Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How many cases brought by the Trump administration were decided in its favor vs. against it?
Executive summary
Available trackers and news summaries disagree on both scope and counting rules, so there is no single, definitive tally in the provided sources: Forbes reports the administration “won” about 31% of 191 rulings through mid‑2025 (31% win, 60% losses, 9% mixed) while The Fulcrum and a Fulcrum‑linked piece state that of 186–530 suits in 2025 only a small share were adjudicated — for example, The Fulcrum reported 4 adjudicated cases with two wins and two losses [1] [2] [3]. Different projects (Lawfare, Just Security, NYU Institute analyses) track different subsets (national‑security actions, agency rule challenges, or all litigation), producing conflicting success rates and raw counts [4] [5] [6] [1].
1. What “cases” are being counted — and why that matters
Different sources count different universes. Lawfare’s Litigation Tracker focuses on legal challenges tied to national‑security executive actions and treats a district suit plus its appeals as one case [4]. Just Security maintains a broad litigation tracker of executive orders and actions but organizes and updates cases differently [5]. The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU — cited by Democracy Forward — analyzed 85 agency deregulatory or policy cases and reported the administration lost 79 of them (a roughly 7% win rate in that subset), which is a far narrower slice than the 191 rulings Forbes counted [6] [1]. Because each dataset defines scope and “win” differently (e.g., permanent ruling, preliminary injunction, mixed rulings, or stays), raw comparisons are misleading without explicit methodology [4] [1] [6].
2. Snapshot figures reported by prominent outlets
Forbes’ analysis tallied 191 court rulings through mid‑2025 and concluded the Trump administration won about 31%, lost about 60%, and saw 9% mixed outcomes — a straightforward “success rate” for that set [1]. By contrast, Democracy Forward and the NYU Institute work emphasize agency rule challenges and report far worse results for the administration there — losing 79 of 85 such cases [6]. The Fulcrum reported that of 186 legal actions filed since January 2025, only four had been adjudicated with two rulings for and two against the administration [2]. Another Fulcrum piece claimed 530 suits in 2025 with 32 fully adjudicated and eight wins versus 24 losses — again a very different tally [3]. These are not reconciled in the available reporting [1] [6] [2] [3].
3. Why “wins” can be ambiguous — mixed rulings, stays, and appeals
Several pieces note courts issue preliminary injunctions, stays, or mixed decisions that make binary “win/loss” labels inaccurate. Forbes explicitly counts “mixed” rulings as a separate category and notes many rulings remain appealable [1]. Lawfare’s tracker explains case‑level aggregation and lists remedies like preliminary injunctions and consolidated appeals that change outcomes over time [4]. The Fulcrum’s differing counts reflect how many suits are still pending or temporarily stayed, further complicating any definitive win‑loss percentage [2] [3].
4. Competing narratives and hidden agendas in the sources
Sources come from outlets and advocacy groups with different aims. Democracy Forward is a public‑interest litigation group highlighting victories against the administration and relies on NYU’s Institute figures to argue a very low agency win rate [6]. Forbes presents a broader media‑style tally and frames a mixed picture [1]. Lawfare and Just Security provide trackers intended as research resources rather than advocacy [4] [5]. These institutional differences affect selection and framing: advocacy groups emphasize favorable subsets; media outlets seek a digestible summary; policy trackers document granular litigation categories [6] [1] [4].
5. What we can reliably conclude from available reporting
Available sources consistently show that sizable portions of Trump administration litigation remain pending and that measured win rates depend strongly on the subset analyzed — agency deregulatory actions show a very low win rate [6], while broader tallies yield a roughly one‑third win rate with many losses and mixed outcomes [1]. No single source in the provided set offers a universally accepted, comprehensive count of all cases decided for vs. against the administration across every court; the numbers vary by methodology and time window [4] [5] [1] [6] [2].
6. How to get a clearer, reproducible answer
To produce a definitive, auditable tally you need a clear scope and method: pick the case universe (all suits against the administration? only agency rule challenges? national‑security actions?), decide how to count appeals and mixed outcomes, and set a cut‑off date. For a neutral research starting point, combine a long‑running tracker like Lawfare or Just Security with a focused institutional study such as NYU’s Institute report and report separate tallies (e.g., agency rule cases vs. all litigation) so readers can see how methodology drives the result [4] [5] [6].
If you want, I can: (a) assemble a side‑by‑side comparison table of the specific tallies and methods from Forbes, NYU/ Democracy Forward, Lawfare, Just Security and The Fulcrum (using only the sources you provided), or (b) recommend a precise methodology and data fields to produce a single reconciled count.