Courts are putting the brakes on the radical federal government restructuring plans of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Concerns are raised that the federal government restructuring initiatives pushed by the Trump administration are infringing on congressional legislative authority and violating legal principles established by the judiciary over a long period.
The most recent case where a court has intervened against the Trump administration is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, the close aide of Trump and CEO of Tesla.
On the 8th (local time), the Southern District Court of New York temporarily suspended the Treasury Department's access rights to the payment system granted to the DOGE, which is responsible for the restructuring of the Trump administration.
The court determined that if the DOGE's access rights were maintained, it would likely cause irreparable harm, stating that political appointees and special officials who are not affiliated with the Treasury Department cannot access the Treasury payment system.
Previously, attorneys general from 19 states affiliated with the Democratic Party, including New York and California, filed lawsuits claiming that the Trump administration's granting of access to the core payment system of the Treasury Department to the DOGE violated federal law.
On the 7th, the federal court in Washington, D.C. ordered a temporary halt to the Trump administration's restructuring plan for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which included placing 2,200 USAID employees on paid administrative leave first and recalling most of the overseas staff within a month.
Administrative orders regarding President Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship have also faced court intervention.
On the 23rd of last month, the Seattle federal court ruled that Trump's administrative order restricting birthright citizenship was "clearly unconstitutional" and decided to suspend its enforcement for 14 days. Then, on the 5th, the Maryland federal court also ruled that this administrative order violated the 250-year history of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
Following his inauguration last month, President Trump signed an executive order that alters the framework for granting citizenship under the doctrine of jus soli established by the U.S. Constitution.
This executive order stipulates that individuals born in the U.S. do not automatically receive citizenship if their mother is not legally residing in the U.S. and their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, raising concerns about its constitutionality.
The court has also put a brake on President Trump's "retaliatory" firing plan.
Earlier this month, the Washington court ruled that the government could not publicly disclose the names of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who investigated the Capitol riot in January 2021.
The Trump administration had instructed federal prosecutors to submit the list of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who were responsible for the investigation of the Capitol.
The Trump administration argues that the government restructuring plan aims to reduce unnecessary expenditure and make the government more efficient.
Although temporarily halted by the court, the Trump administration believes that its legitimacy will be recognized during the main proceedings.
However, concerns arise that the government's restructuring plan violates not only laws passed and enacted by Congress but also legal principles established by the judiciary over the past decades.
In particular, measures targeting legal protections for federal government employees could pose problems.
As President Trump aggressively pushes for large-scale restructuring and "retaliatory" firings of the federal government at the beginning of his second term, lawyers specializing in employment issues are flocking to Washington, D.C., according to the New York Times (NYT) on the 8th.
The legal battles against the Trump administration could take months or longer until a ruling is made in the main lawsuit.
In particular, NYT projected that cases where presidential executive orders directly conflict with congressional legislative authority may need to reach the Supreme Court.