U.S. appeals courts have been busy overturning or pausing lower court decisions that block President Donald Trump’s policy initiatives. This trend is strikingly more pronounced than during the Biden administration. Chad Mizelle, a former senior Justice Department official, highlighted this difference in a post on X, noting the frequency of appeals court victories under Trump compared to Biden.
During Biden’s four-year term, district courts issued nine rulings against the administration that were later overturned on appeal, averaging about 2.25 decisions per year. In contrast, 2025 marked Trump’s first year back in office. Mizelle noted that district judges issued 133 rulings against Trump, which were either stayed or reversed on appeal. He described this as a failure rate exceeding 50 times that of the previous presidency. This dramatic statistic underscores the contentious legal climate surrounding Trump’s policies.
Trump’s initiative to push bold policies has faced resistance, especially from what his allies label “activist judges.” These judges are seen as overreaching their authority by blocking or pausing significant executive actions intended to reshape government operations. This viewpoint reflects a broader narrative among Trump’s supporters who believe that judicial challenges are hindering the president’s executive powers.
However, it is essential to note that this analysis may not paint a full picture of the judicial landscape. While it is clear that Trump has experienced a higher win rate in appeals courts, his administration has also launched an unprecedented number of executive orders. During his initial year back in office, Trump signed hundreds of such orders aimed at various policy priorities, including immigration control and cuts to government programs. This aggressive approach has naturally resulted in numerous lawsuits challenging his actions, leading to a legal showdown between the administration and the judiciary.
Many of these lawsuits sought temporary relief through mechanisms like temporary restraining orders and universal injunctions. These tools allowed courts to pause or block Trump’s policies while considering the cases. Some lawsuits requested more long-term preliminary injunctions, but these required plaintiffs to meet a higher standard of proof in court.
Recently, the Supreme Court limited the ability of district courts to issue universal injunctions against presidential policies, confining such actions to specific situations. This change may alter the dynamics of how future cases are handled, especially for contentious executive actions.
As of now, over 590 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s administration. Many remain unresolved in lower courts, making it challenging to gauge the definitive outcomes. Instead, the administration frequently appeals temporary rulings to higher courts, seeking emergency stays that can enable its policies to remain in place while litigation proceeds.
The so-called “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court is another crucial factor in this ongoing legal battle. This process allows for quick appeals and has led to a high rate of favorable outcomes for Trump’s administration. Some significant policies have been upheld through these emergency rulings, which have addressed issues like military service regulations and education funding cuts.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a recent Cabinet meeting, reinforced the magnitude of these legal challenges, citing an astonishing total of 575 lawsuits against the Trump administration. She claimed this figure surpasses those from all previous administrations since Reagan combined. Bondi also boasted about Trump’s success rate at the Supreme Court, citing 24 victories and a success rate of approximately 92%.
This ongoing legal saga highlights not only the contentious nature of Trump’s policies but also a legal framework that may adapt to the shifting political landscape. As appeals courts continue to respond to the administration’s aggressive policy agenda, the effect on Trump’s governance will remain a focal point as key policies navigate through the judicial system. The coming months will be critical in determining how these legal battles unfold and what they mean for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive.
"*" indicates required fields
