President Donald Trump has faced more than 200 lawsuits across the nation’s judicial system during his first 100 days of his second term.
His opponents view it as fighting what they have accused as being a monarchical authority — Trump at the helm, ordering his people to mandate his agenda without regard for the legality of their actions under the U.S. Constitution.
Trump’s supporters paint a picture of relief from the previous administration: this is what they voted for — cracking down on illegal immigration, cutting government waste, and dismantling the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American institutions and corporations.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., went as far as to call Trump the “most consequential American leader of the 21st century,” adding that even that was an understatement.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., posted on social media that the “Trump administration has been an unmitigated disaster over the first 100 days. These extremists are not fit to govern and we will hold them accountable.”
With a Republican dominated House, Senate and White House, that “accountability” is being demonstrated in the courts.
The president will mark his 100th day in his second term at a rally in Warren, Michigan, at 4 p.m. MT. USA Today will be livestreaming the event via YouTube.
Here’s a look at three ongoing and contentious legal actions the Trump administration has been handed in its first 100 days:
Illegal immigration/mass deportation
One of Trump’s first executive orders in his second term was enforcing America’s immigration laws and cracking down on illegal border crossings, which the order called “an invasion.” In a separate fact sheet published by the White House on Monday titled “President Donald J. Trump Protects American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” the order will call out any “States and local jurisdictions obstructing federal immigration law enforcement and notify each sanctuary jurisdiction of its non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it” it reads, adding that any jurisdiction that does not comply will risk losing federal funding.
In the time between these two orders, federal agencies have worked to deter illegal immigration via tightening border security, threatening an end to birthright citizenship and deporting hundreds of suspected illegal immigrants to an international prison in El Salvador.
Federal judges have imposed a record-breaking number of nationwide injunctions on Trump’s policies in his first 100 days in office, arguing lawlessness in the administration’s actions. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran who entered the U.S. illegally and is allegedly a Salvadoran gang member, who was deported in March, remains a national example of whether the administration’s actions are unconstitutional or not.
On Monday morning, the White House posted on X a video of the front lawn covered in posters of arrested unauthorized immigrants’ mugshots that read “ARRESTED” and what they were accused of.
“Under Joe Biden, criminal illegal aliens called the shots. Under President Trump, it’s a new dawn, a new day, a new life for America — and we’re feeling good,” it said.
Retaliation against ‘big law’
In March, the ongoing lawfare against some of the country’s most prestigious law firms began, accusing them of using legal tactics to advance partisan politics, attacking political adversaries, and alleging that many of these “Big Law” firms engage in “unlawful discrimination” based on DEI hiring practices.
As of Monday, nine law firms have entered into agreements with the Trump administration, and four have taken action to sue, according to Business Insider, and they’re apparently winning:
“Federal judges have swiftly issued temporary restraining orders preventing the executive orders from going into effect. And in court hearings for other cases, federal judges have been similarly impatient” with the Department of Justice’s arguments.
In its most recent ‘big law’ order against top law firm Susman Godfrey, the administration said the bigger picture threat is “Lawyers and law firms that engage in activities detrimental to critical American interests should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should their conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.”
The administration said it will be taking “measures to guard against the actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that arise when the government funds, engages with, or otherwise devotes resources to law firms and their clients that engage in conduct undermining critical American interests and priorities.”
Transgender participation in sports and the military
Last week, the Trump administration requested that the U.S. Supreme Court pass a policy banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.
“In February 2025, the Department of Defense adopted its current policy, which generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filing to the higher court said. “The policy was created following expert conclusions “which found that service by individuals with gender dysphoria was contrary to “military effectiveness and lethality.”
The executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” was also published in February, arguing that allowing transgender women to compete in biological women’s sports is “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”
Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the DOJ was suing the state of Maine for not complying with federal government policy. The state previously sued the Trump administration “after the Department of Agriculture said it was pausing some money for the state’s educational programs because of what the administration contended was Maine’s failure to comply with the Title IX law,” per PBS. A federal judge then ordered the administration to unfreeze funds that were intended for a Maine child nutrition program.