The most formidable obstacles to the agenda of President Donald Trump are firmly deposited in the judicial branch.
This week’s injunction is a graceity of the American district judge Indira Talwani in the Massachusetts, which made a temporary prescription limiting the ability of the Trump administration to prevent Medicaid funds from going to certain Planned Parenthood entities. More affirmative said: Talwani ordered the government to complete taxes to Planned Parenthood. (Related: judges play their Trump drop against the president – and scotus too)
Planned Parenthood opposed article 71113 of One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBB), which prohibits federal payments to entities which provide abortions, except in rare circumstances. The Planned Parenthood Legal Counter is widely set up for reasons of the first amendment.
“The real design” of the provision of the OBB is “simply to express disapproval, to attack and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly important role in the public debate on abortion”, wrote the non -profit organization in its complaint.
The order of Talwani, issued on July 21, echoes these concerns.
“There is an important public interest in the implementation of statutes duly promulgated,” she notes in an opinion published on July 21.
“At the same time, when social policy hooks the exercise of the rights of the first amendment, the public interest in protecting these rights can prevail over the public interest to allow this policy to take effect,” she continued.
Talwani’s decision only applies to certain Entities of Planned Parenthood, ensuring restrictions on the universal injunctions established by the United States Supreme Court in June.
.@Potus: The Supreme Court has won a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law by reducing the excessive use of national injunctions 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Iquur3xmmt8
– Quick response 47 (@ rapidressese47) June 27, 2025
Trump praised the 6-3 decision as a triumph. Victory can be in sight, but it remains out of the grip of the Trump administration.
The historical decision “is likely to be silent,” said law professor Nicholas Bagley in USA TODAY.
“Listen, there are many other ways to get a large relief,” said Bagley. “The fact is that they are available now.”
Federal judges have two main means of blocking or imposing Federal action operation.
First, they could call on the Act respecting the Administrative Procedure (APA). APA regulates ministries. If Trump signs an executive decree that obliges intra-departure changes, judges can block these changes on the basis of APA.
For example, exercising mass licensees at the Ministry of Health and Social Services (HHS). US district judge Melissa Dubose temporarily blocked layoffs on July 1, saying that HHS had acted in a “arbitrary and capricious” manner which was “contrary to the law”.
The second means of compensation for federal judges is the collective recourse.
American district judge Joseph Laplante granted a preliminary injunction at the class level to the complainants protesting against Trump’s order limiting citizenship of the dawn on July 10.
The complainants included children of non-citizens, non-citizens with children born in the United States and “Barbara”, a pregnant woman who is not an American citizen, but who has an “request for asylum”, according to legal deposits. But it is not as if Barbara had just washed the American coast yesterday. It has lived in the United States since 2024, notes the document.
The judge of the American district court Randolph Daniel Moss (appointed by Obama) blocks the decree of President Trump who prohibited migrants who crossed the United States to seek asylum.
The US prosecutor Pam Bondi: “A judge of the District Court of Voyou is already trying to get around … pic.twitter.com/w2dzmljlzt
– Redwave Press (@redwave_press) July 2, 2025
US District Judge Randolph Moss may have relied on the most breathtaking class of all July 2. Moss’s opinion makes a class of people affected by Trump proclamation “guaranteeing the protection of states against the invasion”.
This proclamation imposes restrictions on asylum complaints formed by illegal foreigners. Asylum eligibility is wide, at least, on paper. It must be argued that he is confronted with persecution, or fears persecution, because of his: race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group or a political opinion.
“Persecution” is a fairly large category. Just like “belonging to a particular social group”. A Venezuelan gangbanger could say in a credible way that it is persecuted by the police for its members in a neighborhood click.
This hypothetical gangbanger should be physically present in the United States to ask for asylum in the first place, which occurs very often. (Related: Judicial documents reveal how many gangbangers Tren of Aragua on the ICE expulsion list)
The effect of MOSS’s decision is to sweep away all those who could have a credible complaint of persecution in a giant class. All they have to do is sneak in the United States, demand persecution and profit.
With federal judges as creative as Moss, the Trump administration‘The hearing blowers have no end in sight.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @Natsandovaldc
