US Lower Court Judges Are Challenging Trump’s ‘War on the Rule of Law’: Experts

District court judges across the United States have increasingly issued forceful rulings questioning the legality of several policies and executive actions by Donald Trump, temporarily blocking key measures and triggering angry responses from the president, according to former judges and prosecutors.

 

Since the start of Trump’s second term, lower federal court judges have authored sharply worded opinions targeting what they describe as legally dubious initiatives on immigration, tariffs, and the use of the Department of Justice to pursue political opponents, among other issues.

 

The cumulative impact of these rulings has been significant, slowing or halting some of the administration’s most controversial policies. At the same time, Trump and his Maga allies have responded with increasingly aggressive rhetoric, including personal attacks on judges that critics say have contributed to a rise in threats against members of the judiciary.

 

Legal experts note that the growing number of adverse rulings has also created a tense and often hostile courtroom environment for administration lawyers, who have been repeatedly rebuked by judges for presenting weak, misleading or unsupported arguments in defence of government actions.

 

Former Justice Department officials say many district court judges have effectively acted as a critical buffer against executive overreach and what they describe as a broader erosion of the rule of law.

 

Michael Bromwich, a former DoJ inspector general, said judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have become “the strongest guardrail” against encroachments on constitutional norms. He added that within a year, government lawyers had lost the long-standing presumption of competence and reliability, with courts increasingly calling out “lawless positions and hollow arguments” in unusually strong terms.

 

A study by Just Security on 19 March underscored that trend, identifying more than 210 cases since early 2025 in which courts issued strong rulings against administration conduct. The report found that courts cited non-compliance with judicial orders in 34 cases, expressed distrust in government representations in 90 instances, and ruled administrative actions arbitrary and capricious in 91 cases.

 

Among the judges who have delivered some of the most pointed critiques—appointed by presidents of both parties — are Matthew Brann in Pennsylvania, William Young, and James Boasberg, the latter of whom has repeatedly been targeted by Trump on social media.

 

As rulings against his policies have mounted, Trump has escalated his attacks, at times calling judges “crooked” or “lunatic”. On 25 March, he urged House Republicans to pass legislation aimed at “rogue judges”, describing them as “criminals” harming the country.

 

The administration has also responded by filing a wave of emergency appeals before the Supreme Court of the United States, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority. While the court has often sided with the administration, it dealt a significant setback in February by ruling against Trump’s tariff policies, holding that tariff powers rest with Congress, not the presidency — a decision that drew sharp criticism from Trump.

 

A March report by Reuters found that 97 per cent of the administration’s emergency filings to the Supreme Court argued that lower courts were improperly restricting presidential authority, compared with 26 per cent under the administration of Joe Biden.

 

Some conservative legal figures say the surge in adverse rulings reflects the judiciary performing its constitutional role. Former appellate judge J Michael Luttig argued that the administration’s stance toward the constitution and the courts had “predictably backfired”, with lower courts acting as the “last line of defence” against unlawful executive action.

 

Recent rulings illustrate the depth of judicial concern. In a 161-page decision, Judge William Young criticised aspects of Trump’s deportation policies as unconstitutional, describing them as a “full-throated assault” on First Amendment rights.

 

Similarly, Judge Matthew Brann ruled that former attorney general Pam Bondi had unlawfully appointed a three-person leadership structure to oversee a federal prosecuting office, concluding that the administration had chafed against constitutional limits on its authority.

 

In another case, Judge James Boasberg blocked a grand jury subpoena targeting Jerome Powell, finding no evidence of wrongdoing and suggesting the move was intended to pressure him amid Trump’s public criticism of the Federal Reserve. Trump responded with renewed attacks, calling for disciplinary action against the judge.

 

Without naming Trump directly, Chief Justice John Roberts warned in a 17 March address at Rice University that escalating verbal attacks on judges were “dangerous” and needed to stop. His comments came amid rising reports of threats against members of the judiciary.

 

Concerns have intensified following earlier rulings, including Boasberg’s decision in March 2025 blocking the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act—a move that provoked harsh criticism from Trump and online targeting of the judge and his family by allies and influencers.

 

Former federal judge John Jones warned that the increasingly hostile climate poses real risks, noting that inflammatory rhetoric could incite violence against judges. “If we’re not careful, we’re going to get a judge killed,” he said in a televised interview.

 

Other former officials echo those concerns. Ty Cobb, who served during Trump’s first term, said the administration’s repeated legal misrepresentations had eroded the long-standing presumption that government lawyers act in good faith. He argued that continued attacks on the judiciary risk undermining a co-equal branch of government and weakening constitutional safeguards.

 

As legal battles intensify, observers say the confrontation between the executive branch and the judiciary is likely to remain a defining feature of Trump’s presidency, with lower federal courts continuing to play a central role in testing the limits of presidential power.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.