Federal Judges Slap Down Trump’s Push for More Power

Paul Riverbank, 2/7/2026Federal judges curb Trump’s executive power, spotlighting fierce legal clashes over privacy and authority.

One such decision, handled by Judge Indira Talwani up in Massachusetts, has managed to ruffle feathers at both the IRS and Homeland Security. Her block on the government’s use of taxpayer data to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement wasn’t just a matter of dry legal theory; it came with a warning note. "Almost limitless power" is how she described the risk, if agencies dipped freely into personal tax files for civil enforcement. That, in her words, was "ripe for abuse".

To call this a simple dispute about privacy rights doesn’t capture the whole picture. Talwani didn’t only speak up for immigrants—she reminded the administration that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment draws lines not just for citizens, but for anyone within the United States. According to her, narrowing that protection could end up deterring people—immigrants only initially in name—from filing taxes at all. And mistakes happen: her order referenced the story of a naturalized citizen in Minnesota who, due to a data mix-up, found himself mistakenly detained by ICE. One wrong turn in a database, and a life is upended.

This isn’t Talwani’s first tangle with policy from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A prior ruling saw her halt Homeland Security’s cutoff of protections for thousands hailing from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, arguing that the administration’s move would force a cruel choice between living in limbo or leaving the country altogether. Separate from immigration, her gavel halted restrictions on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates as well.

Officials at ICE and DHS, for their part, insist the contested data is a critical tool. Outsiders, they argue, can vanish from criminal databases, but get located through their tax records—particularly those who file using specialized identification numbers instead of Social Security numbers. Under a plan penciled for 2025, ICE wanted to provide lists to the IRS for address checks, with agents tracking down individuals based on the resulting tips. This kind of cross-referencing, sometimes described by critics as "data dragnetting," has prompted calls for a judicial fix—clear and durable boundaries on government surveillance.

Simultaneously, another courtroom, this time in New York, took up a different matter with equally high stakes: the Gateway Tunnel Project. There, a judge pressed pause on moves by the White House to control funding for the mammoth $16 billion tunnel under the Hudson River—a lifeline between New York and New Jersey. It wasn’t only dollars in play; project leads warned of the immediate loss of a thousand jobs, with the domino effect threatening thousands more.

A twist, nearly outlandish except for today’s political climate, surfaced reports that funding delays were tethered to a request: rename Dulles Airport and Penn Station in honor of President Trump. As that unusual condition wends its way through the courts, all parties await the next judicial word on whether public works and political ego can or should be legally linked.

Perhaps most striking, and certainly the least conventional, is that the president himself has entered federal court not as defendant, but as plaintiff, suing his own government for $10 billion in damages. He claims the illegal release of his tax returns by an IRS worker—now serving time—warrants the steep price, insisting that any award would head straight to charity. “I’ll give it 100% to charities… charities that will be approved by government or whatever,” he told NBC, cutting a figure equal parts defiant and theatrical.

The lawsuit, tangled in its own knot of potential conflicts of interest, has drawn skepticism from watchdogs and lawmakers alike. Critics wonder how the Department of Justice—charged with representing the public—can litigate a case where the chief executive sits on both sides of the courtroom. Legal scholars have speculated that Judge Kathleen Williams, overseeing the dispute, might toss it altogether, viewing the case as lacking true adversaries. Alternatively, she may appoint an outside attorney to steer the proceedings impartially.

Congress has offered a dose of exasperated realism. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, pointed out the suit’s real-world impact: if successful, taxpayers could find themselves footing the president’s bill for harm caused by an agency he runs. One senator, declining to go on record, mused that settling such a case would defy any reasonable explanation.

Should the court force a public reckoning, a verdict would likely echo far beyond this particular occupant of the White House. If the judge allows the matter to be settled internally, presidents present and future may feel emboldened to test similar legal boundaries.

Taken together, this flurry of litigation lays bare how the American system juggles the ambitions of those in power and the rights of everyone else. Federal judges, often low-profile, now draw firm lines around executive actions—sometimes when the fight is over tax records, sometimes over vital infrastructure, sometimes when the president sues himself. The country’s separation of powers, messy and intricate though it may be, seems primed for another round of courtroom tests. If recent weeks are any measure, these legal battles may only grow more unpredictable—and consequential—as the months roll on.

Federal courts seldom draw as much attention as they have in recent weeks, but the legal spotlight has grown brighter over Trump administration policy maneuvers. The familiar script in Washington—an executive branch pushing boundaries, trial judges assessing the reach—has produced a fresh batch of rulings that reveal the complicated web connecting privacy, power, and the everyday lives of Americans.One such decision, handled by Judge Indira Talwani up in Massachusetts, has managed to ruffle feathers at both the IRS and Homeland Security. Her block on the government’s use of taxpayer data to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement wasn’t just a matter of dry legal theory; it came with a warning note. "Almost limitless power" is how she described the risk, if agencies dipped freely into personal tax files for civil enforcement. That, in her words, was "ripe for abuse".To call this a simple dispute about privacy rights doesn’t capture the whole picture. Talwani didn’t only speak up for immigrants—she reminded the administration that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment draws lines not just for citizens, but for anyone within the United States. According to her, narrowing that protection could end up deterring people—immigrants only initially in name—from filing taxes at all. And mistakes happen: her order referenced the story of a naturalized citizen in Minnesota who, due to a data mix-up, found himself mistakenly detained by ICE. One wrong turn in a database, and a life is upended.This isn’t Talwani’s first tangle with policy from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A prior ruling saw her halt Homeland Security’s cutoff of protections for thousands hailing from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, arguing that the administration’s move would force a cruel choice between living in limbo or leaving the country altogether. Separate from immigration, her gavel halted restrictions on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates as well.Officials at ICE and DHS, for their part, insist the contested data is a critical tool. Outsiders, they argue, can vanish from criminal databases, but get located through their tax records—particularly those who file using specialized identification numbers instead of Social Security numbers. Under a plan penciled for 2025, ICE wanted to provide lists to the IRS for address checks, with agents tracking down individuals based on the resulting tips. This kind of cross-referencing, sometimes described by critics as "data dragnetting," has prompted calls for a judicial fix—clear and durable boundaries on government surveillance.Simultaneously, another courtroom, this time in New York, took up a different matter with equally high stakes: the Gateway Tunnel Project. There, a judge pressed pause on moves by the White House to control funding for the mammoth $16 billion tunnel under the Hudson River—a lifeline between New York and New Jersey. It wasn’t only dollars in play; project leads warned of the immediate loss of a thousand jobs, with the domino effect threatening thousands more.A twist, nearly outlandish except for today’s political climate, surfaced reports that funding delays were tethered to a request: rename Dulles Airport and Penn Station in honor of President Trump. As that unusual condition wends its way through the courts, all parties await the next judicial word on whether public works and political ego can or should be legally linked.Perhaps most striking, and certainly the least conventional, is that the president himself has entered federal court not as defendant, but as plaintiff, suing his own government for $10 billion in damages. He claims the illegal release of his tax returns by an IRS worker—now serving time—warrants the steep price, insisting that any award would head straight to charity. “I’ll give it 100% to charities… charities that will be approved by government or whatever,” he told NBC, cutting a figure equal parts defiant and theatrical.The lawsuit, tangled in its own knot of potential conflicts of interest, has drawn skepticism from watchdogs and lawmakers alike. Critics wonder how the Department of Justice—charged with representing the public—can litigate a case where the chief executive sits on both sides of the courtroom. Legal scholars have speculated that Judge Kathleen Williams, overseeing the dispute, might toss it altogether, viewing the case as lacking true adversaries. Alternatively, she may appoint an outside attorney to steer the proceedings impartially.Congress has offered a dose of exasperated realism. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, pointed out the suit’s real-world impact: if successful, taxpayers could find themselves footing the president’s bill for harm caused by an agency he runs. One senator, declining to go on record, mused that settling such a case would defy any reasonable explanation.Should the court force a public reckoning, a verdict would likely echo far beyond this particular occupant of the White House. If the judge allows the matter to be settled internally, presidents present and future may feel emboldened to test similar legal boundaries.Taken together, this flurry of litigation lays bare how the American system juggles the ambitions of those in power and the rights of everyone else. Federal judges, often low-profile, now draw firm lines around executive actions—sometimes when the fight is over tax records, sometimes over vital infrastructure, sometimes when the president sues himself. The country’s separation of powers, messy and intricate though it may be, seems primed for another round of courtroom tests. If recent weeks are any measure, these legal battles may only grow more unpredictable—and consequential—as the months roll on.