Civil Rights & Liberties — Week of May 25, 2026

Federal courts this week issued multiple rulings finding that executive branch agencies acted outside their legal authority across education funding, immigration, research grants, and election administration. Courts found that agencies terminated or denied grants that Congress had specifically authorized, suspended immigration benefits for people from dozens of countries based solely on nationality, and attempted to impose new federal requirements on how states run elections.

This might matter because when the executive branch repeatedly substitutes its own policy preferences for laws passed by Congress—and courts repeatedly find this inconsistent with the law—it could affect the balance of power between the branches of government that protects individuals' statutory rights and ensures that no single branch governs unilaterally.

In one case, the Department of Education denied funding for programs Congress created in the 1960s to help disadvantaged students access higher education, with a court finding the denials were based on the "Administration's priorities" rather than any legal requirement (Council for Opportunity in Education v. U.S. Department of Education). In another, a federal appeals court ruled that the government likely violated the First Amendment by cutting university research grants because of researchers' viewpoints on diversity and environmental justice (Thakur v. Trump). Courts also found that immigration agencies suspended processing of applications from nationals of 39 to 75 countries without the individualized review the law requires (Yazdan Pouri v. DHS; Doe v. State Department).

There are important alternative explanations. Most significantly, the fact that courts are issuing injunctions and rulings against these actions demonstrates that judicial oversight is functioning as intended—the system of checks and balances is working. Additionally, new administrations routinely face legal challenges when shifting policy priorities, and the administration may argue that these changes reflect legitimate goals such as national security, government efficiency, or alignment with the priorities voters endorsed. Some of these disputes may ultimately be resolved through proper administrative procedures rather than representing permanent changes. The immigration holds may also reflect genuine, temporary security reviews.

That said, the breadth of agencies involved and the consistency of judicial findings—that agencies acted contrary to what Congress directed—distinguish this week's pattern from routine policy disagreements.

Limitations: This analysis is based on AI review of publicly available court documents and does not represent a finding of fact. It cannot capture government actions not yet subject to litigation, nor does it reflect the government's full stated rationale for its actions.