An AP investigation documented 31 federal cases in which the Trump administration was found in contempt or noncompliance with court orders, spanning immigration, education, and refugee policy.
An Associated Press investigation published May 2, 2026, found that the Trump administration has been found in contempt, noncompliance, or active defiance of court orders in 31 separate federal lawsuits since the start of the president's second term [1]. The cases span immigration enforcement, education grant terminations, and refugee admissions policy, among other subject areas [1]. Federal judges appointed by members of both parties issued the findings, with several accusing administration officials of conduct that included "hallucinating" court orders, "eroding separation of powers," and attempting to "bully states" [2].
The 31 cases identified by the AP were drawn from federal district courts across multiple jurisdictions, with contempt findings and noncompliance rulings issued at the trial court level [1]. Named jurists in individual matters include U.S. District Judges Sunshine Sykes, William Smith, Jamal Whitehead, and Kymberly Evanson, each of whom presided over proceedings in which administration conduct drew direct judicial rebuke [2]. The cases were not consolidated; each arose from independent litigation over discrete agency actions taken during the current term.
The investigation's significance lies in its scope. No prior systematic accounting of executive branch contempt exposure across a sitting administration's full docket had produced a comparable figure during a comparable timeframe, according to the reporting [1]. The AP found that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, sided with the administration in approximately half of the 31 reviewed cases, meaning roughly 15 to 16 matters resulted in appellate or high-court rulings that effectively validated the executive position, notwithstanding the lower-court findings [2]. That split record complicates any uniform characterization of the administration's posture as purely losing litigation, but it does not extinguish the underlying contempt determinations, which remain part of the courts' records.
Practitioners advising clients in administrative law, immigration, and constitutional litigation now face a documented pattern of executive noncompliance that affects how preliminary injunctions and enforcement mechanisms must be counseled [1]. Whether a court order will be honored, and on what timeline, has become a material variable in litigation strategy. Several of the 31 cases remain active, and additional contempt proceedings are possible as those matters proceed to resolution [2]. Congressional oversight activity related to the findings had not been announced as of the report's publication date.