Trump, All About Winning, Sees Losses in Court Pile Up
The president has had scores of his initiatives shot down by federal judges. The Washington Post actually counted how many.
by Joe Sexton, April 2, 2019, 3:02 p.m. EDT
The drumbeat of defeats grew hard to ignore.
A federal judge struck down the Donald Trump administration’s plan to require some people to work for their Medicaid benefits. Another judge halted Trump’s plan to open Arctic waters to drilling. Yet another ordered an end to what critics said was the administration’s efforts to encourage an end run around the Affordable Care Act. All in the span of about a week.
I spent some time exploring whether I could create a more formal list only to discover that The Washington Post had basically done that.
Here’s how the article by Fred Barbash and Deanna Paul started:
Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.
In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, where required, public input.
Many of the cases are in early stages and subject to reversal. For example, the Supreme Court permitted a version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from certain predominantly Muslim nations to take effect after lower-court judges blocked the travel ban as discriminatory.
But regardless of whether the administration ultimately prevails, the rulings so far paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement far-reaching changes in policy without regard for long-standing rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior.
It only got more startling.
Two-thirds of the cases accuse the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a nearly 73-year-old law that forms the primary bulwark against arbitrary rule. The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.
Also, one win does not invalidate a single word of the following:
"Well, the gibbering, incontinent, cowardly, septuagenarian toddler hailed as a beacon of strength by a millions-strong cult of critically-unperceptive white people spent most of the weekend doing the one thing he does truly well: whining.
He thinks it’s profoundly unfair that he finally got himself into some trouble that daddy’s money can’t buy him out of, and the “stigma” of impeachment is now attached to his name, a name which is already synonymous with racism, stupidity, tyranny, mendacity, failure, sexual assault, financial crime, bullying, stealing money from charity to buy paintings of yourself, inability to tie a necktie or close an umbrella, operating concentration camps full of terrified children on American soil, stochastic terrorism, and treason, but sure “impeachment” is the bit that’s harming the brand."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
