CNN
–
Among dozens of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s policies, one case of the week is moving faster than most.
Less than 24 hours later, the American medical community and dozens of universities have initially won in blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to cut millions of dollars in federal funds to support medical research. I’ve secured it.
After closing out the amount of money the Trump administration received from the government to support health investigations, health systems and universities across 22 states and across the nation filed multiple lawsuits on Monday to stop it.
By midnight, a federal judge had issued a nationwide injunction. This marks one of the fastest, most robust and most robust examples in the middle of Trump’s efforts to overhaul the US government.
Just as Trump and his dodge chief Elon Musk took the sledgehammer to the federal government, stopping foreign federal aid, firing federal workers, ending government programs, and even closure agencies. Even – Unprecedented enforcement lawsuits have been filled with almost four dozen emergency lawsuits. They are designed to slow or stop them.
So far, the lawsuit has been effective. The Trump administration will be spoken in five different ways on Monday, and will need to suspend or suspend the implementation of that policy on Tuesday.
That includes federal judges blocking Trump’s birthright ban, suspending efforts to provide “shops” to federal workers, reinstate federal funding flows into environmental and medical programs; (at least temporarily) revived the top federal whistleblower investigator. He was fired, ordered some healthcare data to be reposted on the government’s website, blocking attempts to cut federal grants.
These early legal victories quickly create new playbooks on how Trump’s policies are tested and responded, even temporary victories.
“Americans will suffer”: Healthcare professionals respond to NIH cuts
“What we’re looking at is an effort to control federal spending on a scale we’ve never seen before, and we’re ruthlessly ignoring the consequences. Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst, spoke about Trump’s previous approach on Tuesday morning.
In many cases, judges sitting at court level tried to maintain the status quo before causing irreversible harm. Trump administration officials said they expected these early moves to challenge them in court, and in many cases, days and months, by multiple levels of courts, potentially including the US Supreme Court. He says that legal issues will be reexamined.
Like the president, Trump officials have blised some of the judicial decisions, with Vice President JD Vance and Musk both suggesting that the administration should ignore the court’s decisions.
Trump criticized the judges in a radio interview Monday, saying they made a “very bad ruling” and “they want to tell everyone how to run the country.”
Previous incidents demonstrate how Trump’s policies that have surprised Washington over the past four weeks can change American life. For example, the research university said Monday that millions of federal dollar losses supporting lab overhead costs “destroy medical research.”
Lawmakers on both parties raised concerns that cuts would be hit by the local economy, both in blue and red.
Massachusetts took the lead in one of the challenges to cut funding cuts for the National Health Subsidy announced last Friday by the Trump administration. The state is one of several Democratic-led nations as it cuts tens of millions of dollars with federal government support for institutional fictitious costs, as its states are in one of several Democratic-led nations. Because of that, the state was the first invoker to cut tens of millions of dollars. The most important issue for the administration.
“We don’t allow the Trump administration to do politics in public health,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at a press conference Monday.
The response to medical funding cuts was one of many cases where Trump’s actions were challenged almost immediately in court.
The cases filed fall into several categories. Can the president be able to suspend funds approved by Congress, or block all categories of federal workers, or privacy protections prevent the efficiency of the mask government from accessing personal data held by the government. It includes questions about whether it can be done, whether it is the Trump administration’s social policy and immigration crackdown. It will extend beyond the limits of law and constitution
One of the rulings that sparked the strongest response from Trump’s allies came last weekend when a federal judge stopped Doge from accessing the key Treasury payment system.
Efforts to access the Treasury payment system from Musk’s team – see trillions of government spending – urged five former Treasury secretaries to write co-salists on Monday. “Managing federal payments” and, if pursued, Trump’s approach “is illegal and corroded against our democracy.”
The resentment against the judge’s ruling on the financial system both inside and outside the Trump administration, including the Trump administration and Vance, has raised new concerns that the Trump White House will ignore court orders.
“If a judge tries to tell the general how to carry out a military operation, it’s illegal,” Vance said in a post on X. illegal. Judges are not permitted to control the legitimate power of executives. ”
The judge has already warned that the administration would not ignore their ruling. On Monday, a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered a recovery in funding for sustained environmental and health groups, in the “plain text” of an earlier order that the administration freezes billions of dollars with federal aid. He wrote that he had violated it.
And in another incident Monday, in Washington, D.C., a federal employee told a judge that the administration failed to recover the USAID workers who took leave. The main hearing in that case is set for Wednesday.
The current political climate for judicial rulings has been turned over to their heads since last year, when Republicans cheered for rulings that obstructed the Biden administration’s enforcement actions. Now, the judge is seized by a verdict from a time when he supported former President Joe Biden’s opponents.
The controversial consent, written last year by conservative Supreme Court judge Judge Amy Connie Barrett, helped a judge who told the Trump administration to pause its drastic manipulation. Ta. Barrett’s consent defended the active use of administrative stays in the conservative court of appeals’ blockbuster immigration cases, but has recently been cited by at least four judges. Legal challenges continue.
Sources previously told CNN that if the Trump team was first filed in friendly federal jurisdictions like Washington, D.C. or New England, all moves are challenged in court and lost the lawsuit. He said he was looking forward to it. Ultimately, many of the conflict could end up in the Supreme Court, which could lie on Trump’s vision of a vast definition of enforcement, at least for some issues.
At the same time, administrative agencies are beginning to more forcefully debate in courts in a small number of cases in which courts should not be involved in such decisions. Just like he chose.
In one example of DOJ’s audacity to defend Trump’s power as president, the administration’s lawyers said Judge Trump is just working to match the country’s spending “with America’s interests.” The president should be able to put federal workers in USAID on leave, they argued Monday.
The Justice Department added that Trump’s policy decisions on foreign aid are “an act that federal courts should dislike because they are confusing.”
Paula Reid, Devan Cole and Meg Tirrell of CNN contributed to this report.
