This obscure law is one reason Trump's agenda keeps losing in court

WASHINGTON — Lawyers challenging President Donald Trump's aggressive use of executive power in the courts are turning to a familiar weapon in their armory: an obscure but routinely invoked federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
While lawsuits challenging such provocative plans as ending birthright citizenship and dismantling federal agencies raise weighty constitutional issues, they also claim Trump failed to follow the correct procedures as required under the wonky 1946 statute.
Trump fell afoul of the law in some high-profile cases that reached the Supreme Court during his first term, raising the possibility he could suffer the same fate this time around.
Known in abbreviated form as the APA, the law allows judges to throw out federal agency actions that are "arbitrary and capricious" on various grounds, including failing to articulate why the agencies are changing policy.
Much to the anger of Trump and his officials, judges have been issuing a series of orders putting administration plans on hold, including freezes on federal funding and drastic reductions in staffing. The rulings are at a preliminary stage and often do not include detailed legal reasoning.
In fact, one of Trump's first losses in court in his second term — over an Office of Management and Budget memo ordering across-the-board funding freezes — was based in part on a claim brought under the APA. The administration quickly rescinded the memo, although litigation continues.
"What we're seeing from the Trump administration is they are moving so fast, and they're trying to do so much with so little reasoning, and they're trying to disrupt as much as possible, as fast as possible, that these actions are inherently arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, a lawyer involved in one of the lawsuits said.
One example of plaintiffs' citing the law is a case about Trump's effort to reduce biomedical research funding, which a coalition of states said"violates the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways." It fails to "articulate the bases" for the change and shows "disregard for the factual findings" that set the current rate, the lawsuit said.
A judge blocked the policy Monday.
On Tuesday, a judge cited the APA in finding that the administration most likely violated the law in removing webpages featuring medical data that health care professionals rely on.
A lawsuit workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development filed last week seeking to prevent hundreds of staff members' being put on leave also raised APA claims.
'The dissolution of USAID is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects,' the unions' lawyers argued.
A judge partially granted the unions' request Friday.
In another USAID-related lawsuit filed Tuesday, contractors whose funding has been cut made similar arguments.
The government did not "explain why a comprehensive, undifferentiated freeze was necessary" or explain why a "more orderly and targeted approach" could not have been taken, the lawsuit said.
The APA haunted Trump during his first term.
In 2019, the Supreme Court found that the administration had not revealed its true reason for wanting to add a citizenship question to the census.
"Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote then.
A year later, the court ruled that the administration had failed to consider various factors when it sought to unwind the Obama administration policy that protects "Dreamers" from deportation. Its actions were "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, Roberts wrote.
On both issues, Trump administration officials "were sloppy, and the court did not like that," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
He noted, however, that at this early stage, the administration could still fix at least some of its errors. In Trump's first term, for example, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version of a travel ban on people entering the country from mostly Muslim-majority countries after a more sweeping policy was pared back.
"The fact they're sloppy out of the gate, I don't think that tells us how the courts will ultimately resolve it," Adler said.
Trump is by no means the only president to have fallen afoul of the APA, which judges routinely cite in striking down federal agency actions on a wide variety of issues, including environmental and consumer regulations that agencies sometimes spend years reviewing.
In a high-profile case during the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas threw out an immigration enforcement policy that would have prioritized deporting violent criminals.
Among other things, District Judge Drew Tipton found that the administration had failed to take into account evidence about the dangers of recidivism and abscondment among immigrants with criminal records that undermined its policy conclusions.
The government, he added, was required "to show its work. It either failed or refused to do so. This was arbitrary and capricious."
(The Supreme Court in 2023 ultimately ruled in favor of President Joe Biden, saying the states that sued did not have legal standing.)
Despite the long history of courts' faulting presidents under the APA, various Trump allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, have harshly criticized judges for ruling against the administration, as Trump himself has in the past, raising concerns in some quarters that officials could defy court orders.
'These unlawful injunctions are a continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

25 minutes ago

• The Guardian

The Guardian view on Trump bombing Iran: an illegal and reckless act

Donald Trump was predictably quick to claim victory following the illegal US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities: 'Completely and totally obliterated,' he crowed. Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and sycophants at home rushed to fawn over his 'courageous' and 'brilliant' decision. The most senior US military official, Dan Caine, offered a more muted assessment: it was 'way too early' to know the full outcome despite severe damage. We cannot yet know whether the blow has ended Iran's nuclear aspirations – or will spur it to pursue the bomb. It may be weeks or months, too, before Iranian retaliation plays out, with all its potential repercussions. Two nuclear-armed states have gone to war on the unevidenced claim that a third state is on the verge of acquiring its own nuclear arms. In March, the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said Iran was not building weapons (though she has now scrambled to align with Mr Trump). Israel is clear that its attacks will continue, and has increasingly talked of regime change. The price is being paid not only by a reviled regime but by the Iranian people. Senior administration figures insisted that the US is solely focused on the nuclear programme. As a candidate, Mr Trump vowed to 'stop the chaos in the Middle East' and 'prevent world war three'. Yet the risk of regional conflagration is growing, and now he warns of 'either peace or … tragedy for Iran' if it does not end uranium enrichment. Mr Netanyahu lured him into this attack and may lead him into more, paying gushing tribute to a history-making president and thanking him on behalf of 'the forces of civilisation'. Mr Trump described them as working together 'like perhaps no team has ever worked before'. Iran has been notably cautious since Israel's attack began. The pillars of its security – its regional networks, missiles and nuclear programme – have all suffered punishing blows. To do nothing invites further attack; to hit back – particularly by targeting US personnel in the region – courts disaster. Close the strait of Hormuz and oil prices would soar. But that would hit Iran's own exports and risk involving Gulf states. Russia and China condemned the US strike but are hardly rushing to offer Tehran assistance. Israel's strike – and the US's – on Iran cannot be justified under international law's self-defence doctrine. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, rightly warns of catastrophe in the Middle East, urging diplomacy as the only solution. Yet Mr Trump walked away from the Obama-overseen deal that slowed Iran's programme, and now has struck Iran when it sought negotiation despite Israel's attacks. Sir Keir Starmer, too, called for de-escalation and negotiation, though he backed the US strike. The US did not request British assistance – but the fear remains that European powers may be drawn into another criminal and disastrous war in the Middle East. In rejecting diplomacy and choosing war, not only in breach of international law but at the behest of a country pursuing annihilation in Gaza, the US has delivered a resounding blow to the architecture of global affairs. It has signalled that countries that negotiate (Iran) face stark consequences, which those which rush to own the bomb (North Korea) can avoid. Its embrace of pre-emptive strikes is handy for Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and any leader who might want to carry out their own. Even if the immediate crisis in the Middle East can be contained, the cost of this reckless act may not be fully felt or comprehended for decades.

BBC News

26 minutes ago

• BBC News

Diplomatic tightrope on Iran just got more precarious for Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has been treading a delicate diplomatic tightrope all week on the issue of night's airstrikes by the US mean the challenges facing the prime minister could now continue for Keir's repeated calls for de-escalation have clearly not been heeded by the White he has avoided direct UK involvement in military action and has sought to maintain what British diplomats claim is a solid and valuable relationship with US president Donald Trump. The response from ministers appears to be it was not the means they wanted, but they supported the UK has not explicitly endorsed the method, but the result - a delay in Iran getting nuclear weapons - is, they argue, in the UK's national Keir's position has shifted since Tuesday, when he seemed confident Trump would not intervene, after sitting next to him at a G7 dinner in Canada."I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was," he four days later the president intervened. Did the prime minister misread Trump? Or did the president - whose unpredictability is central to his foreign policy approach - just change his mind? No 10 has told us it was given advanced warning of the US action, but the UK was not asked to take part. We do not know had been speculation that US B-2 stealth bombers could have used the UK's Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean as a waypoint en route to "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved B-2s flying non-stop for 18 hours to reach their targets, according to the latest on US strikes on IranIran's secretive nuclear site that only a US bomb could hitWhat we know about US strikes on IranIt is possible the UK was not asked for assistance because it would have been a difficult request to have been debates at the top of government in recent days about the legality of any UK involvement, with the attorney general, Lord Hermer, providing advice on a range of the next steps in the conflict unclear, the US could end up requesting military support from the UK in the coming weeks - prompting further difficult decisions for the prime minister. So, what next? US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to concerns the US attacks could prompt the start of a long conflict by insisting: "This is most certainly not open-ended".Yet the actions of both the The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) suggest they fear retaliation from is why British diplomats have been planning a flight early next week to help "vulnerable British nationals and their dependents wanting to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories".Defence sources have told me measures to protect British armed forces in the Middle East have been strengthened in the past few hours, with additional fighter jets already in the region and at "high readiness".One UK diplomat told me UK-US relations remain strong, as demonstrated by Foreign Secretary David Lammy's long meeting with secretary of state Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on we do not know if - or how - Iran might respond, or whether the UK or its military could be targeted. Starmer's high-wire act has just become even more dangerous.

The Independent

31 minutes ago

• The Independent

JD Vance warns Iran retaliation to US strike would be ‘catastrophic mistake'

JD Vance has warned Iran that retaliation to the US strikes on three nuclear sites would be a 'catastrophic mistake'. Tehran has accused the US of crossing a 'very big red line', following Donald Trump 's announcement that US warplanes had 'obliterated' the three nuclear facilities on Saturday (21 June). Speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday, the vice president emphasised the need for peace following the US air strike. He said: 'Our national interest is for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon.' Mr Vance added:'If the Iranians want to enlarge this by attacking American troops I think that would be a catastrophic mistake.'