How have courts treated Trump administration regulatory rollbacks compared with prior administrations' win rates?
Executive summary
Courts treated many Trump administration regulatory rollbacks far less favorably than prior administrations saw for agency actions: detailed trackers show the first Trump administration prevailed in only about 22–23 percent of challenged agency actions (roughly 58 wins to 200 losses), a sharp reversal from pre‑Trump win rates near 70 percent for agency actions (and higher in partisan‑aligned courts) [1] [2] [3]. That poor record was uneven across issue areas—environmental rollbacks were frequently blocked—yet the administration exploited tools such as the Congressional Review Act and strategic suspensions to secure policy change even where courts later found procedural defects [4] [5] [6].
1. A surprising statistic: win rates, tallied and compared
Multiple empirical tallies of litigation through the end of the first Trump term show a striking gap: the Institute for Policy Integrity counted 58 successful agency outcomes versus 200 unsuccessful ones—about a 22 percent success rate for the administration when its actions were litigated—which contrasts with studies of prior administrations that found overall agency success rates near 70 percent in judicial review [1] [2] [3]. Independent trackers reached compatible impressions: Just Security’s litigation tracker recorded hundreds of challenges with hundreds of plaintiff wins and a government win total much smaller by comparison, illustrating how pervasive successful legal challenges to the administration’s actions were in practice [7].
2. Why courts were skeptical: procedural and analytical shortcomings
A recurring theme in the cases against Trump‑era rollbacks was that agencies failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” or adequate administrative record for reversals of prior rules—shortcomings that courts routinely treat as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act—which led judges to vacate or block deregulatory actions such as revisions to emissions and workplace reporting rules [8] [9] [1]. Commentators and law reviews documented that the administration frequently relied on aggressive uses of suspensions and delays, and when courts reviewed those tactics they often found the agencies had skipped necessary procedural steps or relied on inadequate analysis [4] [6] [10].
3. Issue variation: environment as a battlefield
Environmental and energy rollbacks were especially contested and often unsuccessful in court; for example, trackers show challengers prevailed in a large share of EPA‑related suits, with one tally noting that 76 percent of 135 environmental cases between 2017 and 2021 were decided against the administration on the merits [5] [9]. Inside Climate News and other reviewers emphasized that while many deregulatory proposals were initiated, courts frequently curtailed finalized rollbacks—though outlets also warned that the growing bench of Trump appointees could change future outcomes for similar disputes [5].
4. Courts aren’t the whole story: political and statutory routes succeeded
Despite courtroom setbacks, the Trump administration obtained durable policy changes through nonlitigation tools: the Congressional Review Act was used to disapprove 16 prior regulations—an outcome that is legally binding and not subject to the same kinds of APA reversal—and aggressive use of suspensions and litigation tactics sometimes produced temporary policy effects even when courts later vacated actions [4] [11]. Scholars warned that these administrative techniques amplified regulatory instability: courts may force agencies to redo analysis, but the pause or repeal accomplished in the interim can still have lasting political or market effects [4] [1].
5. What the comparisons conceal and what to watch next
Aggregate win‑loss percentages are powerful shorthand but mask important dynamics: different trackers define “wins” differently, counts mix major and minor rules, and some rulings were interlocutory or later mooted by administrative reversal—so raw percentages should be read with caution [1] [12]. Moreover, observers note a shifting judicial landscape—Trump judicial appointments and ongoing second‑term litigation strategies mean future courts could treat agency rollbacks differently, so outcomes after 2021 may depart from the earlier pattern documented by Policy Integrity, Brookings, and other trackers [3] [5].