President Donald Trump has always prided himself on his negotiating skills, but recent lower court losses are hindering his ability to use them.
Hundreds of legal defeats since January have constrained Trump from rapidly reshaping policy to his will. Even as the administration has at times succeeded in at least pausing judges’ rulings on appeal — routinely turning to the US Supreme Court to intervene — several recent court losses in particular linger over negotiations on everything from trade to higher education.
Trump himself recently said that a ruling against his administration in the landmark tariff case would impact US leverage. The president has cautioned he might have to “unwind” trade pacts with the European Union, Japan and South Korea if the Supreme Court rules against the duties, saying it could cause the country “to suffer so greatly” by preventing the collection of tariff revenue.
The president has also said a high court ruling affirming his tariffs was necessary not only to ensure that the US remains “by far the richest country anywhere in the world,” but one that can force peaceful settlements to conflicts.
“You’ll have tremendous power to negotiate, the use of tariffs,” Trump told reporters before departing for the UK on Sept. 16, claiming he had been able to settle four wars thanks to his tariff power. Critics have disputed Trump’s claims on resolving wars, but the president has repeatedly invoked trade in peace talks.
In a major dispute with billions of dollars in government revenue on the line, a federal court ruled that Trump’s nation-based reciprocal tariffs are illegal. An appeals court upheld that decision but agreed to let the government enforce the policies while the litigation is pending. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis and scheduled arguments for Nov. 5.
The president has said that an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court would hamper his ability to strike trade agreements with holdout countries. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking recently on CNBC, said the Supreme Court is historically “very reluctant to overrule a president’s signature policy.”
In another fight involving higher education, only three elite universities have inked deals with the government to restore funding after the Trump administration cut off billions of dollars in federal research grants; another six universities have been mired in talks with the White House for months. That includes Harvard University, which won a lawsuit challenging the funding freeze in district court. The ruling hangs over settlement talks with other schools targeted by the administration.
Big law firms like Perkins Coie that challenged Trump’s executive orders that sought to punish firms seen as political enemies have won so far in courts. That’s limited the president’s ability to continue extracting settlement agreements requiring pro-bono work that aligns with administration priorities, including the end of diversity initiatives.
And Trump has so far held off plans to deploy the National Guard in cities with Democratic leadership like Chicago and Baltimore, after a judge ruled he broke federal law by deploying troops against the wishes of California’s Gavin Newsom. The District of Columbia is suing over Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital.
The president’s efforts to assert more control over the Federal Reserve have also hit judicial roadblocks, with courts — at least for now — blocking him from ousting Lisa Cook from the central bank. The Supreme Court is also poised to weigh in on that case.
“You don’t know if the president can follow up and impose his ideas or if he’s going to be reined in,” said Michael Bitzer, a history and politics professor at Catawba College. “You’re in a state of confusion. That uncertainty and that potential level of chaotic understanding of presidential power is a blanket issue.”
For his part, the president has publicly adopted an air of confidence — pointing to his success at the Supreme Court as evidence that there aren’t threats to his agenda. The high court’s 6-3 conservative majority has temporarily allowed the administration to move ahead with federal firings and funding cuts, signaling it’s inclined to ultimately side with Trump on the merits of those cases.
“The Trump administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman. She said the president would continue to be “vindicated by higher courts.” She characterized those ruling against Trump as “liberal activist judges.”
On Monday, the high court upheld — at least temporarily — Trump’s termination of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
Still, many of his victories at the high court have been on emergency basis, adding a layer of uncertainty to their staying power.
Looming over it all is a question of how the seeming non-stop flurry of legal action plays politically.
The spate of court decisions could add to a sense of chaos surrounding Trump’s agenda, said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. She pointed to polling that shows Trump’s tariff regime, which has been plagued by on-again, off-again duties, is unpopular with most Americans.
“Chaos is what this administration’s policy prescriptions are for the American people, and they don’t like it,” Cardona said.
Republican strategist Lisa Camooso Miller said Americans are already getting used to Trump’s governing style and policies.
“Regardless of what the law says, I think you’ll find that a lot of people are already making adjustments based on the inevitability of it happening,” she said.
With assistance from Zoe Tillman and Liam Knox.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
About the Author
