Trump’s Second-Term Agenda Faces Multiple Legal Roadblocks in Federal Courts

President Donald Trump’s second-term policy initiatives are encountering significant resistance in Washington, D.C. federal courts, where judges have suspended several major administration policies. The ongoing legal battles have intensified debate over whether the judiciary is properly exercising its constitutional oversight role or improperly interfering with executive authority.

The rulings have halted key components of Trump’s agenda on immigration, policing, and federal authority, creating a growing tension between the White House and the courts.

Alien Enemies Act Controversy

One of the earliest and most contentious lawsuits against the Trump administration involves its application of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798, to deport certain migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT maximum-security prison.

Civil rights organizations and immigration advocates argue the administration is stretching this wartime law beyond its intended purpose. They note the statute has only been used three times previously in American history, most recently during World War II. The Trump administration defends its actions as a legitimate exercise of executive power concerning national security and immigration enforcement.

The case has already moved up on appeal, with higher courts examining the scope of presidential authority under this rarely-invoked statute. The outcome could significantly impact how emergency powers are applied to modern immigration policy.

Federal Authority in Washington, D.C.

Another major legal conflict involves Trump’s efforts to assert federal control over policing in the nation’s capital. In August 2025, the administration moved to expand federal oversight of law enforcement in Washington, D.C., including deploying National Guard troops to address crime issues.

This action prompted a lawsuit, District of Columbia v. Trump, in which city officials challenge what they describe as an unprecedented federal intrusion into local policing matters. The case represents a crucial test of the limits of presidential authority over the District of Columbia.

Similar legal challenges have arisen regarding the administration’s attempts to exert control over National Guard units, raising federalism concerns about the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Temporary Protected Status Battles

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals from the Trump administration seeking to immediately terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Haitian migrants. Haitians were first granted TPS in 2010 following a devastating earthquake, but a D.C. federal judge, Ana Reyes, had blocked the administration from lifting these protections.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has urged the high court to address the broader question of whether the administration can revoke TPS protections for other migrants living in the U.S., citing a similar case involving Syrian migrants that was previously elevated to the Supreme Court.

“Unless the court resolves the merits of these challenges — issues that have now been ventilated in courts nationwide — this unsustainable cycle will repeat again and again,” Sauer argued.

The Trump administration has sought to wind down most TPS designations, contending that these programs have been extended for too long under Democratic presidents. Administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin stated, “Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago. It was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades.”

USAID Funding Conflicts

Early in Trump’s term, a federal judge blocked the administration’s attempts to rapidly scale back the U.S. Agency for International Development, halting mass leave orders and workforce reductions.

The Supreme Court later declined the administration’s request to block a lower court’s order requiring payment of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid for previously completed projects. The case remains pending in appellate court.

Federal Reserve Independence Challenges

The independence of the Federal Reserve has also become a focal point of legal disputes. Trump administration lawyers recently asked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to reconsider an earlier order that quashed grand jury subpoenas of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, following U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro’s pledge to appeal the decision.

In their motion for reconsideration, Justice Department prosecutors argued that the court “applied an incorrect legal standard, erred with respect to certain facts, and overlooked other relevant facts.”

Separately, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Cook earlier this year, examining whether the president has authority to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed’s board of governors without notice and with limited judicial review of the “for cause” requirement for her removal. Cook currently remains in her position following an order from U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb.

Throughout these legal challenges, White House officials have criticized what they call “activist” judges who they claim are overstepping their authority or acting with political motives to impede the administration’s policy agenda.