Federal Court Freeze Tag

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has rolled out an unprecedented number of executive orders that seek to implement his priorities in a host of arenas ranging from immigration to trade policy to foreign aid. Given the president’s expansive view of his executive powers, numerous critics have questioned the legality of his actions, often bringing their complaints to the federal courts.

The federal judiciary falls into three tiers. Hundreds of federal district courts oversee lawsuits with either a district court judge or a jury acting as the arbiter of the dispute. Thirteen circuit courts assemble three-judge panels to hear appeals from the district courts. Finally, the United States Supreme Court has discretion to accept or reject a request to review a circuit court opinion.

Challenges to the president’s authority often raise constitutional questions and thus typically start in the United States District Courts. The life cycle of a lawsuit can span multiple years as the parties work through filing their initial pleadings, engaging in discovery, and, ultimately, presenting their evidence and their arguments to a judge or a jury at trial. Because final resolution can take so long, parties sometimes seek a preliminary injunction immediately upon filing a lawsuit.

A preliminary injunction is a legal remedy ordered by a judge to temporarily halt certain actions until the court has made a final determination in a lawsuit. The term “preliminary” refers to the fact that this order is issued in the early stages of litigation, before all the evidence has been presented and a final judgment has been made. The Trump administration has faced multiple requests to stop (in legalese, to “enjoin”) the implementation of its policies or orders. For example, court orders blocking deportations or ordering funding of certain programs to continue have made headlines this past year.

Parties typically seek a preliminary injunction when they believe that they will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the other party is allowed to continue their conduct while the case is pending. For instance, if a person faces deportation to a foreign prison, he may request the court to issue a preliminary injunction to pause the deportation until his legal claim is resolved, arguing that, once deported, he might not be able to return to the United States, even if the court ultimately agrees that the deportation is improper.

When deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the judge evaluates several important factors: whether the applicant has a strong likelihood of ultimately winning the case, whether they will experience harm that cannot be remedied by money or other means if the injunction is not granted, whether the hardship to the applicant outweighs any harm the injunction might cause to the other party, and whether issuing the injunction serves the public interest. If the judge finds in favor of these considerations, the preliminary injunction will be granted, and the disputed action must stop until the final court decision is made. If not, the action may proceed while the case continues.

The trial judge’s decision does not always end the question. Either party may ask the appropriate court of appeals to review the trial court’s decision. In the president’s case, while multiple trial courts have issued preliminary injunctions blocking his policies, he has had considerable success getting those injunctions removed at the appellate level. Given the magnitude of the many issues in dispute, it is quite likely that the Supreme Court will have the final word in many of these cases.