President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is escalating its fight with the federal courts to new levels.
For nearly two years, the Trump administration has ranted and protested judges’ orders blocking or slowing its policies. Now it is taking more aggressive steps and asking courts to remove judges from cases and calling for scrutiny of their conduct, arguing that some have crossed the line from oversight into partisan obstruction.
A large image of President Donald Trump hangs from the the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building on May 18, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...26/06/GettyImages-2276427913_992d97.jpg?w=594" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...26/06/GettyImages-2276427913_992d97.jpg?w=594" alt="A large image of President Donald Trump" class="wp-image-4590154" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/GettyImages-2276427913_992d97.jpg 594w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tyImages-2276427913_992d97.jpg?resize=300,200 300w" sizes="(max-width: 594px) 100vw, 594px">
A large image of President Donald Trump hangs from the the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building on May 18, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The problem, as the administration sees it, is that winning an appeal may not undo the time lost while a policy or executive agenda item is blocked. The silver lining for Trump is that the Supreme Court has frequently granted the administration emergency relief, but those decisions often allow a policy to proceed while litigation continues rather than end the case. Lower court judges still oversee many of those lawsuits. And while the government can ask a judge to recuse, the decision belongs to the judge or the court, not the department.
The Supreme Court granted the administration relief in 19 of 21 substantive emergency applications during the 2024-25 term. It has granted relief in five of nine such cases counted so far this term, according to a recent tally. Those numbers underscore the administration’s success at the high court, even as lower court fights continue.
Mike Davis, a conservative legal activist and Trump ally, said the DOJ is now confronting disputes over judges it views as partisan without fear or hesitation.
“President Trump has a bold, fearless, and very strong team at the Justice Department, and they’re not going to be cowed by these Democrat activist judges,” he told the Washington Examiner. Davis said the administration was defending the separation of powers and the president’s authority under Article II.
The department’s recent moves have focused on judges in Minnesota. On Sept. 30, the DOJ filed a complaint with the 8th Circuit over Minnesota judges who spoke with the New York Times about the administration’s immigration cases. The complaint sought their removal from immigration-related cases and an investigation into their conduct.
Because of the nature of the department’s complaint, judges on the 8th Circuit will determine whether district judges beneath them violated their judicial canons, and whether any recusals would be warranted.
Meanwhile, in a little-noticed action on Tuesday, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed a motion seeking to disqualify U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, from a denaturalization case.
This undated photo provided by the U.S. District Court of Minnesota Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, shows Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz posing for a portrait in his Minneapolis courtroom. (U.S. District Court of Minnesota via AP)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26029753317941.jpg?w=731" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26029753317941.jpg" alt="Patrick Schiltz." class="wp-image-4774010" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26029753317941.jpg 731w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP26029753317941.jpg?resize=214,300 214w" sizes="(max-width: 731px) 100vw, 731px">
This undated photo provided by the U.S. District Court of Minnesota Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, shows Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz posing for a portrait in his Minneapolis courtroom. (U.S. District Court of Minnesota via AP)
The latest motion, flagged by Seamus Hughes of Court Watch, brought the Minnesota judge into the department’s recusal campaign, but the case’s nature-of-suit code keeps its filings off public databases. The courthouse was closed when the motion surfaced Tuesday evening, so its reasoning was not immediately available.
Schiltz has since spoken out in defiance of the DOJ’s complaint against him, arguing he was merely speaking out about a nebulous “threat to the rule of law and the threat to judicial independence,” and arguing “I have a duty to do so.”
“I did not violate any ethics rule,” he said earlier this month during a public symposium at St. Thomas School of Law.
Woodward’s recusal motion in Minnesota followed another recusal bid just days before, this one against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in a lawsuit over the administration’s plans for East Potomac Golf Links in Washington. Reyes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, rejected Woodward’s request to step aside on Sunday, which accused her of deep-seated hostility toward the administration.
Judge Ana Reyes
" data-image-caption="
Judge Ana Reyes (Screenshot/Sen. Dick Durbin, YouTube)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp?w=1024" height="719" width="1024" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp?w=1024" alt="Judge Ana Reyes" class="wp-image-3326962" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp 1552w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp?resize=300,211 300w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp?resize=768,539 768w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp?resize=1024,719 1024w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-21-at-6.51.40 PM.webp?resize=1536,1079 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">
Judge Ana Reyes (Screenshot/Sen. Dick Durbin, YouTube)
The dispute sharpened as Reyes, during a Monday hearing, pressed the government over conflicting accounts of the golf course’s future. Trump had publicly said work would begin “IMMEDIATELY” and that the course would close Nov. 15 for 15 months. DOJ lawyers told Reyes there was no final plan or fixed closure date.
“Do I believe the president of the United States, or do I believe you?” Reyes asked during Monday’s hearing, according to the Washington Post.
Reyes also ordered the government to refile a brief with signatures from career lawyers who had worked on it. Woodward, the brief’s only signer, called the demand “incredibly untenable.”
Reyes eventually saw Woodward’s position and withdrew the order hours later, but said the absence of career lawyers’ names made it harder for her to have confidence in the government’s filings. Legal experts said the request amounted to an impossible ultimatum between pleasing the judge and their DOJ superiors.
The administration’s conflict with the courts has extended beyond these recent cases. In the dispute involving U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and the March 2025 removal of 137 Venezuelan men, a D.C. Circuit panel ordered him to end a contempt inquiry into the Trump administration. The full appeals court later allowed his fact-finding to continue. Republican lawmakers introduced measures seeking Boasberg’s impeachment, but none has produced a House floor vote.
The midterm election could also shape Trump’s ability to fill judicial vacancies. If Republicans lose the Senate, they could try to confirm pending nominees before the new Congress takes office, depending on the calendar and party unity. A Democratic majority could block appellate nominees, leaving those seats open for a future president.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former DOJ official and senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said the administration has few ways to address judges it believes are acting against it.
“DOJ is dealing with an almost intractable problem — the radical, ideological judges that Biden and Obama put into the judiciary,” he said. “They have shown in the numerous injunctions that they have issued that they don’t care what the law says, as long as they can stop Trump enforcement policies. That is why the Supreme Court has overturned a record number of those injunctions. Other than the ethics complaints that have been filed, like the one in Minnesota, there simply isn’t much else the DOJ can do because federal judges have lifetime tenure. Impeachment is also almost impossible. You’ll never get the two-thirds vote needed in the Senate to be successful.”
Spakovsky suggested that the Supreme Court could do more to help the current administration if it wanted. If they reverse lower court rulings, they could also go further to sharply criticizing judges in their opinions, he argued, while cautioning that it’s not certain that would deter judges intent on delaying administration policies.
“The only real solution to this is getting better judges into the federal judiciary as other judges retire,” he said.
JUDGE WALKS BACK ‘UNTENABLE’ ORDER AGAINST TRUMP DOJ AFTER TENSE DC GOLD COURSE HEARING
If Republicans lose their majority after the midterm elections, they could attempt to confirm nominees already in the pipeline before the next Congress convenes in January, though any defections within their ranks could complicate that effort.
After the new Congress begins early next year, a more solid Democratic majority could block appellate nominees and leave those vacancies open for a future president, while considering district court nominees individually. But in a more closely divided Senate, individual senators such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) or John Fetterman (D-PA) could prove pivotal on confirmation votes.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
