Inside the Federal Judiciary: The Legal Challenges Facing Trump’s Agenda

Inside the Federal Judiciary: The Legal Challenges Facing Trump’s Agenda

The legal battle against President Donald Trump’s second term is intensifying, with over 120 lawsuits filed since January 20. These legal actions involve states, advocacy groups, and individuals targeting Trump’s executive orders and policies.

As these lawsuits progress through the federal court system, understanding the structure of that system is crucial. This knowledge can offer insights into how these challenges are likely to play out.

The Structure of the Federal Judiciary

Outlined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the federal judiciary includes the Supreme Court and various inferior courts established by Congress. The Constitution stipulates that judges serve during periods of “good behavior,” ensuring judicial independence.

The federal judiciary encompasses three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. There are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and a single Supreme Court, each playing a distinct role in the judicial process.

Understanding Jurisdiction

For any court to hear a case, it must possess personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and the appropriate venue. Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority over the parties involved, while subject matter jurisdiction pertains to the court’s authority to adjudicate a particular issue.

Federal courts are defined as courts of limited jurisdiction. They can only hear cases authorized by the Constitution or federal law. Each lawsuit filed against the Trump administration presents a federal question, thus granting federal courts subject matter jurisdiction.

District Courts and Appeals

Every district court is staffed by at least one United States district judge, who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime term. If plaintiffs lose at the district court level, they have the option to appeal to a federal appellate court.

Appellate courts, or circuit courts, review appeals from district courts within their geographical boundaries. Each circuit covers several states; for instance, the Fifth Circuit includes Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

The Appeal Process

Each circuit is composed of multiple judges, typically ranging from six to 29 members. When a case is appealed, it is first presented to a panel of three judges. The involved parties submit briefs arguing whether the trial court’s decision should be upheld or overturned.

After submitting briefs, oral arguments are scheduled, allowing attorneys to present their cases and respond to judges’ questions. In certain situations, the full panel may convene in an en banc session, particularly in larger circuits like the Ninth Circuit, which employs a modified en banc process.

The rulings of a circuit court bind all lower courts within that circuit, meaning they must adhere to that decision. Although other circuits may reference the holding, they are not obligated to conform to it.

Finalizing Appeals

Typically, a case can only be appealed after a final decision has been rendered. However, there are instances where interlocutory appeals can occur, allowing parties to appeal certain issues before a final ruling is made.

Parties may appeal a circuit court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court by submitting a writ of certiorari. This document requests the Supreme Court to review the case. However, the Supreme Court is not required to accept the case and often denies most petitions, granting review in less than one percent of appeals. If certiorari is denied, the ruling of the lower court remains intact.

Examining Circuit Splits

A circuit split arises when different circuits disagree on a specific legal matter. Such discrepancies usually prompt the Supreme Court to grant certiorari for a case. Once certiorari is granted, the involved parties must submit briefs and present oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Each circuit is assigned a dedicated Supreme Court justice who addresses specific appeals from that region, such as administrative requests. For instance, Chief Justice Roberts oversees cases related to the D.C. Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. The assigned justice can handle matters independently or refer them to the full court.

The Trump Administration’s Legal Strategies

The Trump administration has already pursued various decisions in the Supreme Court via emergency appeals. For example, on March 28, the administration requested the court’s review of a temporary restraining order that impeded the use of an antiquated wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged gang members from the Tren de Aragua.

This appeal followed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, which upheld the district court’s blockade of the administration’s action.

The Road Ahead

As Trump’s second term unfolds, the legal landscape will continue to evolve. How the federal judiciary responds to the myriad challenges will have significant implications for the Trump administration’s policy agenda. Observers will be keenly watching how the judiciary balances its role as an independent arbiter against the backdrop of intense political scrutiny.