\n<\/p>\n
When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond<\/a> last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president’s mass deportation effort.<\/p>\n Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn’t binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.<\/p>\n By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Joe Biden, accused Trump officials<\/a> in a ruling that month of seeking \u201cto erode any semblance of separation of powers,\u201d adding that they could \u201conly do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.\u201d <\/p>\n Hardly isolated, the case illustrates a broader pattern of defiance of lower court decisions in President Donald Trump’s second term. <\/p>\n The failure of Trump officials to follow court orders has been highlighted most notably<\/a> in individual immigration cases. But a review of hundreds of pages of court records by The Associated Press also shows an extraordinary record of violations in lawsuits over policy changes and other moves. <\/p>\n The Republican administration’s power struggle with federal courts \u2014 which is testing basic tenets of U.S. democracy<\/a> \u2014 reflects an expansive view of executive authority that has also challenged the independence of federal agencies, a president\u2019s ethical obligations<\/a>, and the U.S.\u2019s role in the international order. <\/p>\n In the second Trump administration\u2019s first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices, the AP\u2019s review of court records found. That\u2019s about one out of every eight lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n The White House’s aggressive policy moves have prompted a barrage of lawsuits \u2014 more than 700 and counting. <\/p>\n The violations in the 31 lawsuits are in addition to more than 250 instances of noncompliance judges have recently highlighted<\/a> in individual immigration petitions \u2014 from failing to return property to keeping immigrants locked up past court-ordered release dates. <\/p>\n Legal scholars and former federal judges said they could recall at most a few violations of court rulings over the full four-year terms of other recent presidential administrations, including Trump’s first time in office. They also noted previous administrations were generally apologetic when confronted by judges; the Trump administration’s Justice Department has been outright combative in some cases.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat the court system is experiencing in the last year and a half is just qualitatively completely different from anything that\u2019s preceded it,\u201d said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who studies federal courts and is tracking litigation against the Trump administration<\/a>.<\/p>\n Though Trump officials eventually backed down in about a third of the 31 lawsuits, legal experts say their treatment of court orders poses serious dangers.<\/p>\n \u201cThe federal government should be the institution most devoted to the rule of law in this country,\u201d said David Super, a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. \u201cWhen it ceases to feel itself bound, respect for the rule of law is likely to break down across the country.\u201d <\/p>\n The AP\u2019s review also found that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, overruled the district courts and sided with the White House in nearly half of the 31 cases. Critics say those decisions are emboldening the administration to ignore judges’ orders.<\/p>\n White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the higher courts had overturned \u201cunlawful district court rulings.\u201d The administration will \u201ccontinue to comply with lawful court rulings,\u201d she added in a written statement.<\/p>\n \u201cPresident Trump\u2019s entire Administration is lawfully implementing the America First agenda he was elected to enact,\u201d the statement said.<\/p>\n Among other instances of noncompliance, judges found the White House defied rulings when it deported scores of accused gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, withheld billions of dollars in foreign aid and failed to restore programming at the Voice of America. The three cases date to the first few months of the new administration, but judges have continued to find violations since then, including in two cases in April.<\/p>\n \u201cThe danger is that this gets normalized,\u201d said JoAnna Suriani, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, which is tracking noncompliance cases. The group is also involved in litigation against the administration.<\/p>\n In October, U.S. District Judge William Smith took little time to conclude Homeland Security officials were flouting one of his orders. Smith, a nominee of George W. Bush, had blocked them from making billions of dollars in disaster relief funding to states contingent on cooperation with the president’s immigration priorities.<\/p>\n DHS responded by keeping the immigration requirement on some grants, but making it contingent on a higher court overriding Smith\u2019s injunction. The judge called the move \u201cham-handed\u201d and said DHS was trying to \u201cbully the states.\u201d<\/p>\n In a case over the suspension of refugee admissions, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden nominee, accused the Justice Department last May of \u201challucinating new text\u201d in an appellate court order and \u201crewriting\u201d it to achieve the government’s preferred outcome. <\/p>\n In four additional cases the AP reviewed, judges stopped short of a clear written finding of noncompliance but still criticized the administration\u2019s response to their orders. <\/p>\n Of the judges who have confirmed violations, 22 were appointed by Democratic presidents and 7 by Republican presidents.<\/p>\n Former federal judges Jeremy Fogel and Liam O\u2019Grady said judges are losing trust in the integrity of the Department of Justice. <\/p>\n That\u2019s making them \u201cmore aggressive in accusing the government of bad faith,\u201d said O\u2019Grady, who along with Fogel is now part of the nonpartisan democracy group, Keep Our Republic.<\/p>\n Fogel said judges are also getting frustrated.<\/p>\n \u201cThey make orders and the orders don\u2019t get complied with and then they have to inquire why the orders are not being complied with, and that\u2019s where it gets very mushy and very political,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n In Eureka, California, school administrator Lisa Claussen is worried about the impact on her students\u2019 mental health if a judge does not find the Education Department in violation of a court order on federal grants.<\/p>\n Grant money allowed the school district in the poor coastal community in Northern California to hire more than a dozen psychologists and social workers to help students struggling with drug use and suicidal thoughts. <\/p>\n Education officials in the Trump administration told schools in California and other states last year that it was discontinuing the grants; the administration opposed diversity considerations in the grant process.<\/p>\n U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson blocked the move permanently in December, but California and 15 other states now say the administration is making an end run around her injunction by imposing new rules, including an initial limit of six months of funding. <\/p>\n Attorneys for the Education Department said they wanted to see whether schools were making progress on performance goals before releasing additional funds. The judge’s order did not block the six-month limit, they added in a court filing. <\/p>\n Evanson, a Biden nominee, has yet to rule.<\/p>\n In the absence of a one-year funding guarantee, Eureka City Schools and other districts say they have already issued layoff notices to mental health providers or eliminated positions.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have many kids who don\u2019t trust adults for very good reason and to be able to just swipe this grant like they\u2019re doing …\u201d Claussen said in a phone interview, her voice trailing off. \u201cWe didn\u2019t do anything wrong.\u201d <\/p>\n In court filings, Justice Department attorneys have generally disputed accusations the government was not complying. They have argued over the meaning of words, cited favorable appellate court rulings and said they were acting outside the scope of the court\u2019s order, among other legal maneuvering. <\/p>\n