
Trump's executive power flex leaves some legal challengers adrift
President Trump's unprecedented flex of executive power has sent legal challengers scrambling to courts to pump the breaks.
But some of the president's more extraordinary actions have been difficult to confront, as the administration barrels forward with an act-first, defend-later approach to its policy agenda.
'We were looking for any mechanism that would, so to speak, stop the trains here,' Andrew Goldfarb, a lawyer representing challengers to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), said at a hearing this week.
'Anything to stop the destruction that is going on,' he said.
More than 100 lawsuits have been filed opposing Trump's executive actions and the ways his administration has sought to effectuate them, spanning the president's crackdown on law firms, DEI, gender, controversial immigration and deportation policies and DOGE's efforts to slim down the federal government.
In many challenges, judges have granted speedy injunctive relief. It's far more complicated in others.
At the USIP hearing Wednesday, Goldfarb described how DOGE sought to reduce 'essentially to rubble' the independent institute, established to help resolve and prevent violent conflicts. He said nearly all USIP's board members were unlawfully removed before DOGE showed up with armed law enforcement officers to seize control of the building.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell raised alarm about the 'offensive' way DOGE accessed the building. But she declined to grant the plaintiffs the temporary restraining order they sought, citing 'confusion' in their complaint and a motion that made her 'very uncomfortable.'
Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School, said that litigating under such uncertainty is 'extremely challenging.'
Courts must undergo fact-finding to make the legal determinations necessary to move a lawsuit forward, but that's hard to do in an emergency, he said. While judges can grant emergency relief, a messy record makes it difficult to fashion relief that is appropriate.
'Without a good record of what has transpired, litigants and courts are at a distinct disadvantage,' Zick said.
Challenges to DOGE's cutdown of the federal bureaucracy, in particular, have presented issues where there is uncertainty about the advisory group's constitutional authority, he added.
A federal judge similarly denied requests for temporary restraining orders in a pair of lawsuits contesting efforts to detain migrants at Guantánamo Bay, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said the challengers found themselves in a 'Catch-22.' The migrants' legal teams would not know if the government moved them to the Cuban detention camp until after it happened. But if they were sent there, it would cause irreparable harm due to the perilous conditions there like shackles and solitary confinement.
He noted that the administration had transferred migrants to the detention site then abruptly emptied it multiple times, complicating any legal challenge to the efforts.
'We don't know that the moment we walk out of court they (won't) be sent to Guantánamo,' Gelernt said during a hearing on the matter last week.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied their request, pointing to the fact that, at that time, no detainees with final orders of removal were being held at the facility. Less than a week later, the administration sent a new group of migrants there.
Claire Finkelstein, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said the administration's strategy has a 'certain sense of gamesmanship.'
Though Trump has said he won't violate court orders, the back-and-forth makes it difficult to figure out the truth of the situation at hand, she said.
'You're playing Whack-a-Mole all the time,' she said. 'I think that's an intentional strategy.'
Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney, said there's still value in challenges where the landscape changes, making moot initial arguments.
'It may cause the administration to stop doing something that it doesn't think will hold up in court, even if the court doesn't, hasn't decided yet,' she said.
In First Amendment challenges to Trump's often-vague executive orders, lawyers have argued that confusion regarding how and when the administration will enforce the directives could have a chilling effect.
Howell, who is also overseeing the case over Trump's order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, pressed the Justice Department last week over why the president's far-reaching order would not chill lawyers or the courts. She asked if the president should simply be trusted to 'draw the right lines.'
'Yes, he has that power,' said DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle, who argued for the Trump administration.
In Trump's anti-DEI orders, which have also been challenged in courts, the president does not clearly define 'DEI' — which stands for diversity, equity and inclusion — leaving questions about which specific enforcement actions will occur if- violated, Zick said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last week lifted a nationwide injunction prohibiting enforcement of several provisions of two DEI orders for that very reason. One judge wrote in a concurring opinion that 'what the orders say on their face and how they are enforced are two different things.'
' As far as the Administration is concerned, the lack of specificity is a virtue,' Zick said. 'It makes it harder for courts to assess the effect of the Orders, and in the meantime, affected parties may be chilled from engaging in activity or feel pressured to comply in anticipation of enforcement.'
The Trump administration has argued that the lack of specificity is beyond the government's scope of duty.
DOJ lawyer Pardis Gheibi said during a hearing Wednesday in a lawsuit over the president's DEI and gender executive orders that any confusion about their scope should be cleared up through 'legal advice.' She said Trump's orders don't 'rise or fall' on whether he adequately explained their reach.
The unprecedented nature of the Trump administration's sweeping actions so far makes it hard to glean any lessons from history on how to wage legal battles against it, Zick said.
'Except that presidents have prevailed in some and lost in other tough cases,' he noted. 'I suspect that will be Trump's experience too.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump and Hegseth to visit Fort Bragg as they send troops to Los Angeles
Washington — President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are visiting Fort Bragg, the nation's largest military installation, on Tuesday, after sending the National Guard and U.S. Marines to respond to protests in Los Angeles. Members of the Marine Corps arrived in the greater Los Angeles area Tuesday, a defense official told CBS News, after the military activated about 700 active-duty Marines Monday. The Pentagon said the Marines would "seamlessly integrate" with National Guard troops to protect "federal personnel and federal property." There are 2,100 members of the California National Guard now on location in the greater Los Angeles area, operating in Los Angeles, Paramount and Compton. The president is expected to speak at Fort Bragg in North Carolina around 4 p.m. Hegseth is heading to the military base after testifying on Capitol Hill. "Will be going to Fort Bragg today. Big speech, amazing crowd! See you later!!!" Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social Tuesday morning. The president claimed Tuesday morning that Los Angeles would be "would be burning to the ground right now," if not for his actions to federalize the National Guard. A memorandum the president signed Saturday said the troops are authorized to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and other federal law enforcement officials. He invoked Title 10, the U.S. code governing use of the armed forces, allowing the National Guard to come into LA in a supporting role. On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the president and Hegseth over the decision to deploy the National Guard to the state against Newsom's wishes. Newsom argued that Title 10 "has been invoked on its own only once before and for highly unusual circumstances not presented here." He pointed to the text of the U.S. code, which states that when the president calls a state's National Guard into federal service under Title 10, "those orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.'" Hegseth, Newsom maintained, "unlawfully bypassed the Governor of California, issuing an order that by statute must go through him." "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection," the lawsuit reads. "Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years."
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail
At second-annual CartCon conference in Napa Valley, CA, the tone was electric with anticipation but also laced with urgency. Billed as a summit for the company's expansive ecosystem of brands, vendors and strategists, the event served as both a product showcase and a pressure valve. Nowhere was that tension more visible than during one of the conference's hardest-hitting panels, a deep dive into the complexities of tariff policy and its ripple effects on global sourcing, consumer pricing and retail resilience. The panel consisted of three voices with rare insight into the collision of policy and commerce: Chris Smith, president of Summit Global Strategies; Tim Manning, former White House supply chain coordinator under President Joe Biden; and Nick Stachel, logistics strategy adviser at Izba Consulting. What followed was not a high-level overview, but a granular exploration of the legal, political and operational forces shaping how, and where, products are made, moved and sold. From globalization to geo-economics Smith opened the discussion by tracing the historical arc of U.S. trade policy. For decades following World War II, American trade strategy revolved around multilateralism. The U.S. saw global trade not just as an economic imperative but as a geopolitical tool, creating allies, raising standards of living and preventing conflict. But in 2016, that long-standing consensus fractured. The bipartisan abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership signaled a sharp pivot. As Smith explained, the political center collapsed under the weight of the 'China Shock,' a term describing the decimation of American manufacturing towns due to offshoring. Smith described President Donald Trump's tariff policy as a psychological reset. Before Trump, U.S. tariffs averaged around 2%. Within months, they jumped to 18% in key categories. This wasn't just an economic strategy, it was anchoring. 'It's like burger sizes,' Smith said, relating back to Wendy's psychological marketing strategies. 'Before Trump, we had singles and doubles. Now the triple is on the menu, and everything else looks small by comparison.' Tariffs, he added, have become Trump's 'cat toy' — a provocative distraction wielded without consistent strategy. Even if future administrations soften tariff policy, Smith warned, the structure of global trade has already shifted. Retailers and manufacturers alike are building permanent workarounds. Inflation, particularly in consumer goods, is the slow-burning consequence. While Smith provided the philosophical backdrop, Manning broke down the legal tools underpinning today's tariff landscape. The real disruption, Manning emphasized, has come through the use, and misuse, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Originally designed as a tool for national security sanctions, IEEPA has been repurposed by the Trump administration to enact sweeping tariffs with little congressional oversight. Manning described the legal and logistical chaos for businesses from these tactics. In just six weeks, the Trump administration issued 17 executive orders using IEEPA authority, stripping trade policy of its usual predictability and process. For businesses, this has been catastrophic. Sourcing strategies built over years have unraveled in days. 'We're in a volatile environment,' Manning said. The cost of doing business now includes factoring in the potential for abrupt, unexplained swings in tariff exposure. Long-term investments have become high-risk bets, and in many cases, they're simply not being made. On-the-ground retail strategy Bringing the policy talk down to the warehouse floor, Stachel outlined how brands are actually coping with this new reality. In the short term, some are fast-tracking inventory from China before new tariffs hit, relying on expedited ocean freight and cross-docking at West Coast ports to minimize delays and avoid customs bottlenecks. Others are making subtler moves — like holding prices steady on high-visibility products – say, a gaming console – while raising prices on accessories and add-ons to recoup margin. Stachel noted that many brands have moved beyond the now-familiar 'China Plus One' strategy, opting instead for a 'China Plus Three' approach. They are spreading risk across Vietnam, India and Mexico, often working with global manufacturing giants like Foxconn that can seamlessly shift production across borders without retooling or retraining labor. In essence, brands are outsourcing flexibility itself. For those planning beyond the current election cycle, geographic diversification is no longer enough. Brands are factoring in port access, transportation infrastructure, exposure to natural disasters and local workforce stability. Some are eyeing countries like Morocco, Colombia and Thailand as next-generation sourcing hubs. Nearshoring to Mexico has particular appeal, not just because of its proximity to U.S. consumers, but because of the downstream economic benefits. 'We're still benefiting from a cross border perspective, from a transportation trucking perspective, from a warehousing perspective, as these border towns are growing, the economies in the small border towns are growing as well,' said Stachel. These sourcing shifts are backed by hard data prepared by Stachel. According to a comparative analysis of emerging manufacturing markets, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are increasingly viable alternatives to China, not only in terms of labor costs but also port infrastructure and U.S.-bound vessel frequency. Vietnam, for instance, operates nearly 50 seaports, including Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong, both of which have multiple sailings to the U.S. each week. Indonesia boasts over 100 ports, including Tanjung Priok in Jakarta. Even Cambodia, though limited in scale, has weekly direct sailings from both Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville. These figures underscore the importance of transportation fluidity and market access in sourcing decisions. As Stachel emphasized, brands are no longer optimizing solely for cost, they're optimizing for resilience. Both Smith and Manning cautioned that the real reckoning may be ahead. While tariff impacts are already being priced in at the retail level, the broader inflationary wave has yet to crest. Smith called inflation the 'other shoe,' likely to drop later this summer as new tariffs pass through the supply chain and collide with already fragile consumer sentiment. Uncertainty, they agreed, has become the greatest tax of all. With businesses unable to predict future policy, many are frozen. Manning advised attendees to monitor key macroeconomic signals, including treasury bond activity, consumer confidence indices and safety stock drawdowns. Executive orders posted on he added, are the best early indicators of a sudden policy shift. What retailers are saying – and doing The audience at CartCon also offered candid perspectives. Through real-time polling, attendees offered a rare window into how brands are navigating the chaos. Asked what recent policy had most affected their supply chains, 68% cited China tariffs, with an additional 24% naming de minimis enforcement, or stricter checks on duty-free, low-value imports. In a sign of just how volatile the environment has become, 64% said they revisit their sourcing strategies quarterly. And nearly half, 47%, have responded by raising prices. Twenty-nine percent have changed sourcing countries, while 18% are simply eating the cost. Looking ahead, most brands aren't betting on reshoring. Asked if they expect to source more from the U.S. in five years, 70% said their sourcing would remain about the same, and 30% expected an increase. No one expected to source less. It was a striking rebuke of the idea that domestic manufacturing is due for a renaissance, at least for the retail segment. Tariffs and uncertainty are already impacting consumer demand. Thirty percent of respondents said they expect a consumer slowdown by Q4 2025, while 45% said they're already feeling one. And yet, the vast majority, 82%, said they are not cutting marketing budgets in response. In today's environment, visibility is survival. In a forward-looking poll, 81% of respondents said online shopping will be the dominant channel in the next decade, compared to just 6% for stores. Even more striking, 75% believe direct-to-consumer models can still succeed, suggesting that agility, not abandonment, is the key to survival. The post CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


American Military News
17 minutes ago
- American Military News
700 Marines deployed to Los Angeles amid major riots
President Donald Trump's administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles and the surrounding area on Monday in response to the city's massive riots against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. In a Monday press release, U.S. Northern Command announced that it had activated the Marine infantry battalion that the Trump administration 'placed in an alert status over the weekend.' 'Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area,' U.S. Northern Command stated. 'The activation of the Marines is intended to provide Task Force 51 with adequate numbers of forces to provide continuous coverage of the area in support of the lead federal agency.' According to the press release, Task Force 51 includes 700 active-duty Marines and roughly 2,100 National Guardsmen in Title 10 status. Northern Command noted that members of Task Force 51 have been trained in 'de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.' 'Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote in a statement on X, formerly Twitter. 'We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not.' READ MORE: Videos: 500 Marines ready to deploy to Los Angeles amid major riots Northern Command confirmed in the press release that there were roughly 1,700 soldiers from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Los Angeles and the surrounding area as of Monday. On Monday evening, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Sean Parnell tweeted, 'At the order of the President, the Department of Defense is mobilizing an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties.' According to The Associated Press, Trump's authorization for the Department of Defense to deploy an additional 2,000 National Guardsmen in response to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles brings the total number of National Guardsmen mobilized by the federal government in response to the riots to over 4,100. In a Tuesday morning statement on Truth Social, Trump said, 'If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. do to an incompetent Governor and Mayor.'