Washington, D.C. is not just the seat of the federal government. It is where federal power gets questioned in public, under oath, and on a timetable that can move far slower than politics. Right now, that timetable is colliding with major parts of President Trump’s second-term agenda.
In case after case, federal judges in the nation’s capital have paused specific moves on immigration, weighed limits on federal involvement in policing in the District, and pushed back in disputes touching the Federal Reserve. The White House calls it obstruction. The courts call it review. The Constitution calls it separation of powers. The catch is that separation of powers is not a neat diagram. It is a contact sport.
Join the Discussion
Who decides
Every administration runs into lawsuits. What makes this moment different is the concentration of high-stakes challenges landing in D.C. federal court and the questions they force: When the President claims emergency power, who gets to decide whether the conditions fit the claim? When a statute is vague, who gets to define its edges? When an institution is designed to be independent, how hard can a President pull before the law pushes back?
In civics class, we tell students the courts interpret the law. True. But in practice, courts also control timing. A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction does not just interpret. It freezes. And in politics, freezing can look a lot like winning.
Alien Enemies Act
The most combustible legal clash centers on the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime statute rarely invoked in modern history. The Trump administration has leaned on it as part of an effort to deport certain migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
Civil rights groups and immigration advocates argue the statute is being stretched beyond its intended wartime purpose and beyond the limited circumstances in which it has been used before, including the three previous times it was used in U.S. history, most recently during World War II. The administration frames the move as a lawful exercise of executive authority tied to national security and immigration enforcement.
The case quickly landed in D.C. federal court and has moved up on appeal, with higher courts weighing the scope of the president’s authority under the centuries-old law. The implications are not subtle. If courts narrow the Act’s reach, they are signaling that “emergency” is not whatever the President says it is. If courts uphold the administration’s theory, they will be blessing a modern revival of sweeping powers that have largely sat on the shelf for generations.
Control of D.C.
Another dispute cuts into a constitutional oddity: Washington, D.C. is not a state, and Congress has unique authority over it. That structure has long made the District a magnet for fights over who truly controls the levers of governance in the capital, especially when local officials and federal officials point to different sources of authority.
The standoff began in August 2025. President Trump moved to expand federal control over policing in Washington, including deploying National Guard troops in response to crime. Courts have imposed limits on efforts to assert control over National Guard units, raising concerns about where command authority sits and how far federal power can reach into local policing in the District.
A related lawsuit, District of Columbia v. Trump, frames the conflict in blunt terms: is this legitimate federal stewardship of the nation’s capital, or an unprecedented federal intrusion into local policing? The case remains a key test of presidential authority over Washington.
TPS for Haitians
Temporary Protected Status was built for disruption: war, disaster, sudden collapse. Haitians were first granted TPS in 2010 after the devastating earthquake. Fifteen-plus years later, “temporary” has become an argument disguised as an immigration one.
A D.C. federal judge, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, blocked the administration from ending Haiti’s TPS designation. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a pair of appeals from the Trump administration seeking to immediately halt TPS designations for Haitian migrants. The administration is also urging the Court to take up a broader question about whether it can revoke TPS protections for other migrants living in the U.S., citing the Justice Department’s appeal of a similar case centered on TPS protections for Syrian migrants.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer put the institutional concern plainly: “Unless the court resolves the merits of these challenges — issues that have now been ventilated in courts nationwide — this unsustainable cycle will repeat again and again, spawning more competing rulings and competing views of what to make of this court’s interim orders,” Sauer said last week. “This court should break that cycle.”
And the administration’s political argument has been just as direct. Then-DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said, “Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago. It was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades.”
Underneath the rhetoric sits a hard civic question: If a program can be extended indefinitely, is it still temporary protection, or has it quietly become a parallel immigration system built by executive discretion?
USAID and speed
Early in the term, the administration tried to rapidly scale back the U.S. Agency for International Development. A federal judge blocked aspects of the effort, including mass leave orders and steps aimed at dismantling parts of the workforce.
The Supreme Court later declined to halt a lower court order requiring the government to pay nearly $2 billion for previously completed foreign aid projects, leaving the mechanics of payment to the lower court. The suit was appealed to a higher court, where litigation remains pending.
This is a lesson presidents keep relearning: the executive branch can move quickly, but it cannot move quickly through contracts, appropriations, and statutory frameworks that were designed to slow unilateral action.
The Fed cases
No institution in Washington is more soaked in “independence” mythology than the Federal Reserve. Not because the Fed is untouchable, but because modern governance depends on the appearance that monetary policy is insulated from political revenge.
Two court fights now tug at that insulation from different directions.
Subpoenas and a grand jury
Justice Department lawyers asked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg earlier this month to reconsider an order quashing grand jury subpoenas of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In the motion for reconsideration submitted Monday, prosecutors argued the court “applied an incorrect legal standard, erred with respect to certain facts, and overlooked other relevant facts.” They urged that a subpoena should be permitted when there is even a “reasonable possibility” the materials sought will yield information relevant to the investigation, even if the recipient “proposes a plausible theory of an ulterior motive.”
Can a President fire a governor
In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this year about whether the President can remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the Fed’s board of governors without notice and largely without the ability for courts to challenge the “for cause” provision underpinning her removal. Cook remains in her post for now under an order from U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb.
Put these together and you see the same theme: the administration is testing whether “independent” is a political norm or a legally enforceable boundary.
"Activist judge"
The administration has accused judges of political interference, using the familiar label “activist.” But that word often functions as a shortcut. It can mean the court is not deferring.
Here is the uncomfortable truth for both sides. Judges are not elected, and that makes Americans nervous for good reason. But presidents are elected, and that makes them dangerous for good reason. Our system is built on mutual suspicion. The judiciary is supposed to be a check. The executive is supposed to act with energy. The Constitution never promised that this arrangement would feel efficient.
A civics test
If you want the clean version of checks and balances, open a textbook. If you want the real version, watch what happens when a president claims expansive authority and the courts respond by hitting pause.
The D.C. cases are not merely slowing Trump’s agenda. They are forcing a decision about what kind of presidency the country is willing to tolerate in the name of security, order, and economic control. Do we want a presidency that can act first and justify later? Or do we still believe the burden is on power to explain itself before it moves?
The courts cannot settle that cultural question. They can only decide the cases in front of them. But the pattern is already clear: the second-term presidency is being defined less by what it announces and more by what the judiciary allows to take effect.