Trump Promises to Comply with Court Orders After Judges Halt His Actions

On February 11, President Donald Trump stated that he would respect court rulings that impede his agenda but intends to appeal those decisions, believing that higher courts may overturn them in his favor.

“I always respect the courts… and we will appeal, but the appeal process is lengthy,” Trump remarked from the Oval Office. His comments were made in light of the many lawsuits disputing his administration’s actions, resulting in numerous judicial orders blocking some of these actions.

For instance, three federal judges have granted preliminary injunctions against his efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. Additional actions the courts have intervened in include his attempts to freeze federal spending and provide buyouts to federal employees.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken action in response to various court orders by filing appeal notices, including two submissions to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit concerning birthright citizenship. Furthermore, the DOJ has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding the dismissal of Special Counsel office head Hampton Dellinger.

Another appeal was filed following a judge’s injunction against the administration’s spending freeze.

Trump voiced his concerns during his remarks, suggesting that judicial orders obstructing his policies could inadvertently promote corruption within the government.

Related Stories

“It gives dishonest individuals more time to conceal their misconduct. When a crooked person is caught, others take notice, making it increasingly challenging for them later on,” he stated.

He also expressed hope that judges would assist in curbing corrupt expenditure. “When you present a judge with clear evidence of corruption—like a check that is meant for disbursement but is found to be corrupt… I hope a judge would say, ‘Don’t send it, return it to the taxpayer,’” he commented.

So far, at least two federal judges from Washington and Rhode Island have issued rulings against the administration’s efforts to freeze spending. Rhode Island District Judge John McConnell specifically stated that the administration had broken his restraining order.

“The States have demonstrated through evidence that the Defendants have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and have failed to resume the disbursement of allocated federal funds,” McConnell remarked, noting that “the existing freezes are due to a wide-ranging order rather than a specific finding of fraud.”

The administration has sought a stay on McConnell’s February 10 enforcement order at the 1st Circuit. “This appeal arises from an extraordinary and unprecedented exertion of authority by a single district court judge to oversee and control the Executive Branch’s use of federal funds, in clear violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers,” argued the DOJ in its filing.

On February 11, the appeals court opted not to suspend the court order but allowed the Trump administration to submit further requests to hold McConnell’s ruling in abeyance by February 13.

“He’s experimenting with what succeeds and what fails,” commented former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.

In addition to birthright citizenship, Trump’s choice to dismiss the former chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could prompt the Court to reconsider established precedents. Specifically, this case could lead the Court to revisit the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which stated that presidents did not possess the authority to remove certain officials for reasons beyond those permitted by Congress.

The NLRB-related case is one likely to progress to the Supreme Court and test the Court’s readiness to overturn … Humphrey’s Executor,” remarked Catholic University Law Professor J. Joel Alicea. “If that precedent is overturned, it would signify a significant transformation in the functioning of American government.”

Reuters contributed to this report.