Bursting an “EO” Delusion?
Two weeks into the brand new time period, a Seattle courtroom supplied the yr’s defining picture of presidential energy assembly its limits: a Ninth Circuit panel upheld a nationwide block on the administration’s try and curtail birthright citizenship, acknowledging that the judges’ interpretation of the Structure—not a presidential pen stroke—units the phrases of American membership.
Weeks earlier, in Baltimore, a federal choose had temporarily enjoined key elements of two DEI-related govt orders as each obscure and speech-burdening—an early reminder that even marquee directives can stall on the courthouse door—earlier than the Fourth Circuit stayed that injunction whereas the attraction performs out.
Greater than half of the administration’s main orders this yr hit a judicial roadblock, usually inside weeks. And the motion has hardly been confined to the same old venues: the administration even took the extraordinary step of suing all 15 federal judges in Maryland over a deportation-related order—solely to see the case tossed. The result’s a litigation map that runs by Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Baltimore as reliably because it does by Texas, with trial and appellate courts requested—many times—to resolve how far govt energy can go on contact with statute and Structure.
The Supreme Courtroom, for its half, has signaled that the outer edge of that power might be examined in instances now shifting onto its docket—an enviornment the place campaign-trail ambition meets Article II in full daylight.
In different phrases, the parable of the moment, untouchable govt order collided this yr with a extra grounded actuality: in a polarized second, the federal judiciary has turn out to be the primary responder to the largest coverage fights, not as a partisan counterforce however because the system’s built-in referee.
This development highlights a brand new actuality of American governance: in an period of congressional gridlock, courts are the place politics transfer subsequent. Up to now this positioned courts as a principal engine creating policy within the void of motion by Congress and Government. Now Trump appears to have acknowledged this vacuum and has taken the reins on motion from each Congress and the courts.
EOs now function a President’s bid to ship quick coverage wins to their base, however the opposition (state attorneys basic, advocacy teams, and even some companies) now reflexively races to court docket to halt these insurance policies. The result’s that the last word destiny of many high-profile EOs is determined by judges, not simply by the stroke of a pen. Removed from being omnipotent, govt orders in 2025 had been instantly pulled right into a political-legal tug-of-war, demonstrating that in terms of main insurance policies, the President’s energy is checked early and sometimes by the courts.
To dig into this space of litigation, this text analyzes a complete dataset of 327 federal district court docket instances difficult govt orders issued by the primary half of August 2025. This “EO Litigation Tracker” captures every case’s challenge space, the presiding choose and their appointing president, the reduction sought (Non permanent Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction), whether or not an injunction was granted (and in that case, whether or not it was nationwide in scope), and the end result (whether or not the EO was upheld or enjoined ultimately). By categorizing instances by coverage challenge and by the kind/scope of injunctive reduction, patterns emerged that inform a political story: which points provoked probably the most authorized battles, and the place (and earlier than whom) these battles performed out. The Tracker additionally teams instances by the court docket’s location (circuit) and by every presiding choose’s background to see how ideological leanings might need influenced outcomes. This text focuses on the judicial dimensions of those selections. A second article will emphasize coverage space the place orders are beneath judicial scrutiny.
Who Decides?
This chart reveals that almost all EO instances in 2025 had been determined by judges appointed by Barack Obama (105) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (78)—collectively, properly over half of the overall proven. Donald Trump (44), William J. Clinton (40), and George W. Bush (35) appointees dealt with a smaller however nonetheless substantial share, whereas Reagan (15), George H. W. Bush (3), and Carter (2) trailed. The skew displays the place plaintiffs filed—particularly D.D.C. and coastal circuits—greater than any single choose’s ideology, and it helps clarify why many outcomes tilted towards the administration; the determine omits judges that had been nominated by one president and held over for affirmation beneath one other president.
The graph above tracks case outcomes by the appointing president of the presiding choose. Trump and Obama appointees present the biggest upheld slices, however even there, injunctions nonetheless outnumber affirmances. Reagan, Clinton, and Biden appointees have solely slivers of upheld EOs whereas George H. W. Bush (and to a lesser extent Reagan and George W. Bush) appointees have comparatively bigger dismissal shares. The sample suggests judges’ political backgrounds and beliefs issues on the margins, however the prevailing story is broad judicial skepticism of the orders on the interim stage no matter who appointed the choose.
By mid-2025, the administration misplaced way over it gained. Of the 274 instances that reached a transparent consequence in 2025, 232 (roughly 85%) enjoined the EO or associated company motion in entire or half, whereas 42 (15%) upheld it. Celebration-of-appointing-president mattered, however not sufficient to avoid wasting most orders. Democratic appointees dominated towards the EO about 88% of the time; Republican appointees did so about 77% of the time. On early reduction, Democratic appointees granted preliminary injunctions in roughly 60% of instances, in contrast with about 42% for Republican appointees. The hole tracks expectations—however the hanging reality is how usually judges from each camps discovered authorized defects severe sufficient to sink the orders.
The development isn’t new—and it cuts each methods. Analyses show that almost all nationwide injunctions (earlier than the Supreme Courtroom primarily prohibited them in Trump v. CASA) towards each Trump’s first time period and Biden’s administration got here from judges appointed by the other celebration. Coverage fights are more and more resolved by authorized briefs and emergency motions, with courtroom wins and losses carrying the load—and the political aftershocks—of legislative victories or defeats.
The Rising Sample
The most important driver wasn’t simply ideology; it was the place the lawsuits had been filed. The District of Columbia was floor zero: 104 of 327 instances—simply over 30%—ran by D.D.C.. That’s logical and strategic. Nationwide insurance policies are administered in Washington, the judges there are steeped in administrative regulation, and each authorities and public-interest attorneys know the discussion board properly. Blue-state venues just like the Northern District of California, the District of Massachusetts, and the District of Maryland additionally drew heavy fireplace, reflecting plaintiffs’ decisions to file the place they anticipated a receptive ear to statutory and APA arguments.
Texas—the star of nationwide coverage fights beneath the prior administration—was comparatively quiet. The Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) accounted for less than 12 instances (roughly 3.7%), whereas the Ninth Circuit noticed 53 (roughly 16%) and the First Circuit logged 43. In a role-reversal, liberal states and advocacy teams led the cost in 2025 and steered instances to D.C., California, and the Northeast reasonably than to Texas.
Inside these busy boards, repeat gamers mattered. In D.D.C., judges corresponding to Paul Friedman, John Bates, Rudolph Contreras, and Timothy Kelly dealt with a number of EO instances. Regardless of completely different appointing presidents, they usually converged on outcomes—ceaselessly enjoining or hanging down orders after they seen defects as apparent (conflicts with statute, APA shortcuts, or shaky authority).
Government orders set the agenda, however judges set the bounds. In 2025, venue technique and beliefs formed the skirmishes, but fundamental regulation resolved the disputes in the intervening time. With the Supreme Court poised to refine the foundations, any presidency ought to count on its largest EOs to face the courtroom first.
** This work wouldn’t be doable with out the inimitable help of Daniel Thompson.
Click here to read more from Legalytics…
Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting firm Optimized Authorized Options LLC. Try extra of his writing at Legalytics and Empirical SCOTUS. For extra info, write Adam at [email protected]. Discover him on Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
