{"id":121057,"date":"2025-09-23T09:04:46","date_gmt":"2025-09-23T13:04:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/?p=121057"},"modified":"2025-09-23T10:12:49","modified_gmt":"2025-09-23T14:12:49","slug":"trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration is deploying a previously limited<\/a> tactic to achieve its deregulatory goals<\/a>: entering consent decrees\u2014settlements between the parties that are entered as court orders\u2014with private plaintiffs to wipe a challenged law or regulation from the books. The administration has even started<\/a> using<\/a> this tactic offensively, suing Republican-controlled states and settling on the very same day to rapidly dismantle state laws the administration wants gone. These tactics raise fundamental and profound questions about the limits of both judicial and executive power.<\/p>\n

To be sure, past administrations have sought to settle litigation against controversial policies, and the Executive Branch\u2019s authority to do so has been the subject of dueling<\/a> intra-branch<\/a> memoranda for decades. But the Supreme Court has signaled discomfort with these tactics. After the Biden administration voluntarily dismissed several appeals of lower court orders invalidating the Trump administration\u2019s \u201cpublic charge\u201d rule<\/a>, several states unsuccessfully sought to intervene to defend the rule. Writing separately, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by three of his colleagues, noted<\/a> that \u201c[a] new administration is of course as a general matter entitled to\u201d settle litigation. However, the four justices faulted the Biden administration for \u201cleverag[ing]\u201d one of the adverse court orders \u201cas a basis to immediately repeal the [r]ule, without using notice-and-comment procedures.\u201d The justices stressed that \u201c[t]hese maneuvers raise a host of important questions,\u201d \u201c[t]he most fundamental [of which] is whether the [g]overnment\u2019s actions, all told, comport with the principles of administrative law.\u201d The Supreme Court did not resolve those questions, leaving them for another day.<\/p>\n

These concerns have reemerged with even greater force<\/a> during Trump\u2019s second term. The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.<\/p>\n

The Trump Administration\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees for Policymaking<\/h2>\n

Four recent cases show how the Trump administration has sought to use consent decrees to stop federal policies that it disfavors, including affirmative action programs, vital consumer protections, and longstanding limitations on the ability of nonprofits, including religious organizations, to engage in political activity.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the starkest example of the consent decree tactic comes from a challenge to the Small Business Administration\u2019s contracting preferences. In Mid-America Milling Co. v. U.S. Department of Transportation<\/em><\/a> (E.D. Ky.), two private contractors sued<\/a> to stop the government from using race- and gender-based preferences in selecting construction contractors, as mandated<\/a> by the Small Business Act. After defending the challenged program during the Biden administration, during the Trump administration the Department of Justice not only ceased its defense, but joined with the plaintiffs in May 2025 to ask the court to enter a consent decree<\/a> that includes a permanent injunction that would bar the classifications nationwide. The court is currently considering the motion, alongside objections<\/a> by intervenors.<\/p>\n

In another case, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule promulgated during the Biden administration barely lasted three months before being undone through a consent judgment. The CFPB finalized the rule, which prohibits the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports, on January 7, 2025, and it quickly attracted a challenge<\/a> by two trade associations in Cornerstone Credit Union League v. CFPB<\/em><\/a> (E.D. Tex.). By the end of April, plaintiffs and the CFPB jointly moved<\/a> for the court to approve a proposed consent judgment<\/a>. Over intervenors\u2019 objections<\/a>, the court approved<\/a> the proposed consent judgment on July 11, vacating the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).<\/p>\n

In some cases, courts have moved so swiftly to approve a consent decree that intervenors have had little time to assert their interests at all. In Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB<\/em><\/a> (N.D. Tex.), various trade groups challenged<\/a> another Biden-era CFPB rule concerning credit card penalty fees, obtaining a preliminary injunction<\/a>. In April 2025, the parties jointly moved<\/a> for the entry of a consent judgment, stating that they now agreed that the rule violated the applicable statute. The very next day, the court granted the motion<\/a> and vacated the rule under the APA in a barebones three-paragraph order.<\/p>\n

Finally, even when relief appears limited, a consent decree can have potentially sweeping implications. In National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel<\/em><\/a> (E.D. Tex.), two churches and two religious nonprofit organizations challenged<\/a> the constitutionality of the so-called Johnson Amendment<\/a>, which bars nonprofits (including churches) from campaigning for individual candidates for public office. On July 7, the parties jointly moved<\/a> for the court to enter a consent judgment<\/a> that would interpret the Johnson Amendment to not apply \u201c[w]hen a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation.\u201d Although the proposed decree only purports to enjoin the IRS (and its successors) from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two plaintiff churches, amici<\/a> have asserted that the decree would \u201ceffectively enshrine a generally applicable exception\u201d for similarly situated churches, and intervenors have objected<\/a> on similar grounds.<\/p>\n

Together, these cases illustrate the administration\u2019s playbook: pivot from defense to collusion with plaintiffs, secure quick consent decrees, and use them to achieve broad policy change outside the regulatory or legislative process.<\/p>\n

The Emerging Legal Challenges<\/h2>\n

These cases have surfaced a set of recurring objections. They roughly fall into four categories: (1) equitable limits, including improper collusion, (2) the rights of intervenors, (3) violations of administrative law (both notice-and-comment requirements and limitations on remedies), and (4) separation-of-powers concerns.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Equitable Limits<\/strong>: Consent decrees have<\/a> \u201cattributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees,\u201d and are therefore subject to important equitable limits that the administration appears to have disregarded. Because<\/a> \u201c[j]udicial approval of a settlement agreement places the power and prestige of the court behind the compromise struck by the parties,\u201d lower courts have generally held that consent decrees must be<\/a> \u201cfair, adequate, and reasonable\u201d and \u201cnot illegal, a product of collusion, or against the public interest.\u201d The Supreme Court also recognized in Frew v. Hawkins<\/em><\/a> that consent decrees \u201cmust spring from, and serve to resolve, a dispute within the court\u2019s subject-matter jurisdiction; must come within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings; and must further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint was based.\u201d But as the intervenors allege in Mid-America<\/em>, the Trump administration may have violated these principles by openly<\/a> colluding<\/a> with litigants and seeking<\/a> to leverage a challenge to one statute into a consent decree invalidating another unchallenged statute.<\/li>\n
  2. Intervenors\u2019 Rights<\/strong>: In some cases, consent decrees may even require intervenors\u2019 agreement. The Supreme Court held in Local No. 93, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland<\/em> that, although an intervenor may not<\/a> \u201cblock the decree merely by withholding its consent,\u201d intervenor\u2019s consent is required when the decree would \u201cimpose duties or obligations\u201d on them or \u201cdispose of the[ir] valid claims.\u201d To that end, courts have found duties, obligations, or valid claims where intervenors credibly asserted contractual rights<\/a>, rights under anti-discrimination laws<\/a>, and constitutional rights<\/a>. Intervenors might rely on similar arguments in asserting that the court cannot enter a consent decree that they oppose.<\/li>\n
  3. Administrative Law<\/strong>: Turning to administrative limits, the Trump administration\u2019s use of consent decrees to undo duly promulgated legislative rules may violate the APA\u2019s notice-and-comment requirements. Under the APA, agencies are generally required<\/a> to \u201cuse the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule in the first instance.\u201d By moving jointly with the plaintiffs in a given case to ask the court to vacate a validly promulgated legislative rule, the Trump administration has attempted to sidestep those requirements. But that approach stands on shaky footing, and the Ninth Circuit, at least, has explicitly held<\/a> that consent decrees that modify or rescind agency rules are subject to rulemaking requirements.\u00a0<\/strong>It is unclear whether courts even have the authority to vacate agency action by way of a consent decree, which is typically<\/a> a \u201cpro forma<\/em> acceptance \u2026 of an agreement\u201d rather than an \u201cadjudication of the merits.\u201d That\u2019s a problem because the APA, in 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 706(2)<\/a>, authorizes a court to \u201chold unlawful and set aside agency action\u201d (i.e., vacate it) only when that action is \u201cfound<\/em> to be\u201d unlawful. But \u201cpro forma<\/em> acceptance\u201d is not equivalent to a \u201cfinding.\u201d As one court put it<\/a>: agency \u201cconsent is not alone a sufficient basis for [the court] to stay or vacate a rule\u201d given the risk \u201cthat an agency could circumvent the rulemaking process through litigation concessions.\u201d<\/li>\n
  4. Separation of Powers<\/strong>: Finally, the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to set policy through consent decrees raise<\/a> serious separation-of-powers concerns. As Professor Michael T. Morley has argued<\/a>, such consent decrees \u201callow executive officials and agencies to improperly entrench their preferred policies, interpretations of the law, and enforcement priorities against changes by subsequent administrations, without having a court decide whether such restrictions are legally or constitutionally required.\u201d And the Supreme Court has echoed this concern, explaining in Frew<\/em><\/a> that, \u201c[i]f not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, remedies outlined in consent decrees \u2026 may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.\u201d Indeed, that seems to be the administration\u2019s goal.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Why CASA Bars \u201cUniversal\u201d Consent Decrees<\/h2>\n

    To these arguments, the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in CASA <\/em>might contribute another: consent decrees that contain universal injunctions against the government exceed equitable limitations on the permissible scope of relief. In CASA<\/em>, the Court held<\/a> that courts may not enter injunctions that \u201care broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.\u201d CASA <\/em>may therefore be a double-edged sword for the Trump administration\u2014although it makes it more difficult for litigants to obtain universal relief against the administration\u2019s actions, it may likewise make it more difficult for the administration to leverage pending cases to lock in its preferred policies through universal injunctions.<\/p>\n

    The argument for applying CASA <\/em>this way is straightforward<\/a>. Consent decrees are, again, \u201cjudicial acts,\u201d which the Supreme Court has instructed are<\/a> \u201csubject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\u201d An injunction incorporated in a consent decree, like any other injunction, is an equitable remedy subject to CASA<\/em>. At the very least, CASA <\/em>might make it more difficult for the Trump administration to assert that a consent decree that contains a universal injunction represents a \u201cfair, adequate, and reasonable\u201d effort to resolve a pending case, given that such a remedy would sweep far beyond providing complete relief to the plaintiffs. Again, that seems to be precisely the Trump administration\u2019s objective.<\/p>\n

    The government might object that consent decrees are more contract than judicial act and so are not subject to CASA<\/em>. But that argument would only give rise to another problem for the government: parties cannot<\/a> use the \u201ccontract\u201d of a consent decree to obtain what they cannot accomplish \u201cby themselves,\u201d and so an agency cannot contract to violate the APA, relevant statutes, or the U.S. Constitution. The government\u2019s potential argument would also misapprehend the dual nature of consent decrees. Consent decrees are both<\/em> contracts that cannot exceed the agency\u2019s authority and<\/em> judicial acts subject to similar equitable limitations as other orders. Universal consent decrees violate both of these principles.<\/p>\n

    What\u2019s at Stake<\/h2>\n

    The Trump administration\u2019s attempts to use consent decrees are not technical skirmishes: they represent an effort to use litigation to short-circuit administrative\u2014and democratic\u2014decisionmaking. Policy is supposed to be set by the people\u2019s representatives in Congress and by expert agencies acting pursuant to both presidential and <\/em>congressional direction, not in backroom deals between Justice Department lawyers and private groups aligned with the administration. Particularly after CASA<\/em>, litigants might have ample tools to challenge these decrees. And even if litigants do not, courts themselves should resist the Trump administration\u2019s demands that they rubber stamp the executive\u2019s attempts to set policy by decree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3246,"featured_media":121067,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[43211,43212,43213,2715,41390,2716],"tags":[3080,2400,1517,2860,17895,2075,41601,32133,2636,1152,1059,43174,43503],"coauthors":[43442,43563],"class_list":["post-121057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-courts-litigation","category-democracy-rule-of-law","category-democratic-backsliding-solutions","category-executive-branch","category-featured-new","category-rule-of-law","tag-administrative-law","tag-courts","tag-democracy","tag-deregulation","tag-executive-branch","tag-federal-courts","tag-litigation","tag-local-government","tag-rule-of-law","tag-separation-of-powers","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump-administration-second-term","tag-trump-v-casa"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTrump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Just Security\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JSBlog\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-23T13:04:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-23T14:12:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-12627567191.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"John Lewis, Aaron Baum\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-12627567191.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@just_security\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@just_security\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"John Lewis, Aaron Baum\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"John Lewis\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/bdad211d9e237ea85c50a15c0d87cc49\"},\"headline\":\"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-23T13:04:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-23T14:12:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\"},\"wordCount\":1962,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1\",\"keywords\":[\"Administrative Law\",\"courts\",\"Democracy\",\"Deregulation\",\"executive branch\",\"Federal Courts\",\"Litigation\",\"local government\",\"Rule of Law\",\"Separation of powers\",\"Supreme Court (SCOTUS)\",\"Trump administration second term\",\"Trump v. Casa\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Courts & Litigation\",\"Democracy & Rule of Law\",\"Democratic Backsliding & Solutions\",\"Executive Branch\",\"Featured Articles\",\"Rule of Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\",\"name\":\"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-23T13:04:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-23T14:12:49+00:00\",\"description\":\"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1281,\"caption\":\"A view of the front portico of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, DC (via Getty Images)\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/\",\"name\":\"Just Security\",\"description\":\"A Forum on Law, Rights, and U.S. National Security\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Just Security\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/just-security-logo-wordmark-font2.png?fit=5371%2C1757&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/just-security-logo-wordmark-font2.png?fit=5371%2C1757&ssl=1\",\"width\":5371,\"height\":1757,\"caption\":\"Just Security\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JSBlog\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/just_security\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/just-security-linkedin\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/justsecurityforum\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@JustSecurityForum\",\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/justsecurity.org\"],\"description\":\"Just Security is an editorially independent, non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal that elevates the discourse on national security, democracy and the rule of law, and rights. We publish rigorous, expert analysis and informational resources on the issues that matter most. Our goals are to inform and empower decision-makers with high-quality analysis, foster informed dialogue on challenging issues, and remain accessible to our global audience. Just Security is an essential resource for those shaping a just and secure world. Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.\",\"email\":\"info@justsecurity.org\",\"legalName\":\"Just Security\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/bdad211d9e237ea85c50a15c0d87cc49\",\"name\":\"John Lewis\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/98de5a350d2c7caf54e42befacfeb3ca\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/19d3fcb3cd11f4cdb64a60cbc321ddae273b7dfcd21834e11b10ca7912ec9b52?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/19d3fcb3cd11f4cdb64a60cbc321ddae273b7dfcd21834e11b10ca7912ec9b52?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"John Lewis\"},\"description\":\"John Lewis (Bluesky) is the Deputy Legal Director at Governing for Impact and contributes to the organization\u2019s legal work, including its development of challenges to harmful regulatory policies, preparation of legal primers, and regulatory comment practice.\u00a0Previously, John served as an attorney with the Federal Programs Branch of the Department of Justice, where he defended major federal policies against legal challenge and advised federal agencies concerning litigation risk, and also worked at Democracy Forward, where he served as lead counsel in numerous lawsuits challenging unlawful federal action.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/author\/lewisjohn\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy","description":"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy","og_description":"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/","og_site_name":"Just Security","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JSBlog\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-23T13:04:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-23T14:12:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-12627567191.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"John Lewis, Aaron Baum","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_description":"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.","twitter_image":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-12627567191.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1","twitter_creator":"@just_security","twitter_site":"@just_security","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"John Lewis, Aaron Baum","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/"},"author":{"name":"John Lewis","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/bdad211d9e237ea85c50a15c0d87cc49"},"headline":"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy","datePublished":"2025-09-23T13:04:46+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-23T14:12:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/"},"wordCount":1962,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1","keywords":["Administrative Law","courts","Democracy","Deregulation","executive branch","Federal Courts","Litigation","local government","Rule of Law","Separation of powers","Supreme Court (SCOTUS)","Trump administration second term","Trump v. Casa"],"articleSection":["Courts & Litigation","Democracy & Rule of Law","Democratic Backsliding & Solutions","Executive Branch","Featured Articles","Rule of Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/","url":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/","name":"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1","datePublished":"2025-09-23T13:04:46+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-23T14:12:49+00:00","description":"The administration has turned consent decrees into a deregulatory weapon, and courts are beginning to confront the limits of that strategy.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1","width":1920,"height":1281,"caption":"A view of the front portico of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, DC (via Getty Images)"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/121057\/trump-consent-decrees-dismantle-policy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trump\u2019s Use of Consent Decrees to Dismantle Policy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/","name":"Just Security","description":"A Forum on Law, Rights, and U.S. National Security","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#organization","name":"Just Security","url":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/just-security-logo-wordmark-font2.png?fit=5371%2C1757&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/just-security-logo-wordmark-font2.png?fit=5371%2C1757&ssl=1","width":5371,"height":1757,"caption":"Just Security"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JSBlog\/","https:\/\/x.com\/just_security","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/just-security-linkedin\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/justsecurityforum\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@JustSecurityForum","https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/justsecurity.org"],"description":"Just Security is an editorially independent, non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal that elevates the discourse on national security, democracy and the rule of law, and rights. We publish rigorous, expert analysis and informational resources on the issues that matter most. Our goals are to inform and empower decision-makers with high-quality analysis, foster informed dialogue on challenging issues, and remain accessible to our global audience. Just Security is an essential resource for those shaping a just and secure world. Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.","email":"info@justsecurity.org","legalName":"Just Security"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/bdad211d9e237ea85c50a15c0d87cc49","name":"John Lewis","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/98de5a350d2c7caf54e42befacfeb3ca","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/19d3fcb3cd11f4cdb64a60cbc321ddae273b7dfcd21834e11b10ca7912ec9b52?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/19d3fcb3cd11f4cdb64a60cbc321ddae273b7dfcd21834e11b10ca7912ec9b52?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"John Lewis"},"description":"John Lewis (Bluesky) is the Deputy Legal Director at Governing for Impact and contributes to the organization\u2019s legal work, including its development of challenges to harmful regulatory policies, preparation of legal primers, and regulatory comment practice.\u00a0Previously, John served as an attorney with the Federal Programs Branch of the Department of Justice, where he defended major federal policies against legal challenge and advised federal agencies concerning litigation risk, and also worked at Democracy Forward, where he served as lead counsel in numerous lawsuits challenging unlawful federal action.","url":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/author\/lewisjohn\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-1262756719.jpg?fit=1920%2C1281&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5gGh3-vux","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3246"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121057"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121057\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":121199,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121057\/revisions\/121199"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/121067"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121057"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=121057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}