At least 77 court rulings concerning Trump’s second term include sharp criticism from judges

Inside federal courts across the country, institutional alarm is rising from the bench. Judges are using unusually sharp language to push back against what they see as mounting government attacks on the judiciary and the legal system itself.

In the 77 rulings NCS identified, dozens of federal judges appointed by presidents of both parties — including several of President Donald Trump’s appointees — have accused the Trump administration of acting unlawfully, disregarding constitutional limits, retaliating against political opponents and, in some cases, openly defying court orders.

“What we’ve seen over the last 16 months is far above and beyond what we’ve seen before,” said Steve Vladeck, a NCS Supreme Court analyst and law professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

The criticism has been extraordinary, both in terms of its intensity and consistency, Vladeck said. Across dozens of rulings, federal judges have described the government’s actions using scathing language: “squalid,” “irrational,” and “shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.” The excerpts below offer a sample of their reprimands, drawn from courts across the country and issued by judges of varying backgrounds.

NCS reviewed a whole lot of court rulings and media stories to determine 77 circumstances for the reason that begin of Trump’s second term in January 2025 wherein judges sharply criticized the administration or federal entities’ insurance policies and their execution. The orders have been issued by 69 completely different judges, greater than a 3rd of whom have been appointed by Republican presidents, together with Trump himself. This evaluation is meant to focus on coverage criticisms, reasonably than observe circumstances themselves and isn’t exhaustive.

Vladeck stated such a excessive variety of these circumstances with the sort of criticism is each surprising as a matter of historic precedent but in addition an undercount based mostly on what he has noticed enjoying out in federal district courts.

Judges by appointing president

Democratic

Joe Biden 2021-2025

Barack Obama 2009-2017

Bill Clinton 1993-2001

Republican

Donald Trump 2017-2021, 2025-present

George W. Bush 2001-2009

Ronald Reagan 1981-1989

Note: Data omits one judge appointed by the Northern District of Illinois (not a president)

While the opinions differed in material, patterns emerged. Critical remarks in judges’ orders and opinions tended to cluster round three varieties of misconduct: abuse of energy, bad-faith habits, and suspected retaliation. While all 77 circumstances fell into at least one class, many orders fell into multiple.

The circumstances NCS recognized additionally spanned among the administration’s most contentious coverage areas, and criticism started nearly instantly in Trump’s second term. Rulings tied to government overreach dominated the earliest months of Trump’s presidency, with judges elevating considerations in January 2025, simply after his inauguration.

As the yr progressed, immigration-related circumstances surged to develop into the biggest share of rulings recognized, with 35 opinions tied to deportations, migrant rights, birthright citizenship and the rights of people detained by the federal government to problem their detention in court.

The quantity spiked considerably in early 2026 within the wake of Operation Metro Surge, the largest immigration enforcement operation in US historical past, triggering a wave of authorized challenges in federal courts throughout the nation. The criticism has not let up, with circumstances persevering with by June 2026.

The Trump administration in flip is hitting again in opposition to the courts.

In an announcement to NCS, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson rejected the criticism highlighted within the rulings, saying that lower-court judges are pushing their very own coverage objectives. She stated the administration would proceed pursuing its agenda regardless of “judicial activism.”

While clashes between presidents and the judiciary aren’t unusual, presidents have typically revered court rulings whilst they pursued authorized challenges. However, Trump has veered away from trendy norms, repeatedly attacking judges publicly whereas additionally transferring way more aggressively than previous presidents to hunt Supreme Court intervention.

Those public assaults have focused judges appointed by presidents of each events. On Truth Social, Trump derided US District Judge Richard Leon as “Trump Hating” and “out of control,” accusing him of undermining nationwide safety. Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, turned a spotlight of Trump’s ire after he blocked the White House ballroom venture, ruling that development should pause till Congress grants authorization. In different cases, he has used social media to name for judges’ impeachments, incomes a uncommon rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts final yr.

While sitting judges typically keep away from commenting publicly on political controversies, retired judges have develop into more and more vocal in defending judicial independence amid what they see as escalating assaults on the courts. Mark Wolf, a Reagan-appointed federal choose of over 40 years, resigned final November, writing in The Atlantic that the White House’s assault on the rule of legislation is so deeply disturbing he felt compelled to talk out.

“There have been calls over time for the impeachment of federal judges,” Wolf stated in an interview with NCS. “But what’s happening now is unprecedented.”

Federal judges are anticipated to talk primarily by their hearings and written opinions. They don’t specific themselves on social media or TV, Wolf stated. Ethics guidelines and longstanding norms discourage sitting judges from making public statements that might name their impartiality into query, leaving retired judges with better freedom to have interaction in broader debates concerning the courts.

That dynamic is fueling an organized response from former members of the judiciary. The Article III Coalition, a bunch of retired federal district and circuit judges, was based final yr in May to defend judicial independence and defend the Constitution’s separation of powers.

In response to the assaults on judges, a latest judicial ethics opinion from a committee of the federal judiciary emphasised that judges could publicly defend “judicial independence” and “the rule of law,” together with by measured responses to assaults that threaten the courts’ legitimacy.

What is hanging and new is the opinion’s clear emphasis at this time limit of the significance of judges talking out in protection of the rule of legislation and in opposition to those that would search to undermine it, Vladeck wrote in February.

For some judges, these considerations have taken on explicit urgency. Wolf believes the justice system within the United States is dealing with an existential risk. Public confidence within the courts, he stated, depends upon the assumption that judges can determine circumstances impartially. In flip, a president’s willingness to respect and adjust to court orders depends upon the American folks’s assist for the courts.

“To the extent that the president and his subordinates can violate the law with impunity, including by disobeying court orders, we no longer have the rule of law,” he stated.