Following Court Orders — Week of Jun 8, 2026

This week, several developments in Congress raised questions about the relationship between the executive branch and the courts. Senators described specific ways the Trump administration is using budget legislation to claim authority to override a longstanding court order—the Flores Settlement Agreement—that governs how the government detains children. The Department of Justice has reportedly cited these budget provisions in court briefs arguing it can now detain families indefinitely and change how unaccompanied children are processed, despite existing legal protections.

This might matter because using budget bills to override court-ordered protections could undermine the judiciary's ability to enforce its own orders, which is a core function that allows courts to serve as a check on government power. Separately, a new bill introduced in the House (HB9277) would tell courts what evidence they must exclude when reviewing government agency decisions—a function courts have traditionally controlled themselves.

In the Senate, the upcoming confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General prompted detailed criticism of his tenure as Acting AG. Senator Durbin alleged Blanche oversaw a legal settlement that permanently shields the President from IRS audits and brought politically motivated prosecutions against organizations and individuals seen as Trump opponents, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and former FBI Director James Comey (speech on Blanche nomination). The administration has not publicly addressed the IRS audit provision in these documents, though it may argue the settlement reflects standard litigation practice and that the prosecutions are legally grounded.

There are important alternative explanations to consider. Most significantly, all four flagged documents are congressional floor speeches or bills from the opposition party—they represent one side's characterization of events, not adjudicated facts. The administration may be making legitimate legal arguments about the scope of laws Congress itself passed, and courts will ultimately decide whether those arguments hold up. The bill on evidentiary standards may simply extend well-established scientific reliability principles to a new context rather than restrict judicial authority.

Limitations: This analysis is based on AI review of congressional documents. The specific factual claims made in floor speeches have not been independently verified, and opposition-party characterizations of executive conduct should be evaluated alongside the administration's own stated legal reasoning.