Donald Trump appointed 226 federal court judges during his first term, including three U.S. Supreme Court judges. Trump successfully installed judges promoting his political agenda, including overturning the landmark ruling declared in 1973, guaranteeing the right to abortion, Roev. Wade.

But something different seemed to have happened during his second term.

Federal judges failed to uphold the Trump administration's policies - including those appointed by Trump - that prevented the implementation of most of the president's second term agenda.

So, what's going on?

I am a scholar in judicial decision-making and presidential interaction with the courts. Although it seems strange that the Trump-appointed judge has a ruling against him, it is actually not that strange.

Instead, this is an example of what happens when the president overturns his power and takes a legal stand that even his own judicial appointee cannot support it.

How judicial decisions work

In 2018, Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts made a very public dispute over the nature of judicial decisions.

It began with Trump’s attack on U.S. District Court judge Jon Tigar appointed by President Barack Obama because he mastered Trump’s asylum policy. Trump calls Tigar the "Judge Obama" in his criticism.

Roberts defended the integrity of a federal judge in an unusual rebuttal, "We don't have Judge Obama or Judge Trump, Judge Bush or Judge Clinton. What we have is an extraordinary dedicated judge who does everything we can to the same right as the person they show up before them."

Trump replied: "Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do have 'Judge Obama' and their views are very different from those accused of having regard to our national security."

Both Trump and Roberts have a little bit.

Trump is right, and judges have different opinions that influence their decisions. Indeed, more than half a century of research has clearly shown that judges’ ideology has largely shaped the way they rule.

In short, judges appointed by Democratic presidents tend to rule freely, while judges appointed by Republican presidents tend to rule conservatively. This includes a strong tendency to support their presidency.

But Roberts was right, too, and the judge tried to resolve the dispute. That is, the law also shapes the choices made by judges.

In this case, the law refers to legislation passed by Congress and the precedent formed by federal courts. These various forms of laws are restrictions on judges, limiting their ability to make decisions based solely on their political preferences. Judges must choose from a limited range of options within the Constitution, existing laws and judicial precedents.

In short, judges have discretion, but they do not have a completely free choice.

Even "Judge Trump" believes that the president is surpassing

This understanding of judicial decision-making is crucial to mastering Trump’s judicial appointees and other judges, an important obstacle to Trump’s ability to formulate his second agenda.

To illustrate, let's assume that the Trump-appointed judge shares his political agenda and hopes to support it. To do this, the Trump administration's actions must fall under a limited scope of activity that judges can uphold under the Constitution, Existing Laws and Federal Court Precedents.

The problem is that the Trump administration is taking actions beyond its legal authority. As a result, even the Trump-appointed judges cannot support such actions because there is no reasonable explanation for the law to make them do so.

This is exactly what happened on May 1, 2025, when a Trump-appointed judge blocked the administration's efforts to use the Alien Enemy Act to expel suspected members of the Tren de Aragya transnational criminal group. The bill allows the president to expel locals from enemy countries in a “declaration of war” or “invasion” or “predatory invasion” of foreign governments.

Trump argued that he could use the act because the Tren de Aragua gang engaged in an "irregular war" against the United States, which amounted to "invasion or predatory invasion of American territory."

But Trump-appointed judge Fernando Rodriguez did not accept the argument.

Instead, Rodriguez wrote: "The president's invocation of the AEA is beyond the scope of the regulations and is therefore illegal." Rodriguez believes that Tren de Aragua's actions in the United States do not constitute "invasion" or "predatory invasion" and therefore the bill does not apply.

In short, Rodriguez said Trump surpassed the powers granted to him by the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump is losing now, but that may change

While judges in federal court, including those appointed by Democrats and judges appointed by Republicans, continue to block most of the Trump administration’s policy agenda, there may be two reasons.

First, the Trump administration can pursue its goals by making more measured within the scope of existing laws.

The judge was frustrated by what government lawyers call “short-shy” legal work, and another judge was talking about weak arguments that did not reflect “the court expects any litigant’s diligence…not to mention the U.S. Department of Justice.” Government lawyers can learn from these losses and develop new legal strategies.

Second, different judges may view the Trump administration's actions in different ways. Indeed, Trump has successfully appointed many judges with a wide understanding of executive authority. If Trump could bring cases before these judges (what his administration is trying to do), these cases could have very different outcomes.

Like it or not, the outcome of a highly important case usually depends on the perspective of the individual judge.