Trump’s Tumbles in Court: Judges Rebuke Executive Overreach as Legal Losses Mount

By Kenneth Tiven

A panel of three judges from the US Court of International Trade—a specialized judicial body rarely in the headlines—has ruled unanimously that US President Donald Trump overstepped his authority in imposing global tariffs, striking a critical blow to his long-running trade war strategy. The Court declared that the law does not permit the president “unbounded authority” to levy tariffs across the globe under the guise of national emergency powers. The decision effectively ends his tariff regime—if it withstands appeal.

However, a federal appeals court agreed to temporarily preserve many of Trump’s sweeping tariffs on China and other trading partners, while it reviews the decision of the Trade Court. The government lawyers had to agree that if the Trade Court ruling is upheld, the government will refund all tariffs collected with interest due on the amount. This fact was buried on page 26 of the legal filing.

This reprieve offers a fragile shield to Trump’s ambitions, but the underlying legal defeat reflects a broader pattern of judicial pushback. In May alone, the Trump administration has lost 96 percent of its federal court cases, a staggering statistic that highlights mounting resistance from both civil society and the judiciary.

Trump’s legal setbacks are bipartisan in nature. While Democratic-appointed judges ruled against the administration in 80.4 percent of cases, Republican-appointed judges did so in 71.1 percent, challenging the narrative of a “deep state” conspiracy.

Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called the Trade Court’s ruling a “judicial coup”—a loaded term from someone who still refuses to characterize the January 6 Capitol attack as such. Trump’s silence on social media following the late-night ruling was uncharacteristic, suggesting either strategic restraint or deeper internal disarray.

JUDICIAL BLOWBACK ACROSS THE BOARD

The courts have recently dismantled several of Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms critical of him—especially WilmerHale, the employer of Robert Mueller. US District Judge Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, ruled the order violated the First Amendment’s protections against retaliation.

Meanwhile, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed 14 states to sue Elon Musk’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency, ruling that its actions lacked legal authorization. The administration’s attempts to delay proceedings were met with scorn by Judge Paula Xinis in a deportation case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia. She rejected the government’s request for more time, citing vague excuses and self-inflicted burdens.

PARDONS FOR SALE?

Trump’s use of presidential pardons has raised fresh ethical and legal concerns. Among those pardoned were Paul Walczak, a convicted nursing home executive whose mother donated over $1 million to Trump, and reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley, convicted of defrauding banks. Trump also pardoned a Virginia sheriff convicted of accepting bribes—portraying the conviction as a political attack by a “weaponized” Justice Department.

BATTLE FOR HARVARD

Trump’s campaign to bring Harvard University to heel has met judicial resistance. A federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from revoking visas for international students, pending further litigation. The administration has also attempted to cut federal funding to the university, with claims that Harvard enables anti-American activity. The school’s endowment and legal resistance have so far helped it weather the political storm.

THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE DOCTRINE AND THE END OF AGENCY INDEPENDENCE?

Perhaps the most consequential front in Trump’s war on institutional norms lies in his attempt to dismantle the independence of federal agencies. By invoking a theory of the “unitary executive,” the administration argues that the president should be able to fire members of bodies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without cause.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has signalled sympathy to this view, potentially setting the stage to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent, which protects agency heads from politically motivated dismissal. Justice Elena Kagan, in a scathing dissent, warned that such a ruling would allow the president to gut agencies created by Congress, undermining nearly a century of governance.

“This is the most subservient administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever),” Kagan wrote. She criticized the court’s emergency ruling for providing special protection only to the Federal Reserve, likely to reassure markets, while leaving others vulnerable.

SHOWMANSHIP OVER STATESMANSHIP

Trump’s erratic governance continues to be shaped by his media background and celebrity persona. From insulting Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift to targeting Harvard and promoting dubious theories about white farmers in South Africa, his second term is increasingly reminiscent of a reality show designed to outrage and divide.

His administration’s Project 2025 aims to purge civil servants en masse and fill posts with loyalists like Elon Musk—who, despite not being Senate-confirmed, wields vast influence. As the legal system fights to rein in executive overreach, the question is no longer whether Trump will push the limits, but whether any checks remain strong enough to stop him. 

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

The post Trump’s Tumbles in Court: Judges Rebuke Executive Overreach as Legal Losses Mount appeared first on India Legal.

This article first appeared on India Legal