The battle between Trump and the US judicial system kicked off on March 3, 2025, when the president urged the Supreme Court to eliminate a key tool that lower courts use to block various aspects of his agenda. This target wasn’t chosen by accident. For nearly half a year, the White House has been locked in a standoff with the judiciary. Since the start of his presidency, Trump has lost 61% of court cases related to his administration’s initiatives. Out of 148 court decisions, 57 favored the administration, while 91 partially or fully blocked its moves. But the Supreme Court, where Trump appointees hold a majority, has largely reinstated them. And on June 27, the Supreme Court (in a 6-3 decision along conservative lines) issued a ruling that drastically limits the ability of lower federal judges to block presidential executive orders nationwide. Now judges can only block the president’s actions in relation to specific plaintiffs. This ruling marked Trump’s first major judicial victory of the year. What will America do now? T-invariant turned to lawyer Ekaterina Mishina for clarification.
T-INVARIANT REFERENCE
Ekaterina Mishina
Graduated from the Law Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Candidate of Legal Sciences (PhD in Law equivalent). Worked at the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, then headed the legal department of Mostelecom. Participated in the Legislation and Regional Journalism projects of the Open Russia Foundation. Served as general manager and legal expert in two projects of the INDEM Foundation (Informatics for Democracy). Involved in several projects of the World Bank, Ford Foundation, European Union, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). From 2005 to 2014, taught comparative constitutional law and features of judicial reforms in the post-Soviet space at the Higher School of Economics. From 2012-2016, was a visiting professor at the Law School and the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan. Author of several expert opinions on constitutional law, submitted to The Hague Court of Appeal, The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, The Singapore International Commercial Court, The High Court of Justice (Business and Property Courts of England & Wales, Commercial Court). Since September 2020 — professor at Free University/ Brīvā Universitāte.
T-invariant: The whole world is now watching the clash between the US Supreme Court and the Trump administration. Some experts claim that it “will determine the fate of Trump’s revolution, and probably the fate of all American democracy as a whole.” Is a complete victory possible here for either side? And what could be the consequences of this June 27 decision?
Ekaterina Mishina: On June 27, the Supreme Court, in an ideologically divided decision, sided with the presidential administration, which demanded restrictions on federal courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court ruled that lower court judges exceeded their authority when they blocked Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. But the Court didn’t provide the key answer everyone was waiting for: whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. In the majority opinion written by Justice Barrett, nothing is said about whether Trump’s executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. Instead, the majority opinion focused on whether federal courts have the right to issue nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court ruled that nationwide injunctions can only be justified through the exercise of equitable powers, which Congress has not granted to federal courts.
T-i: From the first days of the Trump administration, there was direct interference in the activities of the National Institutes of Health, universities, and, subsequently, scientific foundations. In response, the academic community began challenging government decisions in courts. And the reaction from many scientists was quite optimistic: “We have absolutely independent courts, and no matter what Trump does, we’re not afraid. He won’t get away with it.” To what extent do you now share their optimism? Are courts really the institution that will protect the academic system in the US?
EM: Yes, I share the faith in the resilience of institutions and in the system of checks and balances. Though the institutions find themselves in a unique position, forced into a game without rules. This was done with a wave of a magic wand, and the wicked fairy godmother who set this in motion seems to have little regard for concepts like legal culture, respect for the law, or respect for courts and judges.
This is a gauntlet thrown at the feet of the judiciary and the people who work in it. It’s a test of their professional and personal fortitude. Now every day, an American judge wakes up and realizes that things can happen that were previously unthinkable. Of course, we can’t expect that a hundred percent of judges will rule against the president’s administration or that people challenging the administration’s actions will win every case. But still, if we compare this to the actions of the largest international law firms, which — tucked their tails between their legs, fell in line, and agreed to play by Trump’s rules — we see that the reaction of American judges is entirely different.
T-i: Speaking of “unthinkable things.” How would you briefly characterize what’s happening?
EM: The authority of court rulings is being undermined. There’s an assault on a core element of democracy: the effective functioning of the separation of powers. We’ve ended up in a situation where the head of state and head of the executive branch is operating under the conviction that his words and orders — not court rulings — are what must be obeyed.
T-i: What processes best illustrate your words?
EM: First and foremost, these are situations with immigration courts. People applying for political asylum find themselves completely defenseless. These cases are often decided against the applicant, with courts issuing deportation orders without delving into the details of what’s happening in Russia, even for applicants in high-risk situations. A telling example is the Perm activist Leonid Melekhin, who crossed the U.S.–Mexico border using the CBP One app in August 2024. Melekhin lost his court case because he failed to convince the judge that the criminal charges against him in Russia under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“public justification of terrorism”) and his inclusion in the wanted list and the list of “extremists” amounted to clear political repression and an high likelihood of politically motivated criminal prosecution. Unfortunately, the US immigration court of first instance did not see a threat to Melekhin’s freedom or life and did not recognize a political motive. On June 11, 2025, the appellate court upheld the decision without hearings, finding no political motive in his case. The court also did not find violations related to restricted access to legal aid and legal resources (including the internet), additional case materials, and so on. As a result, Melekhin was deported to Russia, where FSB officers (Russia’s Federal Security Service) detained him, and on July 25, a court ordered his arrest in the criminal case.
Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.
T-i: Our editorial team receives information from various American universities where international teams work. Scientific employees in labs have scientific or student visas. But university administrations are advising them to carry their passports and visas with them at all times. Their colleagues are developing plans for how to hide them in case of raids. And this is happening in a country where the entire academic system is geared toward attracting the best talent from around the world. And now these specialists don’t feel safe.
EM: Here we’re talking about actions by immigration authorities that circumvent the courts. But such employees could face detention on dubious or unclear grounds. And then the most unpleasant situations could arise, up to and including deportation. Alas, things are already heading that way. There are tons of frightening examples all around.
Previously in T-invariant:
- Trump Administration Systematically Undermines Biomedical Research
- Eugene Shakhnovich: “If Harvard Bends, Something Like the Soviet Party Committee will Appear”
- “This Bridge was Burned”. Why did Young Scientists from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus not Find a Place in the United States?
- American Biologist Sergei Mirkin: “People don’t Believe That This is Happening in the United States Today”
- “If DOGE Plans Go Through, U.S. Scientific Leadership will End.” American Scientist — on Musk’s Health Care Reform
- Konstantin Sonin: “Both Putin and Trump Believe That Might Makes Right”
- Not Just DEI and DOE: How Trump’s Policies are Destroying American Science (in Russian)
- America for Americans: Why Scientists from Different Countries are Stopping Collaborations with US Universities (in Russian)
T-i: I recently spoke with a Czech physicist who has long wanted a Fulbright scholarship to work at NASA. And now he’s finally got it. But he’s unsure whether to go, because the news from across the ocean is highly alarming. This isn’t the first case where scientists from other countries are hesitant to work in the US; we’ve already reported on this trend. How are your legal colleagues responding to this situation?
EM: Legal scholars and practicing attorneys are divided: some actively support the current administration, while others strongly oppose it. I recently read that the American Bar Association (the professional body for lawyers in the US) has sued the current administration over what it sees as arm-twisting. This has my deep respect. At the same time, several major international law firms readily told the Trump administration: “We’ll be your friends, we’ll work, and we’ll do what you ask of us.”
T-i: Why did the largest law firms comply with the authorities? Is it because their primary revenue comes from business deals heavily reliant on government regulators, prioritizing alignment with the state over the spirit of the law? Are corporate deal profits their main motive for aligning with the administration?
Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!
EM: They really viewed the situation just like the sitting president. Business first. That’s what scared me. They saw how events were unfolding and decided they’d have to keep their heads down and continue handling high-stakes corporate cases. Not to quarrel with the administration, but to provide it with services instead. And yes, in the end, the law firms completely turned a blind eye to the troubling developments in the country, focused entirely on their business interests.
T-i: And if they hadn’t cooperated with the administration? Would that have made it easier to uphold legal norms and enforce court decisions?
EM: Courts are a branch of government, while law firms are not. That’s the key difference. Therefore, the relationships between the current administration and law firms fall outside the system of separation of powers.
But the relationships between the president’s administration and judges are part of this system. And what’s frightening is that in the situation with the largest law firms, we saw a classic case of abuse of power by a boss. The president is the boss of everyone: he’s the head of state, head of the executive branch, everyone reports to him, but judges report only to the law and the Constitution. Their key task is to administer justice. Law firms don’t do that. No one does except the courts.
T-i: Going back to the beginning of our conversation: do you share the optimism of those who believe that the judicial system in America is still independent, and that the US therefore won’t experience what happens in Russia and other undemocratic regimes?
EM: I think so. First, in America, it’s much harder to become a judge than in Russia. Second, American judges are held much higher standards than in Russia. And third, an American judge has no boss except the law and the Constitution. They are not subject to arm-twisting by the chief judge or higher courts. In Russia, the court chairperson is like a tsar and god, directing and manipulating judges. In America, the court chairperson has no such powers; no one fears them; they’re administrators, not puppet masters. That’s what gives me hope. In 2006, during my internship at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., I spoke with a large number of judges. I surveyed over 70 people and realized I was dealing with individuals who deeply value what they can do for the country, for people. In Russia, such words might be met with a smirk, but here judges sincerely want to improve the system. They see themselves as people on whom much depends, and they strive to meet the expectations placed on them. And it’s no coincidence that we’re seeing a huge number of lawsuits challenging the legality of executive actions. Because there are many courageous judges for whom the triumph of legal principles remains paramount in their work. It’s not surprising that the Trump administration tried to strip some such judges of their powers.
T-i: Are you referring to the high-profile case with District Judge Hannah Dugan of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whom U.S. federal authorities accused of obstructing justice and harboring a person from arrest?
EM: Yes, but that’s not the only example. There’s also the important story of the standoff with federal Judge Beryl Howell in the District of Columbia. They wanted to strip her of powers because she tried to stop the abuse where she saw it. Russians know Howell primarily from the November 17, 2023, ruling when the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Russian Federation’s demand for sovereign immunity in the US. Now she’s halted an attempt to remove her from a famous law firm’s case and accused the Department of Justice of attacks on her as part of a broader campaign against the judicial branch. I can’t help but note that on July 25, 2025, Judge Howell’s position, rejecting the Russian Federation’s demand, was supported by the Singapore International Commercial Court, which also rejected Russia’s demand on sovereign immunity (both cases were considered in the enforcement proceedings of the famous Yukos shareholders’ case against the Russian Federation).
T-i: Let’s dwell in more detail on cases related to immigrants and deportation. What’s happening here?
EM: Judges handling immigration cases have received instructions to postpone indefinitely the consideration of immigration cases that aren’t guaranteed losses. That is, if there’s a chance to let the person stay in the country, don’t consider those cases. I know this, among other things, from the cases where I act as an expert. Plaintiffs are told: your case hearing is rescheduled to 2028. Moreover, now there’s a legal possibility to deport not to the country from which the immigrant came, but to a third country. For example, cases for Russian applicants that are solely related to the war are fast-tracked for deportation. It’s assumed that if Trump, as he initially promised, ends the war with Ukraine, then everyone can be quickly sent home. At the same time, there’s no enforcement practice yet, nor any accompanying documents. And in the cases of those Russians whose asylum petitions are related not only to the war but also to opposition activities, they cannot expect a quick resolution. Because even if the war ends quickly, their opposition activity as a reason for possible criminal prosecution will still remain, and they’ll need to be dealt with further. So their cases are put on pause. And no one cares what will happen to them in a few years.
T-i: What can you say about the case of Ksenia Petrova? She was released from custody, but charged with false statements.
EM: I haven’t seen the documents and am relying only on secondary sources, but I can only say for now that in this case, the question of intent is unclear. It’s one thing if the person didn’t know at all that something needed to be declared. It’s another if she discussed it, corresponded about it. If she was aware of the issue, then, alas, it’s about a violation of U.S. customs regulations.
T-i: But for many things that can’t be imported into the United States, there’s a fine, not prison. Why was Ksenia Petrova placed in pretrial detention for four months, deprived of all means of communication? Why such unusual severity, considering that all scientists carry non-hazardous biomaterials with them; it’s a common practice?
EM: Perhaps it’s the result of a particular officer’s discretion. Or she just got unlucky. I myself went through something similar when I was flying for a year-long internship at the University of Michigan. They let me through, but wanted to send my 13-year-old daughter, who was flying with me on a B-2 visa, back home to Russia. They said: your daughter needed an F-1 visa to attend an American public school. But at the school where I enrolled her beforehand, they told me nothing was needed. And those were three of the most agonizing hours of my life. So with poor Ksenia, anything could have happened. She might have been inspected by someone who held a bias against foreigners. The people working in that agency can be notoriously difficult, you have to admit.
T-i: Now, when in the US the court is the only check on executive overreach, we understand that Russia never had such a tool. Now, looking back in hindsight, it’s clear that Russia had no chance to defend democracy with courts that submitted to Putin early in his presidency. Was this already obvious to you back then?
EM: The horror is that all the achievements and efforts of the first ten years of Russian judicial reform, whose concept was adopted in October 1991, were fairly quickly destroyed by Putin. It was in the 1990s that the entire foundational legal framework was developed and enacted. Independent arbitration courts were created, the Constitutional Court, jury trials were restored, the institution of private notaries was established. I’m not even mentioning the Constitution, where the most important things were regulated at the level of the country’s basic law. And what was especially important from the judges’ point of view, their lives got better. They started working more freely. There was more money. Before the reform, no one even wanted to go to the courts. I myself graduated from the MSU Law Faculty in 1987, and none of us wanted to work in courts. Back then, it was an unpromising, boring, low-paying, and very troublesome backwater. In the 1990s, everything changed.
And then comes the year 2000. And on the eve of New Year’s, as a “gift”, we got an acting president who immediately steered the country toward his own priorities. He said: “We will have a dictatorship of law,” but it turned into a dictatorship of laws drafted and passed at his command. This is Putin’s legalism. Here’s a simple example. Already at the beginning of that same 2000, the Duma committee on judicial and legal reform had disappeared. This was a key committee in the 1990s terms. And further, judicial reform not only stalled — it was reversed. And in certain aspects, it turned into a judicial counter-reform.
Moreover, both foreign researchers and great Russian lawyers wrote about this: Tamara Morshchakova, Anatoly Kononov. They all argued that the principle of judicial independence is regularly trampled. And this process ended in complete defeat in the form of constitutional amendments that came into force in July 2020. Before that, the Constitutional Court issued an opinion on these amendments, saying that they all comply with the Constitution. Especially, of course, those that reduced the composition of the Constitutional Court, completely shackled it, turned it into a rubber stamp for decisions needed by the Russian president and the power vertical. Coming to terms with this has been incredibly painful. But we must understand that the things Putin did to Russia, its judicial system, and its judges were possible in a country where this tradition had existed for decades. For Russia, regardless of the form of government and political regime, there is a deep-seated tradition of legal nihilism, disrespect for the courts, and a lack of trust in the judicial system. In this sense, the American court and American judges are different. American society trusts judges and sees the courts as a powerful institution, not an organization serving the executive branch. And I really hope that all this should help American judges stand firm. We see how President Putin has been brandishing traditional values like a red banner for several years now. But for America, traditional values are legal culture, respect for the court, and commitment to the Constitution, not the executive branch.