The left couldn’t defeat President Donald Trump at the ballot box. Now, their only hope seems to be defeating him at the courthouse.
More than 130 cases have been filed against the Trump administration since Trump’s return to office just two months ago. With the help of activist federal judges, the left’s large-scale lawfare operation has caused some setbacks for the administration, which helps explain why its ire has been focused on these lower court judges’ use of temporary restraining orders (TROs).
Nevertheless, as the administration prepares for another active week in court defending the president’s powers and the president’s efforts to shrink the size of government and end DEI, it is not without its own court victories.
As of late, the Trump administration has earned favorable rulings regarding the dismissal of federal officers, employees, and contractors—part of Trump’s effort to “drain the swamp.”
One favorable ruling came on Feb. 20, when a D.C. district court judge blocked a TRO request on Trump’s firing of probationary employees in National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump et al. Judge Christopher R. Cooper denied the request brought by the NTEU and four other unions because the court “likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction” in the matter.
Instead, the unions will have to file their complaints with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which has Congressional authority to review such matters under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS).
DOGE has been a major focal point in legal efforts to upend the Trump administration’s agenda. Wherever DOGE goes, lawsuits tend to follow.
Though the left has attempted to prevent DOGE from accessing large swaths of the federal government, DOGE is steadily increasing its footprint.
In four separate cases, however, courts have upheld DOGE’s access to government systems as it attempts to identify, expose, and eliminate government waste, fraud, and abuse of American taxpayer dollars. Court victories have expanded DOGE’s access to the Department of Treasury, Department of Education, Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other agencies.
The flurry of litigation over DOGE’s actions against USAID, the agency that now serves as the administration’s poster child for taxpayer waste, fraud, and abuse, has led to a series of seemingly conflicting court orders.
While a March 18 ruling in a U.S. district court ordered the restoration of USAID electronic systems to certain employees and a halt on reductions-in-force, a previous court order in Personal Services Contractors Association v. Trump sided with the administration’s effort to fire contractors.
On March 6, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied a TRO request that would have reinstated fired contractors. Despite bureaucrat bellyaching, the D.C. district court ruled President Trump was well within his rights to fire USAID contractors and place USAID employees on administrative leave.
Personal Services Contractors Association v. Trump is just one of the many cases challenging a crucial part of the Trump administration’s DOGE strategy: the removal of nonessential, nonproductive personnel across federal agencies.
Such was the case in AFGE v. Ezell et al. While other lawsuits against the Trump administration challenged the president’s authority to fire federal workers outright, plaintiffs sought to challenge whether the administration even had the right to offer federal workers an exceedingly generous buyout.
Massachusetts district court ruled that the administration’s attempt to buy out federal employees was lawful.
The U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) has also found itself in DOGE’s crosshairs.
On Feb. 19, Trump signed Executive Order 14217, titled “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.” With his signature, Trump ordered USIP to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”
In the opinion of the administration, however, the federally-funded think tank failed to comply with the executive order, forcing the Trump administration to take aggressive action against USIP leadership, who had internally organized and coordinated resistance to the administration even prior to the Feb. 19 executive order.
The conflict hit a boiling point as law enforcement had to assist Trump administration officials and DOGE staffers into the USIP building on March 17. Terminated USIP employees almost immediately sued the administration, filing a complaint the following day that alleged the president lacked authority over USIP because it was created by Congress. The plaintiffs also requested a TRO to have their positions reinstated and lost salaries refunded.
The D.C. district court denied the USIP employee’s TRO request, suggesting it was unclear whether the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their case.
Lawfare was the left’s favored strategy to deny Trump’s return to the White House. They’d be wise to remember what that got them.
