In the growing battle of President Donald Trump with the Judiciary, he and his Republican allies have focused on a similar message.
They argue that no single judge should be able to use a court order to block the powers of the chosen executive director of the country.
“That is a presidential job. That is not for a local judge to take that determination,” Trump said in Fox News earlier this week when he criticized a judge who issued a limited order to stop the deportation flights of the alleged members of Venezuelan gang to other countries after Trump invoked the alien enemies law of 1798.
The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, dotted with questions after the administration did not change the planes, on Wednesday he preventively offered his own reprimand of judges who recently ordered that the mandates arose throughout the country.
“The judges in this country are acting erroneously,” he said. “We have judges who act as partisan activists from the Bank. They are trying to dictate the policy of the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly decelerate the agenda of this administration, and is unacceptable.”
The White House argues that this is especially the case when it comes to immigration issues, foreign matters, national security and the president exercising his constitutional powers as a commander in chief.
The judges have temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to prohibit transgender people in the army, freeze federal funds and end the citizenship of birth rights.
The supporters of the national mandates say that they serve as an essential verification for potentially illegal behavior and avoid generalized damage. Critics say that they give too much authority to individual judges and encourage the plaintiffs to attempt to evade the random assignment and the presentation in jurisdictions with judges who can sympathize with their point of view.
President Donald Trump talks to the media after attending a meeting of the Board at the Kennedy Center, in Washington, on March 17, 2025.
Somodevilla/Getty chip
In general, legal experts told ABC News that a court order is destined to preserve the status quo, while the judges consider the merits of the case. (Judges also issue temporary restriction orders, with a similar impact, as short -term emergency measures to avoid irreparable damage until a hearing can be held).
“Often, the national mandate, or the universal court order, is implemented just at the beginning of a litigation,” said Amanda Frost, professor at the Law School of the University of Virginia.
“All this can be appealed, and they are,” said Frost. “A court of three judges has been appealed and then the Supreme Court after that. So, when people say that a district court is controlling the law for the nation, perhaps for a few weeks. The system allows appeals and the Trump administration has appealed.”
The president of the court, John Roberts, said the same in a rare statement after Trump attacked the federal judge in the case of deportation flight as a “radical left lunatic” and asked to be accused.
In fact, Trump received a victory when a court of appeals last week raised a court order on his executive orders that sought to end the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government.
National mandates are not new either, although academics agree that they have been used much more in recent decades.
“We saw them with Obama, we saw them with Trump’s first administration and saw them with Biden,” said Frost. “And now we are seeing them even more with President Trump, but they go to the top of the wide executive orders that seek to change and fly to great strips of our legal structure.”
According to a study of the Harvard Law ReviewPresident Barack Obama faced 12 mandates, the Trump administration faced 64 and President Joe Biden 14 cautious.
The United States Supreme Court is shown on March 17, 2025 in Washington.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Both Democrats and Republicans have urged the Judiciary to control the mandates or celebrate their results, depending on whether they are aligned with their political objectives.
In 2023, when a federal judge in Missouri issued a court order that limited contact between the Biden administration and social media sites, Trump’s consent described him as a “historical ruling” and the “brilliant” judge. The United States Supreme Court finally put on the side of the Biden administration on the subject.
Now, the Trump administration is appealing to the United States Supreme Court to slow the precautionary measures after three different federal judges temporarily blocked the president’s birth law of the president, saying that he probably violated the 14th amendment.
“At least, the court must suspend precautionary measures to the extent that the agencies develop and issue public orientation regarding the implementation of the order. Only the intervention of this court can prevent universal measures from becoming universally acceptable,” wrote the general lawyer in Sarah Harris action in a request to the Superior Court last week.
Neama Rahmani, former federal prosecutor and president of the litigating lawyers of the west coast, said he understands the “frustration” that may come from national mandates, but, ultimately, “the judges are there to ensure that the government does not violate the Constitution.”
“Trump is really taking a deck to everything related to the government,” he said. “These norms have existed for decades, so it must allow some time for the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, intervene and say whether this is appropriate or not.”
The White House has said that Trump will comply with the courts, but its intensifiers representing judges and failures have raised the question: what happens if it does not?
“That would completely undermine the integrity of our system,” Rahmani said.
