Of the many justices who struck down the Trump administration’s efforts during its first year, one justice clashed most often with the president on central policy issues.
Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee to Washington, D.C., stands out for the number of rulings she has issued to block presidential actions, including attempts to remove agency heads and cut federal grants and contracts, while making headlines for harshly criticizing the administration in her opinions and facing repeated pushbacks on appeal.
Just days into President Donald Trump’s second term, Howell Announce It “cannot tolerate the revisionist myth being conveyed” in the president’s speech advertisement The defendants were pardoned on January 6, many of whom were cases she presided over.
“No national injustice occurred here, just as no fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election,” she wrote. “No ‘national reconciliation process’ can begin when poor losers, whose preferred candidate lost the election, are glorified for obstructing constitutionally mandated procedures in Congress, and doing so with impunity.”
Federal prosecutors tried, unsuccessfully, to… It is forbidden Howell in March heard a challenge to one of Trump’s executive orders based on provisions that “repeatedly demonstrated bias and hostility toward the president,” even before he took office. They cited her decision to greenlight former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to secretly search Trump’s Twitter account.
Howell criticized the attempt and defended its rulings as following “the facts and the law.”
“When the US Department of Justice engages in this rhetorical strategy of personal attacks, the stakes become much greater than just the reputation of the federal judge being targeted,” Howell books In March. “This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and place blame on the decision maker for any loss rather than the fallacies of the substantive legal arguments presented.”
Howell set out to do so roadblock Implementing Trump’s May executive order against Perkins Law Firm What?which ordered agencies to review contracts with the company while suspending employees’ security clearances and limiting their access to government buildings. Berkin Koe represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
“No American president has ever issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse action carried out by all agencies of the executive branch, but, in purpose and effect, this action derives from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who coined the phrase: ‘First thing we do, let us kill all the lawyers,'” Howell books In the May 2 ruling.
Management is Attractive Howell’s decision. The D.C. District Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“With more than 20 Supreme Court victories, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the Trump administration’s policies as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and the lower court’s unlawful rulings,” White House Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said in a statement to DCNF. “What the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism by far-left judges. If this trend continues, it threatens to undermine the rule of law for all future presidencies. The President will continue to implement the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November, and the Supreme Courts will continue to acquit him when liberal activist judges try to intervene.”
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Court, for the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Washington, D.C., November 3, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
“Not a king”
The Supreme Court blocked Howell’s decision to block Trump from firing Democratic National Labor Relations Board member Gwen Wilcox in May. The justices heard oral arguments in December to consider the broader issue of the president’s ability to remove members of multi-member “independent” coalitions.
“The American president is not a king — nor even ‘elected’ — and his power to fire federal officers and honorable civil servants like the plaintiff is not absolute,” Howell said. Argue In March.
Howell too It is considered Trump’s efforts to dismantle the US Institute of Peace were declared illegal in May, but were later overturned by the D.C. Circuit.
“As a general rule, the president may remove executive officers at will,” the three-judge panel said books In reversing the Howell decision. (RELATED: Trump administration ends year with impressive SCOTUS-record win — and big decisions loom)
Howl side With Planned Parenthood in October, A requirements Teen pregnancy prevention grant recipients must adhere to Trump’s executive orders on gender ideology and stop indoctrinating children with “extremist ideologies.” The administration requested this Repeats The Department of Agriculture terminated the grants in August.
In December, A to rule Restrict agents’ ability to arrest suspected illegal aliens without a warrant in Washington, D.C
“Simply put, immigration enforcement officials may conduct a civil immigration arrest without a warrant only if they have probable cause to believe that the person is in the United States illegally and is a flight risk,” she wrote.
Its decision appears to “ignore the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion and override the limits Congress has placed on the lowest level of federal judicial authority regarding immigration matters.” According to To Center for Migration Studies Resident Fellow Andrew Arthur.
Howell ended 2025 with one decision for Trump, Allow The president charges a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications.
However, Howell directed the administration on Sunday to Repeats Nearly $12 million in grant funding to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), leading to a finding of a possible “retaliatory motive” for cutting off funds. (RELATED: Exclusive: Here’s how a small group of pediatricians pushed back the medical establishment on the minimum age for sex changes)
dad He claimed The grants were cut due to their general opposition to the policies of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., stating that the canceled grants covered “a range of issue areas such as reduces Sudden and unexpected infant death, improving access to child care in rural areas, addressing the mental health of youth and adolescents, supporting children with birth defects, identifying autism early, identifying newborns and infants who are deaf and hard of hearing, and preventing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.
“This is not a question of whether the AAP or HHS are right or even have a better position on vaccinations, gender-affirming care for children, or any other public health policy,” Howell wrote. “This is a case about whether the federal government exercised power in a way intended to moderate public health policy debate by retaliating against a leading and generally trusted professional organization of pediatricians focused on improving children’s health.”
Department of Health and Human Services General Counsel Mike Stewart books On X, funding was cut because it was “not consistent with HHS’s mission or priorities.”
“The arrogance behind this lawsuit is astounding — the AAP seems to think it’s their money to spend as they please,” he wrote on December 27. “WRONG! It’s OUR money, and HHS has a duty to protect taxpayers from wasteful spending.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news service, is available free to any legitimate news publisher who can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their affiliation with DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.