President second-term agenda is hitting repeated roadblocks in Washington, D.C., federal court, where judges have halted major policies â fueling a growing clash over whether the judiciary is checking executive power or overstepping into it.
The rulings have halted key parts of Trumps agenda on immigration, policing and federal authority, intensifying debate over whether courts are acting as a constitutional check or obstructing elected leadership.
Here are some of the biggest court clashes Trump is facing in D.C. federal court.
One of the biggest fights is also one of the earliest lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in D.C. federal court  â centered on the Trump administration’s use of the , a 1798 wartime law, to deport certain migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
Civil rights groups and immigration advocates have argued the Trump administration is stretching the law beyond its intended use case, including the three previous times it was used in U.S. history â most recently, during World War II. The Trump administration has defended the move as a lawful exercise of executive authority over national security and immigration enforcement.
The case quickly landed in D.C. federal court and has since moved up on appeal, with higher courts now weighing the scope of the presidents authority under the centuries-old statute. The outcome could have sweeping implications for how rarely used emergency powers are applied in modern immigration policy.
Â
The scope of federal power over states and localities has also been tested. Courts have imposed limits on Trumps efforts to assert control over National Guard units, raising federalism concerns about the balance between state and federal authority.
The standoff began in August 2025. Trump moved to expand federal control over policing in Washington, D.C., including deploying National Guard troops to .Â
A related lawsuit, District of Columbia v. Trump, challenges what city officials describe as aninto local policing. The case remains a key test of presidential authority over the nations capital.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a pair of appeals from the seeking to immediately halt Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Haitian migrants. Haitians were first granted TPS status in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. Previously, a lower court judge in D.C., U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, had blocked the Trump administration from lifting the TPS designation.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the high court to take up the broader issue of whether the Trump administration can revoke TPS protections for other migrants living in the U.S. â citing the Justice Department’s appeal of a similar case centered on TPS protections for Syrian migrants that was kicked to the high court earlier this year.
“Unless the court resolves the merits of these challenges â issues that have now been ventilated in courts nationwide â this unsustainable cycle will repeat again and again, spawning more competing rulings and competing views of what to make of this courts interim orders,” Sauer said last week. “This court should break that cycle.”
The appeal comes as the Trump administration has sought to wind down most TPS designations, arguing the programs have been extended for too long under Democratic presidents.
“Haitis TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago,” said then-spokesperson for DHS Tricia McLaughlin. “It was never intended to be a , yet thats how previous administrations have used it for decades.”
Early in the term, the administrations effort to rapidly scale back the U.S. Agency for International Development was halted by a federal judge, who blocked mass leave orders and the dismantling of the agencys workforce.
The Supreme Court eventually intervened in the case. Last March, the high court denied the Trump administration’s request to block a lowe
