President Trump has picked dozens of fights since returning to the White House, but few have been so unrelenting as his war with the courts.

Amid nearly 250 lawsuits challenging his agenda in his first 100 days, Trump has made his focus the judges overseeing them.

In courtrooms, his Justice Department has argued that the judiciary has no place sticking its nose in the executive’s business. His own attacks are much starker, plainly contending that “crime and chaos” would result if judges usurp the president’s duties.

That war further escalated Friday when FBI Director Kash Patel announced that a sitting Wisconsin judge was arrested over allegations that she tried to help a migrant lacking permanent legal status avoid arrest after he appeared in her courtroom.

In court filings, the government said Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan heralded Mexican immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side door after learning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials planned to arrest him following a hearing in her court. She faces an obstruction count and a count of concealing an individual to prevent their arrest.

“What happened was terrible. That that could happen with a judge is so ashamed,” Trump told reporters Sunday.

But Democrats and some legal advocates see it as the latest instance of walls being torn down between branches of government.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) called the arrest a “gravely serious and drastic move,” suggesting it fits into a “deeply concerning pattern” of Trump undermining checks on his power, like the courts.

It adds to the fear already expressed by Democrats over the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who met with Abrego Garcia April 17, sent a letter to Trump Tuesday insisting he was defying the Supreme Court's order to “facilitate” the man’s return.

“If your Administration can strip away the constitutional rights of one man in defiance of court orders, it can do it to all of us,” Van Hollen wrote in the letter.

Trump’s first 100 days, in many ways, felt a lot like the 100 days before he ascended to the nation’s highest office.

The public attacks revisit Trump’s playbook for taking down the judiciary — the one he used to undermine judges overseeing the criminal cases against him throughout 2024, which largely crumbled when voters catapulted him back into the Oval Office.

There’s been no clearer example of Trump's past tactics at play than in his campaign against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who oversees a high-profile challenge to the administration’s swift deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump has called Boasberg “highly conflicted,” a “troublemaker and agitator,” “a Grandstander” and even a “radical left lunatic.”

The president has, by contrast, steered clear of criticizing the Supreme Court. But even that now seems to be shifting as his administration’s agenda increasingly reaches the justices’ bench.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump lamented that his team is “being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The Trump administration’s legal fights show no sign of slowing down. Expect the next 100 days and beyond to be just as gripping.

In two weeks, the court will hear arguments on Trump’s efforts to partially enforce his birthright citizenship order. The justices also still need to resolve pending applications asking them to greenlight Trump’s firings of independent agency leaders, permit his ban on transgender troops openly serving in the military and block deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.

“Hopefully, the Supreme Court will come to the rescue of our country,” Trump told reporters Sunday.

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee (elee@thehill.com) and Zach Schonfeld (zschonfeld@thehill.com). Email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).

Not already on the list? Subscribe here.

In Focus

Mystery emerges in Abrego Garcia’s case

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador who has garnered national attention for weeks, has taken a perplexing turn.

Let’s start by rewinding the clock two weeks: A frustrated U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis was stepping up the pressure after the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. Exasperated at the administration’s lack of progress, Xinis mandated officials sit for depositions, hand over documents and answer written questions.

“There are no business hours while we do this — there are going to be two intense weeks of discovery,” said Xinis, an appointee of former President Obama.

Something has suddenly changed.

Last week — hours before Xinis’s deadline to complete the depositions — the Trump administration asked to put the judge’s demands on hold. The request was filed under seal.

Such a motion isn’t unusual in itself. The Trump administration asks judges to pause unfavorable rulings all the time.

Except this time, Xinis remarkably granted the request.

Her

© The Hill