Federal Judiciary Signals Hard Turn Against Trump as 29 Judges Vacate Favorable Ruling

WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary and rarely used move, a full bench of 29 federal appellate judges voted late last year to vacate a lower court ruling that had favored President Donald Trump, ordering the case to be reheard from the beginning. The decision, issued on November 26, 2025, erased a legal victory that Mr. Trump and his allies had been counting on and marked a sharp escalation in the federal judiciary’s posture toward a president who has repeatedly tested the limits of executive power.

While appellate courts occasionally reverse or narrow lower court decisions, the wholesale vacatur of an entire ruling by the full court — known as an en banc rehearing — is exceedingly rare. Legal scholars say the move reflects more than disagreement over legal doctrine. It signals growing institutional alarm within the judiciary about how Mr. Trump and his administration are using the courts, and whether traditional judicial deference to presidential authority remains appropriate.

“This is not something courts do lightly,” said Judith Resnik, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School. “When you see nearly thirty judges acting in unison to wipe out a decision and start over, it suggests they believe something went fundamentally wrong — not just legally, but structurally.”

An Unusual Show of Unity

Federal appellate cases are typically decided by three-judge panels. En banc rehearings, which involve every active judge on a circuit, occur in a small fraction of cases, often when a ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent or raises questions of exceptional importance. Even more uncommon is the decision to vacate a ruling entirely rather than revise or reverse discrete portions of it.

In this instance, the court did not merely question the reasoning of the lower court. It treated the decision as if it had never existed.

The court’s order offered limited explanation, a common practice at this procedural stage. But legal analysts noted that the sheer scale of agreement — 29 judges voting to rehear the case — sends a message that extends well beyond the specific legal issues involved.

“Courts are institutions, and they communicate through their actions,” said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “This was the judiciary speaking in a collective voice.”

A Broader Judicial Pattern

The en banc decision arrives amid a growing body of rulings in which federal judges have used unusually blunt language to criticize Mr. Trump’s actions during his second term. A recent analysis by the Los Angeles Times found that judges across multiple jurisdictions have accused the administration of violating constitutional limits, presenting unsupported factual claims, and issuing orders that exceed presidential authority.

Such language departs from the traditionally restrained tone of judicial opinions. Judges typically avoid characterizing executive actions as threats to democracy. That they are doing so now suggests a belief that conventional formulations are insufficient.

In one recent ruling, a district court judge wrote that the administration’s conduct represented “an unprecedented challenge to the separation of powers.” Another accused government lawyers of making claims “untethered from the factual record.”

Taken together, these decisions indicate a judiciary increasingly skeptical of the Trump administration’s legal arguments — and increasingly willing to intervene.

The End of Deference?

Historically, courts have afforded presidents significant latitude, particularly in matters involving national security, immigration, and executive discretion. Mr. Trump benefited from that tradition during his first term and in parts of his second, frequently invoking broad theories of executive power.

But judges appear less willing to extend such deference now.

Legal experts point to a pattern: when lower courts issue rulings favorable to Mr. Trump based on expansive readings of presidential authority, appellate courts are stepping in more quickly and more aggressively. The 29-judge decision represents the most striking example to date.

“This changes the incentives throughout the judicial system,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Trial judges know that if they stretch doctrine to accommodate the president, they may be reversed — publicly and decisively.”

Implications for Trump’s Legal Strategy

Mr. Trump has long relied on delay as a legal strategy, appealing adverse rulings and leveraging favorable ones to slow proceedings. That approach depends on the assumption that appellate courts will move cautiously.

The recent decision undermines that assumption. By vacating a ruling outright, the appellate court compressed timelines and forced the case back into active litigation, eliminating a delay Mr. Trump had counted on.

Moreover, the rehearing will occur before judges who have already signaled skepticism of the arguments that prevailed below.

“Once a court votes en banc to vacate, you’re no longer arguing on neutral ground,” said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general. “You’re trying to convince judges who have already indicated they believe the prior decision was wrong.”

Political Reverberations

Courts cannot remove a president from office. That power rests with Congress, through impeachment, or with the vice president and cabinet under the 25th Amendment. But judicial rulings can shape the political environment in which those decisions are made.

House Democrats have openly discussed preparing articles of impeachment should they regain the majority after the 2026 midterm elections. Mr. Trump himself has acknowledged that prospect, telling allies that losing the House would likely lead to impeachment proceedings.

Judicial findings that document constitutional violations, defiance of court orders, or abuse of power can provide evidentiary support for such efforts. Each ruling becomes part of a growing record.

“Courts create facts,” said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard. “They don’t impeach presidents, but they establish findings that Congress cannot ignore.”

Some commentators have also raised the 25th Amendment as a theoretical possibility, though no serious effort is underway. Still, discussions of removal underscore the political pressure Mr. Trump faces as courts continue to rule against him.

A Moment of Institutional Self-Defense

For many legal observers, the significance of the 29-judge decision lies less in its immediate legal consequences than in what it reveals about the judiciary’s evolving role.

“This looks like an institution recognizing that ordinary tools are no longer sufficient,” said Ms. Resnik. “When courts feel compelled to act collectively and dramatically, it suggests they believe the constitutional order itself is under strain.”

That assessment echoes earlier moments in American history, most notably during the Watergate era, when courts played a central role in constraining presidential power. Carl Bernstein, the journalist whose reporting helped bring down President Richard Nixon, recently argued that Mr. Trump’s recorded efforts to pressure election officials were “worse than the Nixon tapes.”

Whether history will draw similar conclusions remains uncertain. What is clear is that the judiciary has entered a new phase in its relationship with the presidency.

What Comes Next

The reheard case will proceed under heightened scrutiny, and its outcome could further narrow Mr. Trump’s legal defenses. More broadly, judges across the country are watching closely.

“The signal has been sent,” said Mr. Vladeck. “Presidential power is not unlimited, and the courts are prepared to say so — forcefully.”

As Mr. Trump heads toward a consequential midterm election year, he faces a federal judiciary that appears increasingly unified, increasingly skeptical, and increasingly willing to intervene. The era of reflexive judicial deference, many scholars argue, may be over.

For a president who has long viewed courts as obstacles to be navigated or overcome, the message from 29 appellate judges was unmistakable: the judiciary is no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.