Executive Orders Halted: Are Judges Overstepping?

Morning Wire Podcast – March 23, 2025

In this insightful episode of "Morning Wire," hosted by John Bickley and Georgia Howe, the focus is on the recent judicial interventions that have halted several executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump. The discussion centers on whether these judicial actions represent rightful checks on executive power or constitute overreach by the judiciary. The program features Ilia Shapiro, Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Miseducation of America's Elites, providing expert analysis on the matter.

Judicial Authority vs. Overreach

The episode begins with an overview of the recent court actions that have blocked Trump's executive orders, including the dismantling of USAID, the firing of thousands of government workers, and the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.

John Bickley introduces the topic:

"Over the last few weeks, we've seen several district judges put a halt to some of President Trump's executive orders... Do these judges have this authority or is this judicial overreach?" ([00:03])

Ilia Shapiro responds by acknowledging the complexity of the issue:

"It depends... there have been more TROs... in these first eight weeks or two months of the Trump administration than we saw in all four years of President Biden." ([01:48])

He emphasizes that while some judicial interventions may be justified, others might overstep, particularly in cases involving temporary restraining orders (TROs) that are typically meant to be unreviewable on appeal.

Analyzing Specific Executive Orders

1. Dismantling USAID

Shapiro discusses the legal battles surrounding the administration's efforts to cut funding for USAID. He notes that the Supreme Court's involvement has led to a more narrowed approach, allowing the administration to proceed with past contracts while blocking future funding cuts.

"Judge Ali on The District of D.C. said... you do have to pay for the work that was already done under valid contracts... That is effectively a win for the administration." ([05:47])

2. Deportations Under the Alien Enemies Act

The conversation shifts to Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants identified as criminals or gang members. Shapiro clarifies that the administration is engaging in a legitimate legal argument regarding presidential authority over national security and migration rules.

"It's simply a debate between Article 2 and Article 3 about the President exercising his authority over national security and migration rules." ([05:53])

3. Reinstating Fired Federal Workers

Addressing the order to reinstate 25,000 federal workers, Shapiro expresses uncertainty due to civil service protections but remains optimistic about the administration's position based on recent Supreme Court rulings.

"The president can fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel... it looks like the administration is on firm ground." ([07:13])

4. Ban on Transgender Service Members

Shapiro argues that courts typically grant the executive branch significant leeway in military matters. He suggests that the administration's justification—that transgender service members negatively impact military operations—may hold up under appellate scrutiny.

"Courts give a lot of leeway to the executive branch on regulating the military... the lower court's block will be reversed." ([08:19])

Strategizing Future Executive Orders

When advising the president on structuring future executive orders to withstand legal challenges, Shapiro praises the Trump administration's meticulous legal preparation during the transition period.

"The executive orders have been very well lawyered... most of this, the administration is going to prevail." ([03:04])

He highlights the importance of strong legal foundations to prevent similar judicial setbacks in the future.

Potential Legislative Actions and Judicial Reforms

The discussion touches on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s proposal to strip federal courts of their jurisdiction over executive orders. Shapiro believes such measures are unlikely to pass due to Senate filibuster rules but suggests alternative reforms, such as requiring a three-judge panel to issue nationwide injunctions.

"It's hard to see anything... passing a filibuster in the Senate... a three judge court necessary to issue a universal or national injunction." ([04:04])

Escalation to the Supreme Court and Unitary Executive Theory

Shapiro anticipates that many of these legal battles will escalate to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the substantive issues at hand. He explains that the core of the dispute revolves around the unitary executive theory, which asserts that the president should have control over the executive branch's functions.

"The Supreme Court has not actually decided the merits of any of these thorny issues... the Trump administration is really pushing the claim that the president... gets to control what it does." ([10:39])

Shapiro suggests that the Supreme Court may eventually uphold the Trump administration's stance on centralized executive power, especially if the administration continues to present strong legal arguments.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflection on the significance of these judicial interventions and their implications for executive power in the United States. Shapiro's insights provide a nuanced understanding of the legal battles between the Trump administration and the judiciary, highlighting the ongoing tension between different branches of government over executive authority.

John Bickley wraps up the discussion:

"Ilya, thank you so much for joining us." ([10:39])

Ilia Shapiro responds:

"My pleasure. Take care." ([10:42])

This episode of "Morning Wire" offers a comprehensive analysis of the challenges faced by the Trump administration in implementing its agenda through executive orders and the judiciary's role in checking executive power.