Supreme Court keeps handing Trump wins

Most of these SCOTUS decisions were basic common-sense decisions. For example, the Chief Executive gets to fire those who serve in the executive branch of government. Most of the district judge injunctions were clearly outrageous and meant to slow down the President's policies.

Trump won the election, so my advice is to get over it.

So you want to live in a dicktatorship. Got it

So you want to live in a dicktatorship. Got it

They do. They are still hoping Project 2025 is real and Trump takes over the government and cancels elections, so they can keep control. It doesn't look like that will really happen without bloodshed so, when the next Dem comes in and cleans Trump sycophants out they will all cry about how unfair it is.

I appreciate all the new legal precedents being set for the POS/POTUS by his bought and paid for SCOTUS. they're going to come in very handy in 2029. I'll really appreciate the round of pardons for those that accidentally get carried away in expressing their displeasure at what's left of maga criminals, traitors, and child molesters. it'll be like maga squid games before the next election as they try to unwind all those unconstitutional rulings, while they cower in fear for their lives. good luck!

If Trump was a dictator, he would have ignored the injunctions instead of pausing what he was doing and appealing the injunctions. He has followed the law.

he did ignore the injunctions

PROVE IT

I'll be back when the proof arrives.

Adios.

Multiple federal court judges have accused the Trump administration of deliberately defying court orders by being slow to respond, misrepresenting facts in filings, and not taking prompt action as President Donald Trump continues an unprecedented campaign to expand his executive authority.

In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, the Washington Post found that it was accused of resisting court orders in at least 57 of those cases – approximately 34 percent.

Since taking office, Trump has sought to implement his agenda as swiftly as possible, particularly in cases involving his immigration policies and attempts to drastically reduce the federal workforce.

Despite multiple district court judges issuing temporary injunctions to stop the administration from deporting immigrants without due process or sending them to third countries they’ve never been to, filings indicate the administration has continued its efforts.

This has, most notably, occurred in the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was previously granted permission to remain in the U.S. by a court. The administration inadvertently sent Abrego Garcia to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, under accusations that he was a gang member. independent.co.uk

Multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, yet officials made no swift efforts – leading to a judge’s admonishment.

“Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance,” Judge Paula Xinis, appointed by former president Barack Obama, said after the administration failed to provide updates on how it was returning Abrego Garcia.

It was just one of several immigration cases in which judges have raised concerns about the administration not following orders.

I[✘]

ChatGPT:

Here is the most accurate summary possible with available reporting and legal records on court injunctions issued against the Trump administration in 2025 that it has been reported to have ignored, challenged, or continued to implement despite injunctions . There is no comprehensive official list publicly maintained, but multiple injunctions and judicial pauses were reported and in many cases the administration appealed or did not immediately comply with the orders :

• AP News
• AP News
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Axios

1) Birthright citizenship executive order injunctions

• Federal courts issued multiple preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive order intended to end birthright citizenship, finding constitutional issues. ( Wikipedia )

• The administration appealed these injunctions to higher courts, including the Supreme Court. ( Wikipedia )

• While not a formal finding of contempt, the administration continued to litigate aggressively rather than abandon enforcement efforts .

2) Injunction blocking cancellation of FEMA disaster mitigation funding

• A federal judge ordered FEMA to restore billions of dollars in funding for disaster mitigation programs after they were canceled by the administration. Critics described the cancellation as unlawful. ( AP News )

• The administration’s initial cancellation continued until the court’s decision, indicating effective non-compliance until judicial intervention.

3) Preliminary injunction against National Guard deployment

• A U.S. District Judge ordered the Trump administration to end the federal deployment of California National Guard troops , finding the deployment lacked legal justification. ( AP News )

• Reports indicate the administration extended or maintained aspects of these deployments while litigation continued . ( Axios )

4) Injunctions and blocking of other executive policies

There are multiple reports of the administration’s policies being preliminarily enjoined, with litigation ongoing or appeals filed:

• Court injunctions were entered against various executive orders (e.g., diversity/DEI related EOs) where administration motions to stay were denied . ( Jackson Lewis )

• Civil rights groups sought enforcement of injunctions against policies restricting anti-trans healthcare; the administration challenged enforcement. ( American Civil Liberties Union )

• More than 10 federal courts had temporarily halted or rejected actions by the administration, with questions raised about willingness to abide by court rulings. ( Brennan Center for Justice )

---

Contextual note on nationwide injunctions

In 2025 a significant judicial issue was the use of “ nationwide preliminary injunctions ” against the administration’s policies. These were widely issued by lower federal courts and the administration challenged both their scope and legal validity , culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that limited such injunctions. ( The White House )

Critics claimed the administration “ignored” or downplayed injunctions by filing appeals, resisting enforcement, or continuing implementation through legal challenges, rather than promptly complying — a common executive-branch litigation strategy that results in injunctions remaining in effect only while under appeal.

He returned Garcia and Garcia is still here.

So, he obeyed the district court while appealing it.

Challenging is not ignoring.

As a matter of fact, in his first term he allowed his temporary "Travel Ban" was hit with a national injunction, which he paused until the SCOTUS ruled that it was entirely legal. By that time period that he wanted to put it in place was lost. I told you all that it was legal and the activist district judges were gleeful that they thwarted his plan to hold up travel from countries that posed a threat to the US.

Both you and Trout are trying to willfully mislead people. It would have been very easy for Trump to ignore the activists in the district courts, but he didn't.

I am proud to say that the President is now exercising the authority the SCOTUS certified in his first term to issue travel bans:

"President Trump on Tuesday more than doubled the list of countries subject to his travel ban or to heavy restrictions, bringing the total number of nations affected by the sweeping set of immigration and entry limits to 39."

Trump doubles number of countries facing travel bans or restrictions, bringing list to 39 nations - CBS News

Both you and Trout are trying to willfully mislead people.

And this is another bald-faced lie.  A sickening display of dishonesty.

You ignore the examples I provided via ChatGPT which explicitly focused on 2025 and instead go back to a case in Trump's first term that was NOT even mentioned and pretend that we had claimed this was a case where Trump violated court orders.   A flat out lie!

Nobody has claimed that Trump ignores every injunction so you providing a case where he did not is slimy sophistry.

Dishonesty is no substitute for an argument.   

ChatGPT:

Below are the specific points in the Kilmar Abrego García litigation where courts (or the Supreme Court) issued injunctive relief or preservation orders, and the Trump administration’s response was found (or credibly alleged in court filings) to be noncompliant, incomplete, or inconsistent with the injunction’s requirements. I am using dates and the exact obligation imposed to keep this precise.

1) March 15, 2025: Removal to El Salvador despite a prior protection order

• Order involved: A 2019 immigration judge withholding order barred his removal to El Salvador.

• What happened: The U.S. removed him to El Salvador anyway. The Supreme Court later noted the government acknowledged the removal was illegal because of that withholding order. ( Supreme Court )

• Why this qualifies: It is the underlying violation that triggered the later injunctions.

2) April 2025: Failure to substantively comply with the “facilitate” injunction (and failure to explain steps)

• Injunction involved: On April 4 , Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” his return by April 7 ; the Supreme Court later held the April 7 deadline lapsed due to an administrative stay, but the requirement to “facilitate” his release from custody in El Salvador and restore his case posture remained in effect, with the Court expecting the government to be ready to explain what steps it had taken and could take. ( Supreme Court )

• Problematic response: Reporting on the litigation reflects that, even after the Supreme Court’s directive, the government did not provide a clear account of steps taken ; Judge Xinis demanded documents and sworn answers about what had been done to facilitate return, and the matter proceeded on a track that could support contempt findings. ( Reuters )

3) April 12 onward: Court ordered continuing reporting; compliance was criticized as insufficient

• Injunction/monitoring involved: On remand, Judge Xinis amended the injunction and required additional disclosures and reporting regarding steps to facilitate return. ( Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse )

• Problematic response: Advocacy and press reporting around the case describe the court ordering daily reporting on location, steps taken, and next steps—reflecting the judge’s view that the government’s prior responses were inadequate. ( wearecasa.org )

4) May 2025: Withholding information (state secrets) in a manner the judge called “inadequate”

• Injunction/discovery enforcement involved: In the return-facilitation litigation, Judge Xinis required the government to justify withholding information; the government invoked state secrets , and the judge stated the explanation was inadequate . ( WBAL )

• Why this counts: It is not “ignoring” an injunction in the sense of openly refusing, but it is a judicial finding that the government’s response to court-ordered obligations was insufficient , with contempt risk discussed in contemporaneous coverage. ( Courthouse News )

5) Aug. 25, 2025: “Do not remove him from the U.S.” order vs. attempted third-country removal

• Injunction/preservation order involved: Judge Xinis issued an oral order that Abrego García not be moved (to preserve counsel access) and not be removed from the United States . ( Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse )

• Problematic response: That same day, the ACLU stated the government intended to deport him to Uganda (a country he had no ties to), prompting emergency litigation posture consistent with fear of removal despite court protections. ( aclu.org )

6) Oct. 27, 2025: Judge sought assurances ICE would not deport him before lifting an injunction

• Injunction involved: AP reports Judge Xinis had an injunction barring his removal from the U.S. , and she sought assurances after ICE filed notice of a plan to deport him to Liberia. ( AP News )

• Why this counts: The hearing posture reflects the court’s concern that the government might execute removal before the injunction was lifted .

7) Nov.–Dec. 2025: Court findings that the government misled the court in detention/removal litigation

• Order context: In the detention/removal proceedings after his return, Judge Xinis found government representations about the basis and logistics for third-country removal were misleading (e.g., the Costa Rica account). ( The Washington Post )

• Why this matters: While not always framed as “injunction noncompliance,” it is a judicial finding of improper conduct in responding to the court’s constraints in the same removal-control litigation.

If you want, I can convert this into a timeline table with: (1) order type, (2) issuing court, (3) date, (4) obligation, (5) what the government did, (6) whether a judge made an explicit finding vs. parties alleged noncompliance.

Both you and Trout are trying to willfully mislead people.

Correct.  Radicals like AOC urged Biden to openly defy the Supreme Court to applause on the left. Trump has followed every order a court has issued and appealed those he disagreed with, usually winning when it gets in front of sane judges. Those who claim he "defied the Courts" or acted illegally because a trial court ruled against him have little understanding of the legal process or are simply trying to whip up partisan anger.  

You too are just making shit up while ignoring the content of the posts.

[deleted][✘]