Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump is reeling from a string of legal defeats across critical policy fronts, with courts striking down his tariffs, blocking his use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, and overturning his cancellation of Harvard University grants.
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled most of Trump’s tariffs illegal, prompting an enraged response from the president. On September 3, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals halted his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, and on September 4, a federal judge invalidated his termination of $2.2 billion in Harvard research grants.
Legal experts, including University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman, author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, see a common thread: judges are rejecting Trump’s use of flimsy pretexts to justify illegal actions, curbing his authoritarian overreach.
However, with appeals likely heading to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, these setbacks may face a pivotal test.
Trifecta of Legal Setbacks
On August 29, the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 ruling, declared Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs—10% to 50% levies on nearly all U.S. trading partners—illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court rejected Trump’s claim that trade deficits constituted a “national emergency,” affirming that tariff authority lies with Congress.
Trump, in a September 5 Truth Social post, called the ruling “Highly Partisan” and vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court. The tariffs, including those targeting Canada, Mexico, and China over fentanyl trafficking, remain in place until October 14, pending appeal.
On September 3, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, blocked Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan men he labeled as members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
The court, led by a Republican-appointed judge, rejected Trump’s claim of a “predatory incursion” as baseless, halting deportations to what the ACLU called a “foreign torture prison.” Trump’s team is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, per Newsweek.
READ: Trump Melts Down, Claims Media Treats Him Differently After ‘Death Rumors’ Scare
On September 4, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs vacated Trump’s cancellation of $2.2 billion in Harvard research grants, ruling it an “ideologically-motivated assault” using antisemitism as a “smokescreen,” violating the Administrative Procedure Act, First Amendment, and Title VI. The decision, which also restored $60 million in government contracts, countered Trump’s broader campaign against Ivy League institutions.
Looking At The Role of Pretexts in Trump’s Power Grab
Leah Litman, speaking on The Daily Blast podcast today, highlighted a unifying theme: judges are dismantling Trump’s reliance on “absurd pretexts” to justify illegal actions. “These rulings show courts are holding the line against Trump’s attempts to consolidate authoritarian power by manufacturing emergencies or rationales that don’t hold up,” Litman said, per New Republic.
She pointed to the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the “invasion” claim under the Alien Enemies Act as a significant rebuke from a conservative court, signaling judicial resistance to Trump’s overreach.
Litman warned that these pretexts—trade deficits as national emergencies, Venezuelan migrants as invaders, or antisemitism as a basis for defunding universities—are central to Trump’s strategy to bypass legal constraints. “The use of flimsy justifications is how autocrats erode checks and balances,” she noted, citing historical parallels to emergency declarations by authoritarian regimes.
TRENDING: GOP in Disarray as Latest Attempt to Shield Trump from Epstein Scandal Blows Up in Its Face
What People Are Saying
The court losses have sparked intense debate. On X, supporters like @MagaStrong2026 defended Trump, calling the rulings “judicial activism” and urging a Supreme Court reversal, while critics, including @BlueWave2026, praised the decisions as “checks on dictatorship.” Hashtags like #TrumpTariffs and #AlienEnemiesAct trended. The Harvard decision drew 65,000 likes on an X post by @ACLU, which called it a “blow to Trump’s vendetta against free speech.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) hailed the rulings as “vital to democracy,” while Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) criticized them as “overreach by unelected judges.” The ACLU’s Lee Gelernt, who argued the Alien Enemies Act case, called the Fifth Circuit’s decision “critically important” for curbing executive abuse.
Why It Matters
These setbacks compound Trump’s struggles, including a weak August jobs report, health rumors, and a “Department of WAR” post targeting Chicago. The Epstein files controversy, and an August 22 FBI raid on John Bolton’s home uncovering “Trump I-IV” folders, add to perceptions of an administration under siege. Trump’s push to ban mail-in ballots and a $10 billion defamation suit against The Wall Street Journal further strain his second term.
The Harvard ruling aligns with Trump’s broader clashes with academia, including threats to revoke tax-exempt statuses of universities like Columbia and Princeton. The tariff and deportation blocks challenge his economic and immigration agendas, key 2024 campaign pillars, as the 2026 midterms loom.
Continue Reading Below…
HOTTEST STORIES NOW
- FBI Seized Folders Labeled ‘Trump I–IV’ During John Bolton Raid
- Trump Melts Down, Claims Media Treats Him Differently After ‘Death Rumors’ Scare
- Video shows lawmaker stuffing ballots in swing state that Trump only won by 80,000 votes
What Next?
With Trump vowing to appeal the tariff and Alien Enemies Act rulings, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, with a 6-3 majority including three Trump appointees, will likely decide the outcomes. Litman, on The Daily Blast, expressed cautious optimism about lower court resistance but warned, “The Supreme Court’s track record suggests it may bend to conservative grievance, potentially validating Trump’s pretexts.”
The Court’s April 7, ruling allowing limited use of the Alien Enemies Act with judicial review sets a precedent for scrutiny, but its history of favoring executive power worries critics.
The GOP faces internal rifts over the Epstein files, led by Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie. The court battles could reshape Trump’s agenda and the party’s midterm prospects. The rulings show a judiciary pushing back against authoritarianism, but the Supreme Court’s response will determine whether these checks endure.
Discover more from Local Stories
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.