Judges are putting the brakes on some of the most dramatic moves of President Donald Trump’s first three weeks in office, slowing actions targeted at migrants, federal workers, government spending and transgender Americans.

According to a Bloomberg News analysis, more than 40 lawsuits have been filed challenging the barrage of activity by the new administration. Trump could eventually prevail, but judges have halted some of his most aggressive moves to carry out his policy agenda as they weigh whether they’re lawful.

“There’s a bunch of judges hearing a whistling noise like flying artillery fire as cases land on their desks,” said Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania appointed by George W. Bush. The U.S. court system will be “tested like it hasn’t ever been.”

Hours before more than 2,000 US Agency for International Development employees were set to be placed on leave Friday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, paused it. The government had shown “essentially zero harm” if it had to wait a little longer, he said. A day earlier, a Boston federal judge delayed a deadline for a federal worker buyout program to allow “proper consideration.”

Other judges across the country have criticized Trump for trying to overturn what’s been considered settled law on U.S. citizenship for more than a century, forced a retreat on a chaotic funding freeze and ordered the administration to agree to temporarily place some restraints on Elon Musk’s government efficiency team.

It’s a similar dynamic to Trump’s first term, when judges blocked or slowed some of his policies. Several courts halted his ban on U.S. travel from certain majority-Muslim countries, but nearly a year later a divided Supreme Court let it take effect. This time, the measures are larger in volume and coming more quickly from the White House. Advocacy groups and Democratic state officials are trying to keep pace challenging them in court.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that the “lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance — and the Trump Administration is ready to face them in court.” A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

Here are some of the most consequential cases:

DOGE and Musk

As “special government employee” Elon Musk moves to gut federal agency personnel and programs as part of his government efficiency mandate from Trump, opponents argue the Tesla Inc. and SpaceX CEO and his team are violating US laws.

There are lawsuits seeking to stop the U.S. Treasury Department from giving Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency access to a federal payments system, arguing it would expose confidential information about individuals and U.S. companies. A New York judge temporarily blocked DOGE-affiliated officials from accessing some data pending a hearing in the coming days.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed under former President George W. Bush, denied a request to block DOGE’s access to Labor Department records. He wrote that he “harbors concerns” about DOGE’s activities, but found the unions that sued hadn’t shown they had standing to press the case.

Immigration agenda

Trump’s move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship was the most overt example of him brushing aside legal precedents to carry out a hard-line immigration agenda. Judges in Maryland and Washington state have blocked it so far. The Justice Department has appealed the latter ruling, kicking off a constitutional battle that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Immigrant advocacy groups have also filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s order suspending access to asylum proceedings for people crossing the southern border, a policy change that would allow immigration enforcement actions in or near places of worship and the termination of programs that provide legal information to migrants facing deportation and lawyers for children. Judges haven’t acted in those cases yet.

Federal workforce

Opponents of the administration’s moves have argued that the livelihoods and in some cases the physical safety of thousands of federal employees are at risk. The suits challenge changes to the classification of federal employees, a proposed buyout for federal employees nationwide and the release of names of FBI employees who investigated the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On Friday, in a pair of suits brought by anonymous FBI employees, the U.S. government reached a temporary agreement not to make public a list of the bureau’s agents, analysts and support staff who helped investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters. The accord bars any disclosure until U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb in Washington rules on a more lasting ban.

“I do acknowledge that if this information were released, I think there’s no question it would put a number of FBI agents in significant immediate danger,” said Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, without weighing in on the merits of the claims.

It remains to be seen how judges will view Trump’s executive order that would make it easier to fire high-level civil service employees who are normally protected from changes in administrations. At least four suits from groups of federal employees allege the change in employee classification — long sought by conservative groups — goes against the intent of lawmakers since Congress established “due process rights” for career employees.

Civil rights, DEI

Civil rights cases have largely focused so far on protecting the rights of transgender Americans, including those serving the U.S. military. At least two groups of active duty trans troops have sued to challenge a Trump executive order banning them from service, alleging the directive violates equal protection rights under the Constitution.

The cases are in early stages, but U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, on Feb. 6 ordered the government to immediately alert the court if the Defense Department “issues any policy or guidance implementing the challenged Executive Orders in the military.” The judge said she’d consider a temporary restraining order if the military took any moves to change the status of the plaintiffs in the case before she can hear arguments on a longer lasting injunction later this month.

Meanwhile, a judge barred the administration from halting medical treatment for transgender women in federal prisons or transferring them to men’s facilities, writing that the harm is “not abstract at all.”

Judicial enforcement

Trump has been open about his frustration with judges who exercise their constitutional duty to serve as a check on the presidency’s vast authority. Opponents are on alert for evidence that US officials are failing, or deliberately refusing, to comply with court orders.

On Friday, Democratic state attorneys general suing over Trump’s freeze of certain federal grants, assistance and loans alerted a Rhode Island judge that there were problems accessing funds even with a temporary restraining order in effect. They didn’t ask to sanction the administration but asked for an immediate order that officials “take ever step necessary” comply.

Judges have some options to enforce orders. They could summon top White House or agency officials to testify and direct the US Marshals to bring them in if they refuse. Judges can impose fines or even place the responsible official behind bars.

If Trump directed officials to refuse to comply with a court order, a judge could exercise at least some contempt power over him, Jones said, but such a showdown would mean that “the rule of law has completely collapsed.”

—With assistance from Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou and Sabrina Willmer.

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.