Trump’s From immigration battles to backing President Donald Trump’s sweeping federal budget cuts, the Justice Department has handled over a hundred emergency lawsuits during the administration’s first hundred days — and has done so with striking consistency.
Trump’s And when straightforward legal defense falls short, create confusion.
Trump’s That strategy has often meant bypassing or accelerating normal judicial procedures. In several cases, the Justice Department has attempted to leapfrog trial courts, quickly pushing disputes to appellate courts or even the Supreme Court in an effort to secure favorable rulings.
Trump’s In other instances, the department has employed arguments that courts have criticized as misleading. Federal Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland, for example, recently accused the government of using flawed reasoning and selectively interpreting a court order in an immigration-related case, calling the approach one filled with “fallacy.”
Trump’s In the case overseen by Judge Paula Xinis, involving the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court instructed that Xinis, at the trial level, had the authority to order the U.S. government to “facilitate” his return. However, Xinis criticized the Justice Department’s interpretation of that directive, noting that their only action—offering to send a plane to Latin America if someone else brought Garcia to it—was a blatant distortion.
Trump’s “The administration doesn’t seem to be operating on a legal theory,” said a former Justice Department official who served under Democratic administrations. “It’s operating on a theory of power.”
Trump’s The Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration must provide advance notice to detainees being deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, giving them a chance to challenge their removal. However, courts are now scrutinizing whether the administration’s notices meet that legal standard.
The ACLU, which is representing many of the affected detainees, argues that some individuals may receive less than 24 hours’ notice before being deported. The organization has also raised concerns that the notices are being issued in English, not Spanish—the primary language of most detainees. A Justice Department attorney denied this claim in court on Friday.
Since Trump took office, a common theme in courtroom arguments from administration lawyers has been the assertion that the president’s authority is nearly beyond challenge—an argument that may soon face a serious test at the Supreme Court.
In some cases, the administration has gone so far as to suggest that President Trump’s powers may exceed those of judges because of his electoral mandate. This argument resurfaced this week during hearings over Trump’s aggressive immigration policies.
The same argument about presidential authority has surfaced repeatedly as Justice Department lawyers have defended a range of controversial Trump-era policies—including data-collection efforts and funding cuts led by adviser.
It also appeared in court as the Justice Department defended a Trump executive order aimed at a law firm that had represented his political opponent. During that case, a senior DOJ official argued that the courts had no authority to second-guess the president’s decisions, especially those made under the guise of national security.
Speaking on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront, Cobb said the DOJ’s approach was rife with “obfuscation and bad faith.”
He warned that as DOJ attorneys become more aggressive in defending questionable actions, they risk losing credibility in court. “This is the first judge in a Trump-era case who has rejected the usual presumption that government lawyers are acting in good faith,” Cobb said on Tuesday. “She doesn’t believe them. She doesn’t trust them.”
Several former Justice Department officials have said that many of these actions would never have passed internal legal review under previous administrations. One former official, speaking anonymously due to fear of retaliation, pointed to political restrictions placed on specific law firms—moves multiple judges have already deemed unconstitutional.
Unprecedented executive orders targeting firms such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale are viewed as highly unlikely to have received legal approval from the White House Counsel’s Office or the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel under any prior administration, Democrat or Republican.
Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel is tasked with providing authoritative legal opinions on such matters, while the White House counsel’s office helps ensure presidential actions are both lawful and executable.
A former official who served in multiple administrations noted that the current administration has shifted its internal legal approach from asking, “Can we do this?” to “Is anyone going to stop us?”
In a recent opinion, Wilkinson invoked President Dwight Eisenhower’s respect for the rule of law, highlighting how Eisenhower complied with the Supreme Court’s 1955 order to desegregate schools despite personal reservations.
‘I just don’t have that information’
In one case involving the law firm Perkins Coie, which is suing over alleged political retaliation by Trump, a Justice Department attorney appeared in court on Wednesday and exemplified another emerging trend: government lawyers arriving unprepared, unable—or unwilling—to answer basic factual questions.
This lack of readiness has sometimes worked for and against the administration. In lawsuits over data privacy and immigration deportations, the absence of clear responses has, at times, stalled proceedings or muddied legal debates, complicating efforts to hold the administration accountable.
During a hearing on Wednesday, Justice Department attorney Richard Lawson found himself in a tense exchange with federal Judge Beryl Howell over whether the administration had formal agreements with certain law firms to provide free legal services aligned with Trump’s agenda. Lawson was unable to confirm if such agreements existed or whether the law firm Perkins Coie might have been exempted from a controversial executive order had it pledged to offer pro bono support.
This lack of clarity has become a recurring issue. Justice Department lawyers have also struggled to answer direct questions in court about leadership and decision-making at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), particularly regarding the involvement of adviser Elon Musk.
In immigration-related cases, government attorneys have frequently faltered when pressed for details about who crafted the administration’s hardline deportation policies. In one instance, it took several days for the administration to produce declarations from Cabinet officials asserting that some publicly available flight data and operational specifics were actually “state secrets.”