The Federal Courts Are Suffering From A Severe Case Of TDS

Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, federal courts have issued an unprecedented number of stays and rulings against his administration’s policies, raising concerns among some observers about judicial overreach. By May 2025, over 160 lawsuits have resulted in at least temporary pauses on Trump’s executive actions, including mass firings of federal employees, freezes on federal funding, and immigration policies like the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations. Critics, including some on X, argue that activist judges—often appointed by Democratic presidents—are abusing their power to block Trump’s agenda, with one study cited on X claiming 92% of nationwide injunctions against Trump came from such judges, frequently in liberal-leaning districts. This surge in judicial intervention, they say, undermines the executive branch’s ability to govern and reflects a judiciary acting beyond its constitutional role.
 
The Trump administration has faced significant setbacks, with courts issuing nationwide injunctions that halt policies across the country, a practice that has spiked dramatically since Trump’s first term. For example, judges have blocked attempts to end birthright citizenship, reinstate fired probationary employees, and stop deportations, often citing constitutional violations or procedural failures. The Supreme Court itself has intervened, sometimes upholding lower court orders—like in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported despite a court order—but also overturning others, such as a 5-4 decision allowing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act to proceed. Critics argue this pattern of judicial interference creates chaos, with policies like the firing of 16,000 federal workers being paused and then reinstated through conflicting rulings, suggesting courts are overstepping their role as impartial arbiters and instead acting as political players.
 
On the other hand, defenders of the courts argue they are the last bulwark against executive overreach, especially given Trump’s aggressive use of executive power and his administration’s occasional defiance of judicial orders. The administration’s refusal to fully comply with rulings—like failing to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador despite a Supreme Court order—has fueled accusations of a constitutional crisis, with some legal scholars warning that Trump’s actions threaten the rule of law. Yet, the sheer volume and scope of judicial interventions, coupled with accusations of “venue shopping” where plaintiffs target sympathetic judges, have led some to question whether the federal courts are themselves out of control, prioritizing political outcomes over legal restraint and destabilizing the balance of power in the process.