The Trump administration has ignored or circumvented federal court orders in over one-third of the cases decided against it, a pattern legal experts say represents a systematic threat to the American judicial system. An extensive analysis by The Washington Post found that in 57 of 165 lawsuits in which courts ruled against President Donald Trump and his administration, officials defied, delayed, or manipulated rulings in ways that undermined judicial authority and eroded the rule of law.
The findings point to a broader trend of institutional defiance that has intensified during Trump’s second term. The administration’s approach—fueled by open hostility toward judges, stalling tactics, and apparent disregard for judicial process—has created a dangerous precedent that legal scholars and former judges warn could push the country toward a constitutional crisis.
“Tens of millions of people across the country are currently at risk of drinking hazardous levels of toxic PFAS-contaminated water, and that risk may only increase for many years to come if the EPA successfully rolls back and delays PFAS standards,” Erik Olson, senior strategic director of health at NRDC, warned in a parallel environmental case illustrating similar executive overreach.
In the legal sphere, the Post’s review of 337 total lawsuits filed against the Trump administration revealed that courts ruled against the administration in 165 cases. In 57 of those rulings—approximately 35 percent—the administration either refused to comply, misrepresented facts, failed to turn over documents, or sidestepped enforcement with procedural workarounds. This level of noncompliance is unprecedented in modern presidential history, legal experts say.
Despite the pattern, no judges have yet imposed punitive measures such as contempt sanctions, in part due to concerns over igniting a direct constitutional clash. The U.S. Marshals Service, which enforces judicial orders, is part of the executive branch and may not execute enforcement actions against administration officials under orders from the president.
Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the 1974 crisis over Richard Nixon’s refusal to release Oval Office tapes, but emphasized that today’s challenge is more severe. “The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,” Michel said. “We’re in new territory.”
Immigration cases have emerged as the most frequent site of resistance. In one prominent case, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to return Kilmar Abrego García to the United States after he was deported to El Salvador in defiance of a court order. The administration claimed it was unable to retrieve him due to foreign custody, though evidence later showed the U.S. retained control.
“Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance,” wrote U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.
Another immigration case led Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg to accuse Trump officials of “willful disregard” after they continued deportation flights to El Salvador in defiance of his order under the Alien Enemies Act. “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg said when moving to sanction the administration. The contempt proceedings were later paused by an appeals court panel that included two Trump-appointed judges.
The trend extends beyond immigration. Transgender rights rulings have also been ignored. In one instance, the administration attempted to reinstate a ban on transgender troops using language it claimed was different from the blocked policy. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes rebuked the administration in court: “I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public—what they really mean to the public—and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I’m an idiot. The court is not going to be gaslit.”
Other examples include attempts to terminate staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite court orders requiring individualized assessments. After being blocked, the Trump administration claimed it had completed such assessments for 1,400 employees in just four business days and resumed mass firings. Judge Amy Berman Jackson called the justification a sham, writing, “There is reason to believe that the defendants…are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.”
Whistleblower allegations have added further weight to claims of intentional defiance. A complaint filed by former Department of Justice attorney Erez Reuveni accuses Emil Bove, a senior DOJ official now nominated for a federal judgeship, of directing staff to ignore court rulings. Reuveni said when he objected, he was “threatened, fired and publicly disparaged.”
In some cases, the administration has claimed technical compliance while undermining court orders. After a judge blocked a freeze on federal grants, the Office of Management and Budget rescinded the memo but kept the freeze in place. “It appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous,” wrote U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan.
The National Institutes of Health similarly cut funding for a transgender youth health program despite an injunction against policies banning “gender ideology” programs. Documents showed the action was carried out under the very order being challenged in court. U.S. District Judge Lauren King later ordered the government to turn over records and reinstated the grant.
This sustained disregard for judicial authority appears to have support from Republican leadership. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said in March, “We can eliminate an entire district court.” The administration has regularly accused judges of political bias, with Trump calling those who rule against him “radical left judges.”
Polling suggests the public is deeply concerned. A Demand Justice/Global Strategy Group survey in June found 72 percent of voters in battleground states were “concerned about Trump’s attempts to refuse to obey court orders.” A majority, 52 percent, said they viewed the defiance as “an abuse of power.”
Supreme Court decisions may be enabling further erosion. A June ruling curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting from a decision allowing deportations in defiance of lower court orders, warned, “This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last… it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
Meanwhile, the consequences are tangible. Tens of thousands of tons of foreign food aid remain stranded. The government’s failure to comply with rulings has disrupted legal representation for minors, blocked public health initiatives, and delayed life-saving programs abroad. Judge Amir Ali recently ordered the administration to explain why it has taken “literally zero steps” to comply with a ruling requiring release of frozen foreign aid.
In response to these concerns, more than two dozen retired judges from both political parties have formed the Article III Coalition to defend judicial integrity. “The judiciary is being put under siege,” said founding member Robert J. Cindrich.
Despite growing alarm, most judges remain cautious in escalating enforcement. Experts note the inherent challenge: “The courts can’t enforce their own rulings—that has to be done by the executive branch,” said Judge Michel. Should U.S. Marshals refuse to act on judicial orders, a true constitutional crisis could unfold.
COMMENTS