What’s the point of all these anti-DOGE lawsuits? Fight Trump’s agenda to SCOTUS, legal experts say

The Trump Administration’s Legal Battles: A New Era of Resistance

The Trump administration has found itself at the center of a legal maelstrom, with over 90 lawsuits filed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term. These lawsuits, brought by a diverse array of plaintiffs including blue state attorneys general, advocacy groups, and interest organizations, are overwhelmingly challenging the administration’s federal spending actions. At the heart of these legal challenges are the administration’s efforts to halt or redirect federal funding to various programs, as well as the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) initiatives to reduce excess government spending. Legal experts such as Zack Smith, a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argue that these lawsuits are not merely legal challenges but part of a broader strategy to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda. Smith describes this as a continuation of the political warfare seen during the Biden administration, with the difference being that the instigators are now external groups using legal tactics to slow down Trump’s progress.

The Political Weaponization of the Courts

Zack Smith and John Yoo, a UC Berkeley Law Professor, both suggest that the plaintiffs in these lawsuits are engaging in a form of political warfare. According to Smith, these groups are using lawsuits as a tool to slow down the administration’s progress, even if they believe their legal arguments may not ultimately succeed. Yoo goes further, arguing that the plaintiffs are demonstrating political weakness by resorting to the courts rather than seeking to challenge Trump through Congress. He believes that if these groups had popular support, they would take their grievances to Congress, as the Founders intended Congress to be the branch responsible for checking presidential power. Instead, Yoo argues, these groups are trying to bypass the democratic process and use the courts to achieve their political goals.

Judicial Activism and the Role of the Courts

Despite the perception among some conservatives that judges blocking Trump’s spending actions are examples of judicial activism, Yoo argues that the judges in these cases are more confused than activist. He believes that many lower court judges are unclear about their proper role in such cases and are therefore making decisions that overstep their authority. Smith agrees, stating that many judges are imposing their own views of what constitutes appropriate executive branch actions, which he believes is not the proper role of the judiciary. Both experts argue that judges should not interfere with core executive branch functions, as these decisions should be made by the president and his advisers.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Resolving the Confusion

Both Smith and Yoo expect that these lawsuits will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, as the lower courts continue to grapple with these complex issues. Smith believes that the Supreme Court will have to confront questions about executive power that it has avoided for years. Yoo adds that the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary because of the confusion in the lower courts about the proper procedural ways to challenge spending freezes. For example, in a recent case, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in foreign aid funds. Smith describes this move as “stunning” and interprets it as a warning from the Chief Justice to lower court judges to refrain from overstepping their authority.

The Trump Administration’s Likely Path to Victory

Yoo predicts that the Trump administration will ultimately prevail in many of these lawsuits, arguing that Trump is following precedents set by the Roberts Court regarding the limits of executive power. He notes that Trump is not ignoring the courts but is instead working within the legal system to advance his agenda, as evidenced by his administration’s willingness to litigate and appear before the Supreme Court. Yoo emphasizes that while Trump’s election victory does not give him carte blanche to act unilaterally, he is nonetheless fulfilling his constitutional responsibility to execute the law. Smith similarly believes that the Supreme Court will take a skeptical view of the lower court rulings that have impeded Trump’s actions, suggesting that the justices may be signaling their willingness to rein in judicial overreach.

The Broader Implications of These Legal Battles

The legal battles over Trump’s federal spending actions have significant implications for the balance of power in the federal government and the role of the judiciary. As these cases make their way through the courts, they are likely to set important precedents about the limits of executive power and the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing executive actions. The Supreme Court’s eventual rulings on these issues will not only shape the remainder of Trump’s presidency but also influence the powers of future presidents. For now, however, the legal challenges to Trump’s spending actions continue to be a major battleground in the ongoing struggle between the administration and its political opponents.