Despite gripes from conservative advocates over the legal showdowns, experts say these minor setbacks are just part of the process and by no means should be seen as a death knell for Trump’s second-term agenda. Andy McCarthy, writing for National Review on Monday, pushed against claims that the courts are in revolt against Trump, arguing instead that the legal process is simply slowing, not stopping, his policies.

“For the most part, though, what we’re seeing are the normal effects of litigation, which slow down government action. This does not mean all or even most of Trump’s directives will be stopped,” McCarthy wrote.

Any perception of setbacks against Trump’s efforts is likely due in part to the sheer number of largely Left-backed lawsuits facing Trump’s 55 executive orders to date, as there have been more than 50 lawsuits challenging major administrative actions. On Monday alone, six federal judges issued rulings constraining the administration’s initiatives, including an order to unfreeze federal grant spending and halt personnel changes at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since taking office, Trump has faced 15 emergency court orders slowing or pausing executive directives, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of lawsuits tracked by Just Security.

One of the temporary restraining orders placed against Trump that has sparked a contentious uproar came from U.S. District Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee who, on Jan. 31, blocked a spending freeze enacted through the Office of Management and Budget.

On Monday, McConnell issued a follow-up order that the administration must restore previously frozen funds, prompting the Justice Department to file an emergency appeal, calling the ruling “intolerable judicial overreach.” However, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal Tuesday evening, stating confidence in the lower court’s handling of the case. The appeals court allowed further filings by Feb. 13 but delivered a temporary setback to Trump, marking one of the first appeals court rejections of Trump’s efforts to overturn a district court ruling since taking office.

Conservative uproar over judicial interference

Trump and his allies have decried the wave of judicial intervention as a blatant attempt to sabotage his administration. Elon Musk called the rulings a “judicial coup,” while Vice President JD Vance argued that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

Conservative legal voices have raised concerns about the backgrounds of some judges issuing these rulings, particularly McConnell, who was a major Democratic donor before taking the bench.

If Dems were looking for a constitutional crisis, this might be it.

Democrats let a donor buy a judgeship, and now that donor judge has positioned himself to stop the entire Trump agenda from his district court seat. https://t.co/g8tAI3k3ws

— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) February 11, 2025

“Before he was put on the bench, this Judge McConnell gave $700,000 to Democrat campaigns and committees — including Sen. Whitehouse. Now he’s positioned himself as the protector of left-wing priorities against Trump,” Matt Whitlock, a former senior adviser to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote in a post on X.

Mike Davis, founder of the conservative Article III Project, framed the legal pushback as a constitutional crisis, writing on X, “President Trump isn’t stealing another branch’s power. Activist judges are stealing his executive power. Over political differences. This is unacceptable. These activist judges are creating a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court and Congress must rein in these activists.”

Judge pares back DOGE Treasury ruling amid scrutiny

Another key legal battle is unfolding over the Department of Government Efficiency, the Trump administration’s controversial initiative to streamline the federal workforce. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, initially ruled to block DOGE, led by Musk, from accessing Treasury Department payment systems, prompting alarm from the administration and MAGA allies.

Amid an uproar over perceived judicial overreach, a separate order by U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas clarified Tuesday that the block does not extend to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent or other Senate-confirmed officials. While Vargas loosened some restrictions, she refused to dissolve them entirely, maintaining temporary limits on access by political appointees and DOGE personnel.

The lawsuit, filed by Democrat-led states, argues that DOGE’s oversight of federal payments poses risks to privacy and security. The Justice Department countered that courts have no precedent for barring the executive branch from overseeing its own financial operations, warning that the original ruling could have prevented even the treasury secretary from doing his job.

Legal experts: The system is functioning as designed

Despite the uproar, legal experts argue that these judicial blocks are part of the normal litigation process. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani emphasized that temporary restraining orders do not necessarily signal permanent defeat for Trump’s policies.

Speaking to LiveNOW with Fox’s Andrew Craft, Rahmani stated, “A temporary restraining order doesn’t necessarily mean that Trump and the government lose. It just maintains the status quo.”

Still, Rahmani warned against rhetoric suggesting the administration could ignore judicial rulings, citing historical precedent. “We haven’t had an executive say they weren’t going to follow a lawful court ruling, potentially since Nixon,” he said. “For legislators or members of the executive branch, whether Cabinet-level appointees, the vice president, or even the president, to say that they’re not going to follow the law, that is potentially very dangerous.”

All roads lead toward the high court

As the legal battles intensify, it is increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on several of Trump’s key executive actions, including birthright citizenship, the restructuring of USAID, DOGE’s authority over federal financial systems, and so much more.

“Rest assured, these cases will work their way up to the Supreme Court, and there, the conservative majority will determine one way or another, whether this is lawful or not,” Rahmani said.