The Trump administration faced two significant legal setbacks on Friday. In Rhode Island, a federal judge blocked the president’s executive order on “gender ideology” from being applied to National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grant recipients.
Meanwhile, in California, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges upheld a ruling requiring the administration to release documents related to the dismissal of federal employees.
Newsweek reached out to the White House and Department of Justice for comment on Saturday via email and press inquiry form.
Why It Matters
Even with Republicans controlling both the Senate and House, the courts have become a key obstacle to Trump administration policies in recent months. Recent legal defeats have touched on areas including sanctions on law firms involved in lawsuits against Trump, attempts to remove legal protections for Haitian migrants, and measures targeting International Criminal Court employees.
The Rhode Island Ruling
Senior District Judge William Smith ruled that President Trump’s January 20 executive order, “Defending women from gender ideology extremism,” cannot be applied to NEA grant recipients. The order stated that the federal government recognizes only two genders—male and female—and prohibited federal funds from being used to “promote gender ideology.”
Judge Smith concluded that denying grants based on the executive order would violate the First Amendment, making the policy unenforceable.
The California Decision
On the same day, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to uphold a lower court’s order requiring the administration to produce documents tied to the firing of thousands of federal workers.
The case originated in April when labor groups, non-profits, cities, and a Texas county sued the federal government. They argued that the layoffs implemented by Trump were beyond his authority and required Congressional approval. These cuts followed Trump’s second presidential inauguration in January and were carried out by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk.
Statements From the Court and Attorneys
Judge Smith wrote: “Defendants are therefore enjoined from applying a viewpoint-based standard of review to Plaintiffs that disfavor applications deemed ‘to promote gender ideology,’ and the Court vacates and sets aside Defendants’ current plans to implement the Executive Order.”
In the Ninth Circuit ruling, Judge William Fletcher stated: “We nowhere find clear error by the district court nor a clear entitlement to relief on the part of the government. Our denial of mandamus accords with the longstanding presumption that district courts have broad latitude to control discovery matters. Far from abusing its discretion, the district court has exercised care and restraint in managing discovery, affording ‘careful consideration’ to the government’s assertion of privilege.”
Plaintiff attorney Elena Goldstein said: “The Trump-Vance administration tried to hide its sweeping plans to dismiss civil servants and dismantle the programs Americans depend on. The court made it clear that these documents—and the truth about what the administration is doing—are essential to this case.”
What’s Next
The Trump administration could appeal one or both rulings to a higher court. Legal challenges are expected to continue posing major obstacles to the administration’s policy agenda.
