As Donald Trump seeks to reshape the federal government at breakneck speed, his administration has encountered a flood of litigation challenging the legality of its early actions in office.

With more than 100 federal lawsuits filed since the inauguration, Trump and his administration have effectively been sued three times for every business day he has occupied the Oval Office.

Approximately 30 of the 100 lawsuits relate to Trump’s immigration policies, while more than 20 of the cases directly challenge the actions of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Ten of the cases challenge Trump policies relating to transgender people, and more than 20 cases oppose the president’s unilateral changes to federal funding, government hiring and the structure of agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

With Trump signing more than 75 executive orders since taking office, the unprecedented flood of litigation has yielded mixed results in blocking the president’s unilateral efforts to reshape the federal government. His attempts to freeze funding or rewrite longstanding laws have generally been blocked, but some federal judges have implicitly given him the green light to carry out part of his plan to reshape the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour — who was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan — handed the Trump administration one of its first legal defeats by blocking Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship and offered one of the fiercest criticisms of his presidency’s early actions.

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Judge Coughenour said. “There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges? In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”

But other judges have stopped short of fully blocking policies they believe might be unlawful, demonstrating how a slower-moving judiciary can be outpaced by a rapidly moving administration. In a case challenging the Trump administration’s effort to fire thousands of probationary employees, U.S. District Judge William Alsup rebuked the administration’s actions but did not step in to stop the indiscriminate firing of employees, despite acknowledging its ongoing harm.

“That’s just not right in our country – that we run our agencies with lies like that and stain somebody’s record for the rest of their life? Who is going to want to work in a government that would do that to them? Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government,” he said.

The number of lawsuits appear to have tested the limits of the court’s ability to hear emergency applications, particularly in the District Court in D.C., where 51 of the cases have been brought. During one contentious hearing, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes threatened to sanction a lawyer who pushed the court to accept an emergency appeal while court staff had been “working around the clock on really monumental time sensitive issues,” Reyes said.

“Why on earth could you not have figured that out with the defendants before coming and burdening me and burdening the defendants and burning my staff on this issue?” Reyes told Seth Waxman, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton who is now representing eight former inspectors general fired by Trump.

Lawsuits challenging the Trump administration have reached the Supreme Court twice, and the Department of Justice has begun their appeals to the Circuit Court in approximately a dozen cases.

While no judge has found that the president has openly defied a court order, the Trump administration has found itself in hot water for failing to comply with multiple court orders, including orders to stop unilaterally freezing funding to states and holding back more than $1.9 billion in foreign aid.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court narrowly denied the Trump administration’s request to block that payment, marking the first time during this administration that the Supreme Court ruled against the president who nominated three of the court’s nine justices. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito remarked that he was “stunned” by the decision.

“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise,” Alito said.

Alito’s criticism comes as Trump’s allies including Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have criticized the power of judiciary to slow some of the administration’s agenda. Vance publicly suggested defying a court order, and Musk is increasingly calling for the judges who block the administration to be impeached.

“The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges,” Musk said in a recent post on X.

While the first two months of the Trump administration has yielded a torrent of lawsuits, the cases themselves are expected to take months and potentially years to play out as the courts weigh the limits of Trump’s authority.