President Donald Trump encountered major hurdles on April 24 when three federal judges issued rulings against pivotal parts of his policy agenda in one day, impacting immigration enforcement, voting regulations, and educational diversity programs.
In San Francisco, California, U.S. District Judge William Orrick prevented the administration from withholding federal funds from “sanctuary” cities and counties nationwide. He ruled that the federal government is forbidden “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds” to these areas.
Judge Orrick found sections of Trump’s executive orders to be in violation of the Fifth Amendment due to being “unconstitutionally vague and violat[ing] due process.” The lawsuit was initiated by 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco, California; Seattle and King County in Washington; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The affected jurisdictions argued that the funding threat would lead to “irreparable injury” through budgetary uncertainties and would damage trust between local governments and their communities, as noted in court documents.
This is the second instance where Judge Orrick has blocked a similar executive order targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. The previous ruling was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as per court records.
In Washington, D.C., another federal judge paused a significant part of Trump’s plan to implement extensive changes to voting and election registration. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, issued a 120-page opinion suspending an executive order that would require individuals to present documentation proving citizenship before voting.
“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. She criticized Trump, stating he could not “short-circuit” Congress in this area.
In Concord, New Hampshire, U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty delivered the third setback to the administration by halting efforts to reduce funding for schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This decision resulted from a lawsuit by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleging violations of teachers’ due process and First Amendment rights.
Judge McCafferty criticized the education department for not defining what constitutes a ‘DEI program’ when issuing directives to schools. “A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism’s existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination,” she stated in her ruling.
The ruling aligns with concerns raised in a wider legal challenge by 19 states against the Trump administration’s threat to withhold over $13.8 billion in funding from schools that maintain DEI initiatives. State officials argue these programs are legal and support student safety and well-being.
Legal experts point out that the three rulings from different judges nationwide indicate systemic issues with the administration’s approach rather than isolated judicial disagreements. “The data indicates that the rulings against the Trump administration come from a diverse set of district courts and judges, not just ‘rogue’ or ‘far-left’ judges,” according to legal analysis of the pattern of court challenges.
The legal defeats occurred just one day after Trump expressed frustration with the judiciary during an interview with conservative commentator Glenn Beck. In the conversation, the president agreed with Senator Mike Lee’s assertion that judges insisting on due process for immigrant deportees were engaging in “judicial insurrection.”
During the interview, Trump stated that the requirement for individual court cases for deportations was impractical. “When you have to get out and do court cases for individual people, and you would have in theory millions of court cases… They’re really saying you’re not allowed to do what I was elected to do,” he said.
The Justice Department has indicated plans to appeal the sanctuary cities ruling. A spokesperson mentioned that the administration would continue to defend policies that restrict federal funding to jurisdictions they claim protect “criminal illegal aliens.”
Legal analysts suggest these cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court, as they address fundamental questions about executive authority and the constitutional separation of powers. Past court rulings on similar issues have been divided, with different federal appeals courts reaching varying conclusions about the administration’s authority to withhold grants from sanctuary cities.
The ongoing legal battles highlight increasing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which some experts have described as approaching a constitutional inflection point. As the administration continues to implement its policy agenda through executive actions, the courts remain a significant check on presidential power.