This past Friday felt like a rough day for the Trump administration, which found itself taking not one, but two big legal hits in quick succession. In a significant decision out of Rhode Island, a federal judge stopped the implementation of Trump’s executive order related to ‘gender ideology,’ stating it can’t be enforced on recipients of funding from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
In another development, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit in California ruled that the administration is required to release documents concerning the controversial dismissals of federal employees.
Newsweek made attempts to reach out to the White House and the Department of Justice for a response, but their inquiries came after standard business hours.
Why This Matters
Right now, slippery slopes for the Trump administration seem to come primarily from the courts, as the Republicans control both the Senate and the House. Recent legal outcomes have proven challenging for Trump, especially concerning punitive actions against legal firms involved in cases against him, attempts to revoke legal protections for Haitian migrants, and enforcing sanctions against employees of the International Criminal Court, among others.
Key Takeaways
In that notable ruling in Rhode Island, Senior District Judge William Smith determined that Trump’s executive order from January 20, labeled ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism’ could not be conducted in a manner that harms NEA grant recipients.
Essentially, this executive order stipulated that the federal government acknowledges only two genders (male and female) and that taxpayer money “shall not fund any initiatives promoting gender ideology.”
Judge Smith concluded that imposing the executive order’s stipulations onto grant applicants would violate the First Amendment, and thus, that course of action cannot proceed.
Meanwhile, in California, the Ninth Circuit panel overwhelmingly ruled in a 2-1 decision affirming a previous court’s determination that the Trump team must provide documents relating to the massive layoffs of federal workers.
This lawsuit was initiated back in April by various labor organizations, non-profits, municipalities, and a Texas county, all contesting the authoritarian job cuts imposed by Trump, claiming such overreach lay outside of his constitutional authority and warrant congressional decree.
Major layoffs echoed through government offices following Trump s second inauguration in January, driven primarily by the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk.
Reactions to the Rulings
Judge Smith remarked in his decision: “The defendants are restrained from employing a viewpoint-based review process that would differentiate between those individuals whose applications are seen as ‘promoting gender ideology,’ and the existing plans to roll out the Executive Order are hence annulled by this court.”
Issuing a majority opinion in the Ninth Circuit case, Judge William Fletcher—who was appointed by President Clinton—expressed, “We find no significant errors or compelling reasons favoring relief for the government under the circumstances.
“Our refusal of mandamus aligns with the well-established principle of allowing district courts discretion in managing cases involving discovery. The district court did not abuse its discretion, but rather exhibited due caution and consideration while managing this situation, giving the government’s claim of privilege a thoughtful inquiry.”
Elena Goldstein, the attorney for the plaintiffs, commented: “The Trump-Vance administration attempted to shroud its unprecedented plans to oust civil workers and diminish programs essential to Americans. Today, the court has affirmed that these documents, which bear the truth of this administration’s actions, are vital to this ongoing case.”
What Comes Next?
In light of these rulings, the Trump administration may try to appeal either or both decisions in higher courts. It’s clear that legal challenges will continue to pose significant hurdles to Trump’s policy agenda moving forward.
