What recent rulings have federal judges issued in civil or criminal cases against Donald Trump in 2025?
Executive summary
Federal judges in 2025 issued a string of decisions affecting President Donald Trump’s policies and legal exposure: courts blocked parts of his administration’s agenda (including orders on voting and transgender prison policy), granted injunctions requiring continued SNAP funding during a shutdown, and federal and state judges dismissed or limited criminal prosecutions tied to his prior terms — with the Georgia racketeering case dropped in November 2025 [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage is broad but scattered across outlets and timeframes; available sources do not provide a single exhaustive list of every ruling in 2025 [5].
1. Judges cutting the teeth of policy — injunctions and stays against Trump administration orders
Federal judges issued multiple injunctions in 2025 that constrained the administration’s executive actions: for example, a judge ruled that a documentary proof‑of‑citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form could not be enforced and granted partial summary judgment blocking the measure [1] [6]. Other nationwide injunctions and district court orders similarly blocked elements of the administration’s early agenda on immigration, agency removals, and rights-related policies, prompting numerous appeals and Supreme Court interventions [7] [8].
2. Courts forcing continued SNAP funding amid a shutdown
When the administration sought to pause contingency SNAP payments during a government funding lapse, at least one U.S. district judge ordered the government to continue using emergency funds to distribute SNAP benefits and required the administration to report how it would fund the program — a ruling that the administration sought emergency stays and appeals from, and that a Supreme Court justice temporarily paused while an appeals court considered the matter [3] [9]. Multiple district judges issued related orders around the same period to prevent immediate lapses in benefits [3] [1].
3. Universities and grants — a judge blocks coercive funding demands
A California federal judge granted a preliminary injunction barring President Trump from coercing the University of California system — including blocking a demand that UCLA pay a $1.2 billion settlement that would have curtailed academic freedoms — finding the administration’s threatened funding freezes “coercive and retaliatory” and extending protections across the UC system [2]. That judge had issued multiple rulings earlier in 2025 backing UC scholars against efforts to halt research and grant funding [2].
4. Limits on National Guard deployments and command decisions
Federal judges intervened in the administration’s domestic troop deployments. One federal judge ordered an end to a monthslong National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C., concluding the President’s action violated constitutional constraints on local authority over law enforcement; related rulings in other jurisdictions had earlier halted deployments to Los Angeles and other locales [10]. Courts repeatedly scrutinized the executive’s use of military forces in domestic settings [8] [10].
5. Criminal cases: dismissals, disqualifications, and the end of Georgia prosecution
A series of judicial rulings in 2025 reshaped Trump’s criminal exposure. Federal prosecutors’ wind‑down of certain cases after the 2024 election and Supreme Court immunity rulings affected procedure, but state courts also moved decisively: in November 2025, Fulton County prosecutors and judges saw the Georgia racketeering election‑interference case dismissed — a decision various outlets reported as effectively closing the last remaining criminal prosecution tied to Trump’s 2020 election effort [4] [11] [12]. Other decisions involved disqualifications and replacement of prosecutors in Georgia earlier in November [13] [14].
6. Civil‑fraud and damages litigation: mixed appellate outcomes
Trump’s lengthy civil‑fraud litigation produced notable appellate movement in 2025. A New York appeals court curtailed a prior multibillion‑dollar penalty in the civil fraud case, a development outlets characterized as a significant setback for state claims against him while leaving some remedies subject to further appeal [15] [16]. Coverage shows appellate courts and the Supreme Court were active in parsing separation‑of‑powers and statutory issues implicated by those suits [15] [8].
7. Judicial pushback and the broader context of litigation
Coverage across Lawfare, Reuters and major outlets documents an extraordinary volume of litigation involving the administration — dozens of nationwide injunctions and many appellate moves — and growing judicial pushback against what several judges and commentators described as executive overreach [17] [7] [8]. At the same time, decisions removing or disqualifying prosecutors and procedural rulings altered the trajectory of criminal cases, producing divergent narratives about whether courts were checking or being weaponized against the presidency [18] [19].
Limitations and gaps: available sources in the provided set are comprehensive on several headline rulings but do not enumerate every district‑court or appellate decision in 2025; they also mix coverage through late 2025 [5] [18]. I have cited where specific rulings are reported; if you want a case‑by‑case list (dates, judges, full opinions), indicate which matters you want prioritized and I will extract those rulings from the relevant articles above [2] [1] [4].