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.
Fact check: How many times did president biden ignore or circumvent the courts
Executive Summary
President Biden has been accused of “ignoring or circumventing the courts” in several high-profile policy areas—most commonly the CDC eviction moratorium, student loan relief, and race-conscious college admissions—but there is no single, authoritative tally that counts discrete instances; the record shows a mix of executive actions, litigation, judicial reversals, and administrative adjustments rather than clear, repeated unilateral defiance. A careful review of reporting and fact-checking through 2025 shows specific episodes where the administration pursued policy after judicial setbacks and where critics characterized that as defiance, but multiple independent accounts conclude those episodes involved legal contest, regulatory alternatives, or political rhetoric rather than open, sustained refusal to comply with final court orders [1] [2].
1. The specific allegations people cite — sharp, headline-grabbing episodes that fuel the claim
The list of episodes that critics point to is short and consistent across sources: the CDC’s eviction moratorium extension in 2021 that courts struck down; President Biden’s public remarks after the Supreme Court blocked his signature student loan forgiveness plan in 2023 and the administration’s subsequent search for alternative cancellation routes; and the administration’s response to the Court’s 2023 rulings limiting race-conscious college admissions. These three episodes are the core factual touchpoints used to assert Biden “ignored” the courts, with the eviction moratorium and student loan efforts repeatedly cited by congressional critics and editorials as evidence of defiance [1] [3].
2. What the court record actually shows — litigation, reversals, and administrative workarounds
Court dockets and contemporaneous reporting document that the CDC moratorium was extended by the executive branch and then struck down by the Supreme Court and lower courts, prompting policy withdrawal; that the Supreme Court found the specific student loan forgiveness mechanism unlawful in 2023 and blocked it; and that the Court constrained race-conscious admissions, after which the Education Department issued guidance and policy proposals to comply or to pursue permissible avenues. The factual record shows litigation and judicial reversal followed by executive attempts to find lawful alternatives, not repeated, unambiguous orders to keep acting in contravention of a final judgment [4] [5] [6].
3. Where characterizations of “ignoring” or “circumventing” come from — political rhetoric and editorial framing
Senate Republicans and conservative editorial pages framed post-ruling actions as defiance: Senator Chuck Grassley accused the administration of “ignoring the Court” over eviction moratoriums and student loans, and major conservative editorials described Biden’s comments—such as saying the Court’s student-loan ruling “didn’t stop me”—as evidence of contempt for judicial limits. These claims mix direct presidential or administrative statements with partisan interpretation; the language of “ignore” amplifies political grievance even where the administration pursued alternative, legally framed mechanisms [1] [3].
4. Independent fact checks and legal scholars’ take — nuance and limits to the “defiance” label
Multiple fact-checks and legal analyses through 2025 conclude Biden did not cross the threshold of a constitutional crisis or openly flout binding judicial orders in those episodes. Fact-checkers found the administration adjusted policy design after losses, tried different statutory authorities such as the Higher Education Act for narrow student relief, and engaged in litigation rather than simply refusing to comply. The sober legal view distinguishes between political assertions of defiance and verifiable legal noncompliance: the administration repeatedly faced and responded to court rulings, rather than maintaining the same illegal policy in open violation of a final judgment [2] [7].
5. Why counting “how many times” is misleading — overlapping actions, lawsuits, and rhetorical episodes
The question “how many times did Biden ignore or circumvent the courts” presumes discrete, countable acts of unlawful defiance; the reality is a web of executive actions, lawsuits, regulatory redesigns, and public comments. Some episodes include multiple court filings and administrative steps that opponents count as separate “ignores,” while fact-checkers treat them as single policy disputes evolving through litigation. Because sources disagree on what counts as “ignoring,” producing a definitive numeric count is not possible from the public record; a reliable answer requires agreed definitions and item-by-item legal analysis [1] [6].
6. Bottom line: facts, context, and a recommended way to evaluate the claim going forward
The public record through 2025 documents several high-profile instances where the Biden administration continued to pursue policy goals after judicial setbacks, and critics label those instances “ignoring” the courts. Independent fact-checks and legal commentary show those instances involved legal contestation and administrative alternatives rather than sustained, explicit refusals to comply with final judicial orders. For a rigorous count, define whether you mean: open noncompliance with a final court order, attempts to identify alternative lawful authority after a court loss, or political rhetoric dismissing a ruling—only then can one enumerate episodes consistently [1] [7].