What the administration’s win rates in the federal courts reveal about judicial independence – and Trump’s ongoing court capture operation
February 2026
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Donald Trump’s unlawful tariffs, commentators celebrated the Roberts Court’s “reassert[ion of] its power to check Trump.” An updated review of federal court orders involving challenges to Trump administration policies, however, reveals that the Roberts supermajority is operating overall as a primary facilitator of Trump’s authoritarian agenda—and that Trump-appointed judges are far more likely to rule in Trump’s favor, meaning Trump’s ongoing effort to pack the judiciary is an investment likely to return dividends.
Our findings show that:
-
Lower courts continue to function largely as independent legal checks on executive overreach. In the lower federal courts, the Trump administration loses significantly more often than it wins, before both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges.
-
However, Trump-appointed judges are substantially more likely to rule in favor of the administration than other Republican appointees.
-
The Roberts Court has emerged as the administration’s most reliable forum, with the Roberts supermajority overwhelmingly greenlighting Trump’s policies and reversing lower courts’ decisions to check the administration’s actions.
The District Courts:
Losses Outnumber Wins Across the Board
Across 245 federal district court orders, challengers to the Trump administration prevailed 59% of the time.
Both Democratic and Republican district judges ruled against the Trump administration in a majority of cases:
-
Democratic-appointed district judges ruled against the administration in 61% of cases.
-
Republican-appointed district judges ruled against the administration in 54% of cases.
The divide between Trump-appointed judges and judges appointed by other Republicans, however, is striking:
-
Trump-appointed district court judges ruled against the administration only 31% of the time.
-
Non-Trump Republican district court judges ruled against the administration 79% of the time.
This represents the clearest measurable indicator to date that Trump’s judicial appointees are behaving meaningfully differently from prior Republican appointees—not merely ideologically, but in their willingness to greenlight administration policies even when other Republican appointees resoundingly reject them.
The Circuit Courts:
Partisan Voting Patterns
At the appellate level, challengers maintained an advantage, albeit a narrower advantage than in district courts.
Across 114 federal circuit court orders, challengers to the Trump administration prevailed 54% of the time.
Following decades of intense partisan polarization in circuit-level judicial appointments, however, individual judicial voting patterns show a sharply polarized bench, with Trump’s litigation outcomes often hinging on panel composition rather than consistent legal standards:
-
Republican-appointed circuit court judges cast 87% of their votes in favor of the Trump administration.
-
Democratic-appointed circuit court judges cast 78% of their votes against the administration.
Furthermore, Trump’s circuit court appointees are voting in his favor even more reliably than his district court appointees. As The New York Times reported, as of January 11, 2026, Trump-appointed appellate judges had voted in favor of the Trump administration 92% of the time.
The Supreme Court:
The Administration’s Most Reliable Forum
The Trump administration’s win/loss rate shifts decisively once cases reach the Roberts Court. Across 25 Roberts Court orders included in this analysis, the Trump administration prevailed 84% of the time.
Nearly all of these rulings occurred on the Court’s shadow docket, where cases are decided on an expedited basis, briefing is often truncated, oral argument is typically absent, and the Court provides minimal or no written reasoning. Although the Court’s shadow docket orders are technically preliminary, they frequently lead to immediate, irreparable, and widespread harm. Following the Roberts Court’s greenlighting of race-based detainments by immigration agents, for instance, ProPublica found that more than 170 U.S. citizens were detained and, often, abused by those agents: “Americans have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot by immigration agents. They’ve had their necks kneeled on. They’ve been held outside in the rain while in their underwear…About two dozen Americans have said they were held for more than a day without being able to phone lawyers or loved ones.”
Key Takeaways
1. The lower courts are still functioning as a legal check.
That the Trump administration loses more often than it wins in both district and circuit courts—including before many Republican appointees—indicates that the lower courts remain a viable, if tenuous, check on the Trump regime’s unconstitutional overreach and abuse of power. The striking parity among Democratic- and Republican-appointed district court judges—and the fact that non-Trump Republican judges have ruled against the administration at a higher rate (79%) than Democratic district judges (61%)—undercut claims that lower-court injunctions against administration policies reflect partisan judging rather than legal deficiencies in Trump’s policies.
2. Trump’s judicial appointees form a distinct pro-Trump bloc.
The enormous gulf between Trump’s 69% win rate among Trump district judges and his 79% loss rate among earlier-appointed Republican district judges strongly suggests that Trump-era appointments are not simply conservative in orientation—they are pro-Trump loyalists, first and foremost.
3. The Roberts Court is reliably pro-Trump.
The administration’s 84% success rate before the Roberts Court—dramatically higher than its success rate anywhere else in the judiciary—shows that the Roberts Court is functioning as the final and most dependable venue for rescuing contested executive actions. This should come as little surprise from the Court that gave us Trump v. United States and helped usher in this era of American authoritarianism.
Why This Matters
The federal judiciary is often described as a neutral hierarchy in which cases move upward toward increasingly authoritative legal review. It is tempting to look at district court decisions against the Trump administration, or the Roberts Court’s single ruling against Trump on tariffs, and hope that we can rely on the judiciary to step in against authoritarianism.
But the data here suggests a different reality: The Roberts Court is not merely reviewing lower-court decisions—it is systematically reversing the operational checks those lower courts impose.
Furthermore, given Trump-appointed judges’ disproportionate fealty to the Trump administration’s agenda, Trump’s continuing efforts to stack the lower courts with loyalist judges will likely ensure that fewer lower courts can be relied upon in the future as temporary checks against the administration. Despite the admirable efforts of the lower court judges doing their jobs in the face of Trump’s lawlessness, we can no longer sit by and hope that the judiciary will save us. Congress must step up, reclaim the people’s power, and serve the American people by fighting authoritarian efforts by both the Trump administration and the Roberts Court.
The Data
Our district court analysis is based on data last updated on January 16, 2026, in the cases the Associated Press has collected in its lawsuit tracker. Our analysis does not include cases listed by the AP as “not yet assigned” or “pending” as of January 16, 2026, and does not include cases counted as neither “partially or fully blocked” nor “left in effect” by the AP as of January 16, 2026.
Our circuit court analysis is based on data last updated on February 24, 2026, in the cases Lawfare has collected in its Trump administration lawsuit tracker. Some cases have included several votes at various stages (e.g., stay pending appeal requests, rehearing en banc requests, merits appeal) and we count each of those dispositions.
Our Supreme Court analysis is based on data last updated on February 20, 2026. We include Trump v. CASA, which the Court ultimately heard on its merits docket rather than the shadow docket; and A.A.R.P. v. Trump, which the plaintiffs, rather than Trump, brought to the Court’s shadow docket. We count Noem v. Abrego-Garcia as a win for Trump because rather than require the administration to “effectuate” Kilmar Abrego-Garcia's return to the United States, as the lower courts had done, the justices instead ordered the administration only to “facilitate” his return.
Summary Table:
District Court Breakdown by Party:
Trump-Appointed District Court Judges vs. Other Republican District Court Judges:
Circuit Court Breakdown by Party:
