memo from Todd Lyons, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), reinterpreted immigration law to classify all undocumented immigrants as "applicants for admission," making their detention mandatory regardless of how long they’ve lived in the country.
The administration argues that this approach is both legal and necessary to support President Trump’s mass deportation strategy. According to Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, "ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land." Supporters like Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, contend, "If you’re just going to be locked up and then sent home, why bother? I mean, the cost benefit analysis is pretty clear." They believe the policy will deter future undocumented immigration and encourage voluntary departures.
But the courts have largely disagreed. Dozens of federal judges have declared the policy illegal, describing it as a violation of due process and a radical departure from established law. U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin, a Biden appointee, wrote, "The Government’s discretion in matters of immigration is deep and wide, but surely its chop does not overcome the banks of due process enshrined in the Constitution." Judges have ordered the immediate release of many detainees, provided they promise to attend immigration proceedings and stay in contact with officials. Others have required the administration to at least allow detainees a chance to seek bond—an opportunity the administration’s reinterpretation sought to deny.
Underlying the legal battle are two long-standing provisions in immigration law. Traditionally, only those apprehended at or near the border were subject to mandatory detention as "applicants for admission," while those living in the U.S. for years could seek bond. Trump’s July 8 memo, however, swept nearly all undocumented immigrants under the "applicants for admission" umbrella, attempting to eliminate their access to bond hearings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an executive branch court, sided with ICE, but federal judges have not been persuaded. Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger in Iowa bluntly stated, "Case law and history do not support 'mandatory detention for all noncitizens present in the United States.'"
The human toll of the policy has been stark. Immigrants arrested at work, at routine check-ins, or after court proceedings have been sent to overcrowded detention facilities. Among the cases highlighted by Politico: a Mexican man with a son in the Air Force, a Brazilian father of a newborn, and a Salvadoran mother of two U.S. citizen children, including a nursing infant. Advocates argue the administration’s goal is to make the process so grueling that people give up and accept deportation, even if they have strong legal claims. Michael Kagan, director of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Immigration Clinic, told Politico, "They’re trying to get people to give up before they even get that far. Without a judge ever really ruling."
Judges have also criticized the administration’s use of the "automatic stay," a regulation that lets DHS block an immigrant’s release even after an immigration judge grants bond. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, a Clinton appointee, described the maneuver as allowing DHS "to unilaterally deprive Petitioner of her liberty." Judge Rubin called it "a violent distortion of proper, legitimate process whereby the Government, as though by talisman, renders itself at once prosecutor and adjudicator."
As the Trump administration signals it may appeal the latest legal defeats, the issue is far from settled. A crucial hearing is set for October 17, 2025, before U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, who could decide whether to impose a nationwide block on the July 8 memo. Meanwhile, legal experts, advocates, and administration officials are bracing for more courtroom battles—and more uncertainty for millions caught in the crosshairs of shifting federal policy.
For now, the courts have made clear that the executive branch’s reach has limits, and that constitutional rights and due process protections cannot be swept aside, no matter how sweeping the policy ambitions.