When the president of the United States, Donald Trump, was host of his counterpart from El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, on Monday, a large part of the public part of his conversation and his participation in the media revolved around the United States shipping prisoners to the Central American nation.
El Salvador already has tasks in hundreds of Venezuelans and Salvadorans deported by the Trump administration as part of an agreement. They include Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man who was deported by the Trump administration last month for “error.”
In the White House, Bukele and the Trump administration refused to bring Abrego García back to the United States, he even thought that a district court ordered Washington to facilitate his return, an order largely assumed by the Supreme Court.
But the future of Abrego García is not the only thing in Limbo: his case highlights the growing tensions between the Trump administration and the United States justice system. While the president seeks to implement a series of controversial movements and executive orders, the demands against his administration are accumulating in the courts throughout the country, and in some cases, the judges are waiting for Trump’s plans.
We take stock of some of the main legal challenges under Trump’s orders, and if the United States is directed towards a constitutional crisis.
Use of the Alien enemies law to deport migrants
The Trump administration is using the 1798 Alien Enemies Law to deport the members of Venezuelan gangs and others, and the legality of their movement has been subject to judicial scrutiny.
On March 15, James E Boasberg, a federal judge in a district court in Washington, DC, issued a temporary resting order order to stop deportation deportations due to constitutional conerns on how the Trump administration was using the law of more than 200 years.
But the United States Supreme Court last week covered up that order in a limited decision of 5-4, allowing deportations under the law of alien enemies to be processed.
“The Supreme Court has confirmed the rule of law in our nation by allowing a president, whoever, can ensure our borders and protect our families and our country, in itself,” Trump published in Truth Social.
Both Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the ruling.
“I regret that the court seems to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in an informal, inequitable way and, in my opinion, inappropriate,” Jackson wrote.
Prohibit transgender people in the army
On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order that prohibits the transgender people of the US military service. The administration ended this political decision by pointing out alleged concerns regarding the cohesion of the unit, the expenses of medical care and the general military preparation.
The order characterizes the attention affirmed by gender for minors as “chemical and surgical mutilation of children”, claiming such treatments as a result of “medical complications for life” and sterilization. It establishes that the federal government must “rigorly enforce all laws” to end thesis practices.
But federal courts in Washington, DC, New Jersey and California have issued precautionary measures that block the implementation of that order.
Care of ‘Gender Divination’ for trans adolescents
On January 28, Trump signed an executive order that prohibits federal assistance to all programs that help people under 19 years of age to change their gender through medical processes.
The order said that the United States government would no longer “finance, sponsor, promote, assist or support” the issue in the transition of its kind.
On February 13, Judge Brendan Hurson in a Maryland district court issued temporary rest training orders and preliminary precautionary measures that block the executive order.
In addition, on February 28, a Federal Judge of the District Court in the State of Washington issued a temporary resting order order in a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, who held cerritavas, certified discrimination, discriminated against by the people of transgender medical care, triumphized, triumphed, triumphed, triumphed groups, triumphed groups of triumph and obstructed for medical life belonging to transgender life.
Restring CitisShip in Bifthright
On January 20, Trump issued an executive order aimed at altering the citizenship of birth rights excluding from the automatic citizenship of children born on American soil to parents who have temporary visas, including work visas, visas or visas of tourists.
On January 23, the American district judge John Cugeur in Washington blocked that order in a case presented by four states, declared it “unconstitutional.” Subsequently, on February 5, Federal Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued a national court order in a separate lawsuit filed by the mothers waiting, avoiding the application further.
Many constitutional experts argue that the order violates the 14th amendment, which ensures the citizenship of right to birth to all children born “within the jurisdiction of the United States”, regardless of the state of their parents.
On February 10, 2025, a federal judge of New Hampshire extended the scope of the court order, strengthening the legal barrier against the order. Collectively, these resolutions of multiple courts effectively suspended the national attempt of the administration of restricting the citizenship of birth law.
On March 14, the Trump administration presented three presentations to the Supreme Court, requesting a narrowing of the orders of the lower court that currently apply throughout the country. This would allow the administration to begin to implement its new policy that challenges the citizenship of birth law. The Superior Court has not yet decided on those requests.
According to a PEW Research Center survey published in February, 56 percent of American adults disapprove or Trump’s executive order aimed at the citizenship of birth law, while 43 percent approves.
Federal Federal Financing
Also on January 20, the Trump administration instructed federal agencies to temporarily stop the commitments and payments of all financial assistance, including subsidies, loans and cooperative agreements, for national and international programs to evaluate with priorities.
On January 31, 2025, Judge John McConnell of Providence, Rhode Island, issued a temporary resting order order that blocked the application of the freezing of federal funds.
The judge determined that the freezing exceeded the executive authority and infringed the constitutional powers of the Congress regarding spending. Federal agencies were forbidden to suspend or cancel prizes based on the note or executive orders.
Termination of federal employees by Doge
Based on the recommendations of the Government Efficiency Department led by Elon Musk, the Trump Administration has set fire to thousands of federal employees. Probability workers and those associated with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI) have a particularly directed bone.
On March 13, 2025, the American district judge William Alsup, from the Northern District of California, issued a preliminary court order that ordered six federal agencies to restore approximately 16,000 probatational employees. Judge Alsup ruled that his massive shots were illegal and were carried out without following the required procedures, calling the process a “farce” that ignored the protections of the civil service.
However, a recently 7-2 decision of the Supreme Court last week stopped the relevant of the 16000 probatational employees, allowing the Trump administration to continue its efforts to reduce the size of the government while eliminating certain federal agencies.
The majority ruled that non -profit plaintiffs had no legal position to pursue the case. Judge Sotomayor and Judge Brown Jackson dismit.
How strange is it for the orders of a president to face legal challenges?
Trump is far from being the first president to face legal scrutiny about his executive orders, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
In 2016, a linked Supreme Court vote blocked the executive orders of former President Barack Obama who give legal recognition to four million immigrants who had lived in the United States for more than five years.
“Have presidents issued executive orders that have been held to violate the statutes or constitutional provisions before? Yes, they have done it,” said Frost. “The Executive [office] Issue orders that interpret or implement laws so that the courts that are violated those laws? Yes, they have done it. “
But this time there is a difference, he said.
“It is not unprecedented that the Executive write executive orders or issues policies that at the end of the day [are] It was found that it is an Orlawful, “he told Al Jazeera.” What is not precedent is the number, and also the violations are not minor. “
Is the United States in a constitutional crisis?
Not yet, according to Frost, but it could be bordered towards him.
Already, the United States has crossed what Frost identified as the first step in the director of such crisis: the Executive issued decisions that violate the law. In many cases, the second stage has also been reached: the Judicial Power involved to tell the Executive that he is violating the law.
The third and most dangerous step, by Frost, is where the Executive responds by rejecting the authority of the court, refusing to follow his ruling even after exhausting all the appeal options.
And that, he said, has consequences not only for constitutionality, but also for the economy.
“If we do not have the rule of law, it will damage our markets and our economy, only for those who care about that,” he said. “I think people do not realize how much of our strong economy is based on [the] Rule of law and the fact that people feel they have to follow what the]court says. Believe [of] The idea of impunity. [If] It does not have to do what a court, there is no rule of law.
“In addition, laws, congress and acts will use anything, and constitutional provisions will not have value. And we will not have control over the Executive Power, which is intended by the Constitution.”