Following Court Orders — Week of Jun 15, 2026

Several government actions this week raised questions about whether the executive branch is respecting judicial authority and whether Congress is considering changes that could affect checks on judicial appointments.

The most significant concern involves the reported refusal to process DACA renewal applications despite federal court orders requiring the government to do so. Senator Durbin stated on the Senate floor that the administration "ignores" these orders. This might matter because if the executive branch can decline to follow court orders without consequence, it could erode the judiciary's ability to serve as the institution that protects individual rights against government overreach—the core function courts serve in a constitutional system. It is possible that the administration is interpreting these orders differently, contesting parts of them through ongoing legal proceedings, or pursuing a broader legal strategy rather than simply ignoring them. Processing delays rather than willful defiance might also explain the gap. But the direct assertion of noncompliance by a senior senator warrants attention.

Separately, identical bills were introduced in both the House and Senate to eliminate Senate confirmation for judges on D.C. courts, replacing it with automatic appointment. Proponents may argue this addresses chronic judicial vacancies that have hampered D.C. courts for years, and that the Senate confirmation bottleneck has been the problem rather the solution. That said, removing legislative review of judicial nominees could reduce an institutional safeguard against unqualified or partisan appointments.

Senator Durbin also described the firing of hundreds of immigration judges, sharp cuts to the Board of Immigration Appeals, new rules making appeals far harder to file, and the dismissal of a judge who had briefly interacted with a Member of Congress. Immigration judges are technically executive branch employees, so the administration has more legal authority here than over independent courts. The administration may also argue these changes are intended to increase efficiency and address case backlogs. But the practical effect could be to reduce the independence of the officials deciding deportation cases.

Limitations: This week's evidence comes from a small sample of only 11 documents, primarily opposition-party floor speeches and newly introduced bills, which limits the reliability of broader conclusions. It does not include administration responses, court filings, or independent reporting that might provide a fuller picture. Claims of court order noncompliance have not been independently verified through judicial enforcement actions in the documents reviewed.