On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump assumed office as President of the United States. Within a day, he signed a series of executive orders, prompting state attorneys to scramble in a legal offensive that could redefine the US Constitution.
At the heart of the USA바카라s current legal turmoil is Executive Order (EO) 14160. It strips citizenship from American-born children of undocumented immigrants, including those born to parents on temporary US visas. This marks a departure from established law, which explicitly states that a person is naturalised as a US citizen if 바카라the person is born in the United States.바카라 Within hours of Trump signing the order, attorneys general from Washington, New Jersey, Arizona and Oregon filed suits, arguing that the order 바카라flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment바카라 of the US Constitution.
State lawyers argued that Trump바카라s attempt to redefine who is 바카라subject to the jurisdiction of the United States바카라 at birth is essentially an effort by the Executive to rewrite core tenets of US law. They warned that if EO14160 was allowed to stand, it could have dire consequences for federal funding and Social Security.
In its lawsuit against EO14160, the Brazilian Worker Centre Inc. and Lawyers for Civil Rights argued that Trump바카라s order 바카라treats the targeted citizens as a subordinate caste of native-born Americans, entitled to fewer rights, benefits and entitlements than other Americans due to their parents바카라 alienage,바카라 adding that it 바카라violates their right to equal protection바카라.
Federal courts across the US also pushed back. In a highly publicised win against EO14160, Boston District Court Judge Leo Sorokin granted a preliminary injunction blocking the order on February 13. In his ruling, Sorokin stated that the order was inconsistent with the US Constitution, which 바카라confers birthright citizenship broadly.바카라 He became the fourth federal judge to block EO14160.
On March 13, the Trump administration petitioned the US Supreme Court to lift the injunction, The New York Times reported. The government has asked the Court to either limit the nationwide injunctions to the individuals or states involved in the lawsuits while the cases proceed, or for the SC to allow federal agencies to begin developing plans and issuing public guidance for banning birthright citizenship if Trump바카라s effort ultimately holds up in court, the report said.
Freezing Federal Funds
As of February 20, Trump had signed more than 70 executive orders, the most by any president in their first 100 days in over 40 years.
Within his first week in office, he signed 36 additional orders, including several under the banner of 바카라Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.바카라 Then, on January 27, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced a 바카라temporary pause바카라 on federal grants, loans and other financial assistance programs that may be 바카라implicated by바카라 these executive orders.
In their legal filings, state attorneys argued that the OMB바카라s move was aimed at, but not limited to, cutting financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organisations, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, 바카라woke바카라 gender ideologies and green energy programmes. Calling the executive order and the resulting freeze overly vague, they stated it 바카라violates the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) and is unconstitutional.바카라
Among the affected programmes are Child Care and Development Block Grants, which provide childcare assistance to low-income families, the National School Lunch Program, which serves meals to children in public, private and charter schools, funding for war veteran nursing care facilities and infectious disease research.
Twenty-two state attorneys wrote in their joint complaint that the OMB바카라s funding freeze 바카라will result in immediate and devastating harm to Plaintiff States.바카라 In Connecticut, Attorney General William Tong condemned the freeze as 바카라a full assault on Connecticut families,바카라 vowing that the state would 바카라stand its ground and fight back.바카라
Ultimately, Rhode Island District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. sided with the states. In his order dated January 31, 2025, Judge McConnell criticised the administration바카라s actions, stating, 바카라The Executive바카라s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.바카라
A Restructuring of Federal Power
One of Trump바카라s biggest challenges at present is the controversy surrounding his executive orders restructuring the federal government. State attorneys have called the creation of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, the greatest 바카라threat to democracy.바카라
바카라There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,바카라 says the court filing, adding that this legal maxim, originally meant to prevent abuses by 18th-century monarchs, 바카라applies just as well to 21st-century tech barons바카라.
The legal battle over Trump바카라s executive orders reflects two opposing visions. Supporters argue they restore executive authority, while opponents see them as a threat to democracy.
DOGE바카라s creation was foreshadowed in August 2024. In a YouTube video, Trump 바카라enthusiastically바카라 responded to Musk바카라s offer to take a leadership role in a government efficiency commission, calling him 바카라the greatest cutter.바카라
The Trump administration has defended DOGE, arguing that the department will implement cost-cutting measures and streamline government operations. However, state attorneys contend that the President is 바카라oblivious to the threat바카라 posed by his decision to delegate 바카라virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress.바카라
The legal challenge against DOGE is straightforward: the US President does not have unlimited power to create new offices without congressional approval. 바카라The Founders of this country fought for independence from the British monarchy in part because of the King바카라s despotic power to create an unlimited number of government offices and fill them with his supporters. This practice so severely undermined their freedoms that it became a listed grievance in the Declaration of Independence,바카라 states the complaint filed before a District Judge in Columbia.
The U.S. Constitution바카라s Appointments Clause requires the President to obtain Senate consent before appointing individuals to high offices, including ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, Supreme Court judges and all other officers of the United States.
The Columbia challenge to DOGE is revealing.
It describes actions that can only be deemed as abuse of power, especially if DOGE바카라s creation is ultimately found unconstitutional.
바카라During this initial period, DOGE secured access to sensitive material in dozens of federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy (which oversees nuclear weapons), the Department of Defense, and the Centers for Disease Control (and Prevention),바카라 says the lawsuit.
It goes on to detail clashes between DOGE and federal employees, including mass firings at the Department of Education, after which DOGE personnel reportedly turned on white noise machines to drown out protests. In another incident, DOGE employee Tom Krause allegedly pressured then-acting Treasury Secretary David A. Lebryk to halt certain foreign aid payments through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. Lebryk was subsequently placed on administrative leave and replaced by former hedge fund manager Scott Bessent. On February 2, Bessent granted DOGE personnel full access to the US BFS payment systems, which store Social Security and Medicare customer data, as well as the states바카라 bank account and financial information.
Another concerning allegation in the complaint suggests that Musk is 바카라not fully briefing the White House바카라about his plans, and that the White House is effectively in the dark.바카라
While detailed judicial opinions on DOGE-related challenges are still emerging, the fact that 19 states have co-signed the complaint underscores the gravity of the constitutional issues at stake. State attorneys warn that Musk, 바카라with President Donald J. Trump바카라s approval, has roamed through the federal government, unravelling agencies, accessing sensitive data and causing mass chaos and confusion.바카라 They argue that DOGE cannot be allowed to stand, as it would set a dangerous precedent in which the President violates the principle of separation of powers.
Transgender Healthcare Under Siege
Trump바카라s disdain for the transgender community was central to his campaign. On March 11, he praised his administration for banning 바카라biological males바카라 (transwomen) from women바카라s sports.
Upon taking office, he withdrew federal funds from hospitals and universities providing gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Healthcare providers, advocacy groups and state officials condemned the move as medically unfounded and a violation of civil rights. New York Attorney General Letitia James warned healthcare institutions that halting gender-affirming care would breach state anti-discrimination laws.
Attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado, along with medical professionals, sued to block the funding freeze. In Seattle, Judge Lauren King extended a temporary restraining order, ruling the order lacked legal standing and likely violated constitutional protections.
The Courts as the Last Bulwark
Federal judges have repeatedly checked Trump바카라s potential overreach, but the Supreme Court바카라s stance on his executive orders remains uncertain.
With lifetime appointments, the court is split along party lines and Trump바카라s two conservative appointees have tilted the balance towards the right. However, on March 11, the court rejected the administration바카라s claim of immediate power to fire a watchdog chief, slowing efforts to block $2 billion in foreign aid.
Yet, even the Supreme Court바카라s authority is in question and while Trump says he will comply with rulings, Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have suggested they may defy court orders.
바카라If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that바카라s also illegal. Judges aren바카라t allowed to control the executive바카라s legitimate power,바카라 wrote Vance on X in February this year. If such a situation arises, America could face an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
The Stakes
The legal battle over Trump바카라s executive orders reflects two opposing visions of governance. Supporters argue they restore efficiency and executive authority, while opponents see them as unconstitutional overreach threatening democracy. For states, the stakes are high. The federal funding freeze jeopardises essential services like healthcare, education and public safety. Without relief, budget shortfalls could trigger widespread economic ripple effects. As Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has warned, 바카라If the President and the federal government violate Connecticut바카라s sovereignty, laws and policy, Connecticut will stand its ground and fight back.바카라
Avantika Mehta is a senior associate editor based in New Delhi
This article is a part of Outlook's April 1, 2025 issue 'World At Reset', which explores the ongoing changes in the global geopolitical order. It appeared in print as 'In Trump's Court'.
