By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
During President Donald Trump’s administration, federal judges blocked his policies 46 times. The rulings came from 39 different judges across 11 U.S. District Courts and seven judicial circuits. The judges were appointed by five different presidents, both Democratic and Republican. The blocked policies involved immigration restrictions, environmental rollbacks, healthcare mandates, and civil rights regulations. Many of the judges who ruled against the Trump administration were Republican appointees.
In one notable case, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, U.S. District Judge John Bates—appointed by President George W. Bush—ruled that the administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was “arbitrary and capricious.” The U.S. Supreme Court later upheld the decision in a 5-4 ruling. Trump’s travel ban, which targeted several majority-Muslim countries, was blocked by U.S. District Judge James Robart, also a Bush appointee. Trump responded by calling Robart a “so-called judge.” His remarks drew backlash and concerns about his public attacks on the judiciary.
Throughout his presidency, Trump frequently questioned the legitimacy of rulings that didn’t favor him. In 2018, after a judge appointed by President Obama ruled against a Trump asylum policy, the former president referred to the judge as an “Obama judge.” That prompted a rare response from U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who issued a public statement rejecting Trump’s claims. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
Despite losing dozens of legal battles in court, Trump installed more than 200 federal judges during his four years in office, including three U.S. Supreme Court justices. Legal scholars note that some of his appointees have at times ruled against policies or legal theories advanced by Trump or his allies. The consistent rulings against Trump’s policies across judicial appointments suggest the decisions were rooted in legal reasoning. In one 2019 opinion, a federal judge wrote: “The government’s position lacks a factual basis and rests on legal conclusions that are contrary to settled law.”
