The United States government was designed by people who had a deep distrust of unchecked power. Unlike monarchies or authoritarian regimes, where a single ruler’s whims could become law overnight, the American system demands patience—a feature, not a bug. Checks and balances exist to slow things down, to force debate, and to ensure that power is never wielded without oversight. This structure has survived wars, economic collapses, and more than a few bruised egos. And lately, it’s proving to be an inconvenient reality check for two men who prefer efficiency over institutional constraints: Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Judicial Review: A Longstanding Tradition of Saying “Not So Fast”
It’s worth remembering that the courts have not just now discovered their ability to block executive overreach. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have learned the hard way that an executive order isn’t a magic wand—it’s a suggestion that can be overturned the moment a judge takes issue with it.
Barack Obama, for example, tried to expand legal protections for undocumented immigrants through his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. The courts promptly froze the policy, ruling that immigration law was Congress’s domain, not the president’s. His Clean Power Plan, a sweeping attempt to regulate carbon emissions, met a similar fate when the Supreme Court halted it in 2016, ensuring its demise under the Trump administration.
Joe Biden has also seen his executive ambitions trimmed. His COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large businesses was blocked by the Supreme Court, which found that OSHA lacked the authority to impose such a sweeping health regulation. When he tried to pause new oil and gas leasing, a federal judge in Louisiana reminded him that Congress still controls energy policy, and forced lease sales to resume.
The lesson? Executive power has limits, and the courts aren’t shy about enforcing them—no matter who’s sitting in the Oval Office.
Trump’s Executive Orders: A Familiar Pattern of Overreach
Fresh off his return to the White House, Donald Trump is once again testing the boundaries of executive power. One of his most legally suspect moves is Executive Order 14160, which seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents. This order was met with immediate legal challenges and, within days, federal judges had blocked it, citing the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, in issuing an injunction against the order, was blunt: “No court in the country has ever endorsed this interpretation. This court will not be the first.” That’s legalese for “This isn’t happening, and you know it.”
Trump’s military policy overhaul is also under scrutiny. His order eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and banning transgender individuals from military service has been challenged by civil rights groups and military advocacy organizations, who argue that firing qualified soldiers for ideological reasons is both discriminatory and strategically foolish. The lawsuits are piling up, and the ACLU has already won temporary injunctions, setting the stage for yet another Supreme Court battle.
Trump, of course, is not backing down. His administration has vowed to appeal every ruling, arguing that the executive branch has the power to reinterpret the Constitution. The courts, which do not share this belief, seem poised to continue the back-and-forth.
Elon Musk’s DOGE Experiment: The Courts Have Thoughts
While Trump is busy relitigating his ability to rewrite constitutional law, Elon Musk has taken a different approach to governance—namely, treating bureaucracy as something to be obliterated. At the center of this effort is his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a self-styled reform initiative that seems to operate under the assumption that federal oversight is optional.
Musk’s first major clash with the courts came when DOGE attempted to access Treasury payment systems, a move federal judges shut down immediately. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, in his ruling blocking DOGE’s access, made his stance clear: “The executive branch does not have unilateral authority to reconfigure the nation’s financial systems without congressional approval.” Translation: “You can’t just rewrite the rules because you find them inconvenient.”
Musk, in his usual fashion, took to social media to voice his frustrations, accusing the judiciary of being a “bureaucratic roadblock to efficiency”. He then quoted Milton Friedman, saying, “The real tax is government spending.” Vice President J.D. Vance joined the fight, arguing that the courts were “stonewalling necessary reforms.”
For now, DOGE’s grand vision of efficiency through automation remains tied up in legal battles, with judges asking reasonable questions like, “What happens when artificial intelligence replaces regulatory decision-making?” and “Is eliminating oversight really a good idea?” Musk, seemingly unbothered by such concerns, remains determined to push forward, despite a legal system that prefers to ask questions before rewriting the rulebook.
Trump’s Judicial Realignment: An Investment with Mixed Returns
Given the volume of lawsuits against Trump, one might assume he’d be safe within a judiciary he spent years reshaping. After all, during his first term, he appointed 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett), flipping several appellate courts into conservative majorities.
And yet, despite these efforts, Trump has frequently lost in court, even before judges he personally appointed. Why? Because federal judges serve for life, and many have demonstrated a refreshing disinterest in being anyone’s political pawn. Even the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has ruled against Trump when the law demanded it. His influence on the courts is undeniable, but it’s not the get-out-of-judicial-trouble card he might have hoped for.
Will Trump and Musk Win in Court?
That depends. Courts don’t care how powerful you are; they care whether your actions fall within constitutional bounds.
Trump’s executive orders are already running into the same legal walls that blocked his first-term immigration bans and voting restrictions. Musk’s DOGE initiative is likely to be a non-starter in any court that still believes in regulatory oversight.
Both cases could make their way to the Supreme Court, but legal experts believe that even a conservative-majority court may hesitate before upending longstanding precedent on birthright citizenship or handing Musk the keys to government automation.
The Courts Still Matter
For all the frustrations that come with government bureaucracy, there is an undeniable benefit to taking things slow. Rushed executive orders and experimental governance might feel bold and decisive, but history shows that the most enduring policies are the ones that survive rigorous scrutiny.
The judiciary, for all its faults, remains the final safeguard against executive overreach, ensuring that no president, billionaire, or self-declared efficiency guru can bend the law to their will without consequence.
And if there’s one thing courts especially love, it’s reminding the powerful that even they must follow the law.
Comments