As US President Donald Trump hosted his El Salvador counterpart, Nayib Bukele, on Monday, much of the public part of their conversation and their media engagement revolved around shipping prisoners from the United States to the Central American nation.

El Salvador has already taken in hundreds of Venezuelans and Salvadorans deported by the Trump administration as part of a deal. They include Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was deported by the Trump administration last month by “mistake”.

At the White House, Bukele and the Trump administration refused to bring Abrego Garcia back to the US, even though a district court ordered Washington to facilitate his return, an order largely upheld by the Supreme Court.

But Abrego Garcia’s future isn’t the only thing in limbo: his case highlights the growing tensions between the Trump administration and the US justice system. As the president seeks to implement a series of controversial executive moves and orders, lawsuits against his administration are piling up in courts across the country, and in some cases, judges are putting Trump’s plans on hold.

Advertisement

We take stock of some of the major legal challenges to Trump’s orders – and whether the US is headed towards a constitutional crisis.

Using the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants

The Trump administration is using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members and others, and the legality of its move has come under judicial scrutiny.

On March 15, James E Boasberg, a federal judge at a district court in Washington, DC, issued a temporary restraining order to halt deportations due to constitutional concerns over how the Trump administration was using the more than 200-year-old law.

But the US Supreme Court last week overturned that order in a narrow 5-4 decision, allowing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act to proceed.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Both Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented with the ruling.

“I lament that the court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner,” wrote Jackson.

Ban on transgender people in the military

On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from US military service. The administration defended this policy decision by pointing to alleged concerns regarding unit cohesion, healthcare expenses and overall military readiness.

Advertisement

The order characterises gender-affirming care for minors as “chemical and surgical mutilation of children,” claiming such treatments result in “lifelong medical complications” and sterilisation. It states that the federal government must “rigorously enforce all laws” to terminate these practices.

But federal courts in Washington, DC, New Jersey and California have all since issued injunctions blocking the implementation of that order.

‘Gender-affirming’ care for trans teens

On January 28, Trump signed an executive order banning federal assistance to all programmes that help people under the age of 19 change their gender through medical processes.

The order said that the US government would no longer “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” them in transitioning their gender.

On February 13, Judge Brendan Hurson in a Maryland district court issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions blocking the executive order.

In addition, on February 28, a federal district court judge in Washington state issued a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, who contended that the Trump order violated constitutional principles, discriminated against certain groups, and obstructed potentially life-saving medical care for transgender people.

Restricting birthright citizenship

On January 20, Trump issued an executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship by excluding from automatic citizenship children born on US soil to parents holding temporary visas, including work visas, student visas or tourist visas.

Advertisement

On January 23, US District Judge John Coughenour in Washington blocked that order in a case brought by four states, declaring it “unconstitutional”. Subsequently, on February 5, federal judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction in a separate lawsuit filed by expecting mothers, further preventing enforcement.

Many constitutional experts argue the order violates the 14th Amendment, which assures birthright citizenship to every child born “within the jurisdiction of the United States” regardless of their parents’ status.

On February 10, 2025, a New Hampshire federal judge broadened the injunction’s scope, strengthening the legal barrier against the order. Collectively, these rulings from multiple courts effectively suspended the administration’s nationwide attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.

On March 14, the Trump administration submitted three filings to the Supreme Court, requesting a narrowing of lower court orders that currently apply nationwide. This would allow the administration to begin implementing its new policy challenging birthright citizenship. The top court is yet to decide on those petitions.

According to a Pew Research Center survey released in February,  56 percent of US adults disapprove of Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, while 43 percent approve.

Federal funding freeze

Also on January 20, the Trump administration instructed federal agencies to temporarily halt commitments and payments of all financial assistance, including grants, loans and cooperative agreements, for domestic and international programmes to evaluate their alignment with the administration’s priorities.

Advertisement

On January 31, 2025, Judge John McConnell of Providence, Rhode Island, issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the enforcement of the federal funding freeze.

The judge determined that the freeze surpassed executive authority and infringed upon Congress’s constitutional powers regarding spending. Federal agencies were barred from suspending or cancelling awards on the basis of the memo or executive orders.

Termination of federal employees by DOGE

Based on recommendations of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, the Trump administration has fired thousands of federal employees. Probationary workers and those associated with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have been particularly targeted.

On March 13, 2025, US District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction directing six federal agencies to reinstate roughly 16,000 probationary employees. Judge Alsup ruled that their mass firings were unlawful and carried out without following required procedures, calling the process a “sham” that bypassed civil service protections.

However, a recent 7-2 ruling by the Supreme Court last week paused the rehiring of the 16,000 probationary employees, allowing the Trump administration to continue its efforts in reducing the size of government while eliminating certain federal agencies.

The majority ruled that the nonprofit plaintiffs had no legal standing to pursue the case. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Brown Jackson dissented.

Advertisement

How rare is it for a president’s orders to face legal challenges?

Trump is far from the first president to face legal scrutiny over his executive orders, said Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor.

In 2016, a tied Supreme Court vote blocked former President Barack Obama’s executive orders granting legal recognition to four million immigrants who had lived in the US for more than five years.

“Have presidents issued executive orders that have been held either to violate statute or constitutional provisions before? Yes, they have,” Frost said. “Does the executive [office] issue orders that interpret or implement laws in ways that courts eventually find violate those laws? Yes, they’ve done that.”

But there is a difference this time around, she said.

“It’s not unprecedented at all for the executive to write executive orders or to issue policies that at the end of the day [are] found to be unlawful,” she told Al Jazeera. “What’s unprecedented is the number, and also the violations are not minor.”

Is the US in a constitutional crisis?

Not yet, according to Frost, but it could be edging towards it.

Already, the US has crossed what Frost identified as the first step in the direction of such a crisis: the executive issuing decisions that violate the law. In many cases, the second stage has been reached, too: the judiciary intervening to tell the executive that it is breaching the law.

The third and most dangerous step, per Frost, is where the executive responds by rejecting the court’s authority, refusing to follow its ruling even after exhausting all appeal options.

Advertisement

And that, she said, has consequences not just for constitutionality, but also for the economy.

“If we don’t have the rule of law, it will hurt our markets and our economy, just for those who care about that,” she said. “I think people don’t realise how much of our strong economy is based on [the] rule of law, and the fact that individuals feel they have to follow what the] court says. I think [of] the idea of impunity. [If] you don’t have to do what a court says, there is no such thing as rule of law.

“In addition, the laws, Congress and acts will be worthless, and the constitutional provisions will be worthless. And we will have no check on the executive power, which is what the Constitution intended.”