Trump Says He Will Follow Court Orders as Judges Block His Actions
The president has encountered dozens of lawsuits during the first month of his second term of office.
The president has encountered dozens of lawsuits during the first month of his second term of office.
President Donald Trump said on Feb. 11 that he would abide by court rulings blocking his agenda, but would also appeal them in hopes that higher courts will reverse those decisions in his favor.
âI always abide by the courts ... and we'll appeal, but appeals take a long time,â Trump said from the Oval Office. His comments came amid dozens of lawsuits challenging his administrationâs actions. Many have resulted in judges issuing orders that block certain activities by his administration.
For example, three federal judges have issued preliminary injunctions blocking his attempt to limit birthright citizenship. Others have targeted his attempt to freeze federal spending, offer buyouts to federal employees, and other decisions.
Trumpâs Department of Justice (DOJ) has responded to multiple orders by filing notices of appealâincluding two to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit over birthright citizenship. DOJ has also a filed notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case over his firing of the head of the office of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger.
Another came in response to a judgeâs order blocking the administrationâs spending freeze.
Trump expressed concern during his remarks that orders blocking his agenda would potentially enable corrupt activity within the government.
âIt gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a personâs crooked and they get caught, other people see that, and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on,â he said.
He added that he hoped the judges would help stop corrupt spending. âIf you go into a judge and you show them, hereâs a corrupt situationâwe have a check to be sent, but we found it to be corrupt. ... I would hope a judge would say, âDonât send it, give it back to the taxpayer,ââ he said.
So far, at least two federal judgesâfrom Washington and Rhode Islandâhave issued orders blocking the administrationâs attempt to freeze spending. Rhode Island District Judge John McConnell also issued a ruling to enforce a restraining order he put in place, stating that the administration had violated his restraining order.
âThe States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,â McConnell said. He added that âthe freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud.â
In the 1st Circuit, the administration requested a stay on McConnellâs Feb. 10 enforcement order. âThis appeal arises from an extraordinary and unprecedented assertion of power by a single district court judge to superintend and control the Executive Branchâs spending of federal funds, in clear violation of the Constitutionâs separation of powers,â DOJ said in a filing.
On Feb. 11, the appeals court declined to pause the court order but said the Trump administration could file additional papers seeking to put McConnellâs order on hold by the end of Feb. 13.
Experts told The Epoch Times that Trump was facing lawsuits that could result in Supreme Court cases and rulings that help define the scope of executive authority under the Constitution.
âHeâs testing to see what works and what doesnât,â said former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.
Besides birthright citizenship, Trumpâs decision to fire the former chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could prompt the court to reconsider old precedent. More specifically, the court could use the NLRB case to reexamine Humphreyâs Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision wherein the court said that presidents did not have the power to remove certain officials for reasons other than what Congress allowed.
The NLRB case is one that is âlikely to end up at the Supreme Court and test the courtâs willingness to overrule ... Humphreyâs Executor,â Catholic University Law Professor J. Joel Alicea told The Epoch Times. âAnd if that precedent is overruled, it would be a sea change in American governmentâthe way that the government operates.â
Reuters contributed to this report.