On June 20, 2025, the Federal District Court of New Jersey issued a ruling ordering the Department of Homeland Security to immediately release Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student from Columbia University. The court ruled that the detention of a lawful resident with no criminal record and no violent charges was “extraordinary,” and the government failed to provide sufficient legal grounds to justify continued detention.
Khalil was arrested by U.S. law enforcement authorities in early March. He had participated in anti-Israel protests on Columbia’s campus last year. Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident, triggered widespread attention after his arrest. The Trump administration sought to deport him and refused bail, keeping him in detention while awaiting trial. However, on the afternoon of June 20, the court ruled in favor of his release, and he was freed the same day.
Trump’s second term in office was characterized by his reliance on executive orders to govern. Many of his actions, if passed through legislation in Congress, would have been unlikely to succeed. Even with both the Senate and the House controlled by the Republican Party, they were not mere rubber stamps for Trump. However, executive orders can bypass Congress but cannot bypass the courts. Federal courts have judicial review over presidential actions—this is a key mechanism in the U.S. constitutional system of checks and balances.
A professor at Stanford University compiled statistics showing that in May of this year, in lawsuits involving executive orders in federal court, the Trump administration lost 96% of the cases and won only 4%. Moreover, during Trump’s first four months in office, his monthly loss rate showed an increasing trend: 54% in February, 74% in March, 76% in April, and peaking at 96% in May.
The current nine justices of the Supreme Court include six appointed by Republican presidents, three of whom were appointed by President Trump; out of the 179 judges in the federal appellate courts, 89 were appointed by Republican presidents and 88 by Democratic presidents; and out of the 679 judges in the federal district courts, 257 were appointed by Republican presidents and 384 by Democratic presidents.
Clearly, federal court judges do not base their rulings on party lines but follow the law. Republican-appointed judges, including those appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump himself, alongside Democratic-appointed judges, have exercised judicial review over Trump’s executive orders and halted many of his policies that were deemed potentially unlawful.
This is not to say that when the court rules, Trump immediately complies. He often goes to the media to voice his dissatisfaction, procrastinate, and try to find ways to skirt around it. This is not something he started doing only as president; he has done this his entire life. He plays out every scene of the script before finally backing down and declaring victory. This was the pattern in the trade war and continues with court rulings. Recently, the media gave Trump a nickname—TACO, which stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out,” referring to his tendency to back down. This is his usual approach.
For months, some commentators have been shouting that America is experiencing a “constitutional crisis.” Such “cry wolf” rhetoric may attract attention, increase traffic, and generate anxiety, but it does little to help us understand the workings of the U.S. constitutional system, the mechanisms of checks and balances, or the political game among the branches of power.
A late March poll showed that 82% of American voters believed Trump should comply with court rulings. Not only did independent, centrist voters overwhelmingly oppose Trump’s disregard for court rulings, but a majority of Republican voters also felt that Trump should abide by court decisions. This is the U.S. public opinion, and public opinion translates into votes, which equates to a politician’s political life. Not only is this true for Trump, but also for Republican lawmakers. Particularly for senators, who are not limited by two terms, they won’t allow the president to drag them down with him. While Trump may serve only four years, senators will continue in office and will face successive presidents after Trump.
A more specific factor is the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
The U.S. federal court system consists of three levels: district courts, which serve as trial courts; appellate courts, which serve as courts of appeal; and the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal. These courts operate independently from the executive branch, forming an independent branch of government that manages itself and is not subject to the control of the executive branch.
Functionally, the DOJ represents the executive branch in legal matters, prosecuting violations of federal law and defending the federal government in lawsuits. Essentially, the DOJ serves as the government’s legal representative or prosecutor. The DOJ has appointed U.S. Attorneys for all 94 federal districts, who oversee more than 10,000 attorneys.
The DOJ does not have the power to issue or revoke bar licenses, as these are issued by each state’s supreme court. This decentralized system of checks and balances makes it more difficult for the executive branch to ignore court rulings. From the Attorney General to the U.S. Attorneys and all the attorneys working for the DOJ, they are lawyers, and none would easily jeopardize their career by disregarding court rulings to please a president who is only in office for four years.
The Garcia case, which recently caused a stir, clearly illustrates how this system of checks and balances works and forces Trump to bow to the court, while he then tries to save face in the media.
Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was allowed to stay in the U.S. legally by an immigration court ruling in 2019. In March of this year, President Trump invoked the “Foreign Enemy Act” to bypass the courts and deport Garcia, who was accused of being involved in criminal gangs. Garcia was detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and sent to a Salvadoran prison along with over 200 other gang members. In subsequent legal proceedings, the DOJ lawyers admitted that ICE had wrongly detained Garcia. A district court ordered the Trump administration to rectify the mistake and bring him back. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the administration must “assist” in releasing Garcia.
Trump and his Attorney General claimed that Garcia was already in a Salvadoran prison and that the U.S. government could not bring him back. The President of El Salvador also stated that he would not release him. Meanwhile, DOJ lawyers pretended not to understand what “assistance” meant, repeatedly delaying and providing excuses, citing “national security” concerns to avoid providing documents to the court. The appellate court, appointed by President Reagan, issued a stern judgment, and the Supreme Court, losing patience with the Trump administration’s stalling tactics, made a ruling in the early hours of April 19, completely prohibiting the Trump administration from using the Foreign Enemy Act to deport undocumented immigrants.
In early June, the media reported that the Trump administration had complied with the court’s ruling and brought Garcia back to the U.S. Trump claimed on NBC, “This wasn’t my decision. It was the DOJ’s decision, and I have no objection.” It seemed as though he was trying to distance himself from the matter. The DOJ then said that Garcia was brought back to face charges of smuggling undocumented immigrants, but whether these charges had merit and whether this was an attempt to salvage some face remains to be determined by the court.
In May, the Trump administration lost 96% of its cases, a stark contrast to the usual win rate of the DOJ. DOJ prosecutors continued to lose cases, causing frustration among judges, and some are now considering sanctions against the DOJ and its attorneys. Clearly, some of the attorneys defending Trump in court have realized that they are lawyers, not media commentators, and that violating professional conduct and ethics will have consequences.
Not only may the prosecutors face disciplinary action, but Attorney General Pam Bondi is also not immune. Her controversial actions in the DOJ are now facing professional ethics complaints in Florida. Seventy lawyers, law professors, and former judges from the Florida Supreme Court have signed a letter to the state bar association, accusing her of “serious misconduct that threatens the rule of law and judicial fairness.”
In the U.S., some of the most important ethical guidelines for lawyers include adhering to court rulings, not delaying cases maliciously, and not abusing legal terms to confuse the court. Clearly, the DOJ has failed in these areas over the past few months.
Of course, prosecutors and the Attorney General could choose to defy the court’s rulings, causing a constitutional crisis. But historically, constitutional crises pass, and the balance of power is restored. However, an individual’s political career and professional life can end in crisis.
The Garcia case serves as a stress test for the U.S. constitutional system. Not only the courts but also Trump, his Attorney General, and prosecutors have felt the pressure. At least in this round, the first to bow under pressure was Trump and his DOJ. While the Trump administration packaged the “re-prosecution” of Garcia as a victory, the true winner in this round was the court, the constitutional system, and procedural justice.
Throughout the repeated lawsuits, appeals, and rulings, courts at all levels emphasized that the executive branch can deport undocumented immigrants, but it cannot do so arbitrarily. Due process must be followed. Garcia could be deported, but he must be given a chance to appeal in court, and proper procedures must be followed.
According to the U.S. Constitution, not only U.S. citizens but everyone in the U.S. is entitled to due process. On this matter, conservative and liberal judges are in unanimous agreement. Judges appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Trump have all ruled the same way.
When the executive branch threatens the courts, when judicial authority is threatened by executive power, both conservative and liberal judges join forces to defend judicial independence and judicial review, preserving the boundaries of the judiciary. The courts’ insistence has made the executive branch hesitant and restrained in its misuse of power.
Of course, this is not the final chapter in the checks and balances game. Trump has been in office for less than six months, and his administration will continue to test the limits of power. The end is still far away.
To conclude, let’s borrow a line from Winston Churchill: “This is not the end, nor is it even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.” At least, we can say that this is the end of the first round, with Trump bowing to the court.
For those anxious about the “constitutional crisis” being shouted about, politics is not worth your anxiety, let alone your depression—this applies not just to Trump, but to any politician or political party. The United States has lasted for 249 years and reached this point not because of any president, party, theorist, or talking head, but because of its institutions, its people, and its history. Some people can disrupt the normal operation of the country, but no one has the power to destroy America’s system, change its people, or reverse its trajectory.