But for now, here are key passages in several noteworthy rulings.

The president’s power to fire appointees

“A president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional order, the president is tasked to be a conscientious custodian of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the judiciary.

“At issue in this case, is the president’s insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way. Luckily, the Framers, anticipating such a power grab, vested in Article III, not Article II, the power to interpret the law, including resolving conflicts about congressional checks on presidential authority. The president’s interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power — or, more aptly, his aspiration — is flat wrong.”

Judge Beryl A. Howell of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to dismiss members of the National Labor Relations Board at will.

Birthright citizenship

“The loss of birthright citizenship — even if temporary, and later restored at the conclusion of litigation — has cascading effects that would cut across a young child’s life (and the life of that child’s family), very likely leaving permanent scars. The record before the court establishes that children born without a recognized or lawful status face barriers to accessing critical healthcare, among other services, along with the threat of removal to countries they have never lived in and possible family separation. That is irreparable harm.”

Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, ruling that Mr. Trump cannot enact an executive order effectively abolishing birthright citizenship.

Freezing federal funding and foreign aid

“In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable. Either way, defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”

Judge Loren L. AliKhan of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally freeze all government grants, loans and financial assistance.

“The provision and administration of foreign aid has been a joint enterprise between our two political branches. That partnership is built not out of convenience, but of constitutional necessity. It reflects Congress and the executive’s ‘firmly established,’ shared constitutional responsibilities over foreign policy and it reflects the division of authorities dictated by the Constitution as it relates to the appropriation of funds and executing on those appropriations.

“Congress, exercising its exclusive Article I power of the purse, appropriates funds to be spent toward specific foreign policy aims. The president, exercising a more general Article II power, decides how to spend those funds in faithful execution of the law. And so foreign aid has proceeded over the years.”

Judge Amir H. Ali of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that Mr. Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by freezing almost all spending by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“Stripped of its equitable flair, the requested relief seeks one thing: The conference wants the court to order the government to stop withholding the money due under the cooperative agreements. In even plainer English: The conference wants the government to keep paying up. Thus the conference ‘seeks the classic contractual remedy of specific performance.’ But this court cannot order the government to pay money due on a contract. Such a request for an order that the government ‘must perform’ on its contract is one that ‘must be resolved by the claims court.’”

Judge Trevor N. McFadden of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, denying a request by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that the Trump administration uphold contracts for refugee aid funding.

Efforts to remake the federal government

“USDS’s actions to date have proceeded remarkably swiftly. In the less than two months since President Trump’s inauguration, USDS has reportedly caused 3% of the federal civilian work force to resign, shuttered an entire agency, cut billions of dollars from the federal budget, canceled hundreds of government contracts, terminated thousands of federal employees, and obtained access to vast troves of sensitive personal and financial data.

“USDS appears able to do this in part because of its access to many agency’s IT systems, which help the department carry out its objectives at warp speed. But the rapid pace of USDS’s actions, in turn, requires the quick release of information about its structure and activities. That is especially so given the secrecy with which USDS has operated.”

Judge Christopher R. Cooper of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that the U.S. DOGE Service is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Funding for transgender care

“Plaintiffs have established that the hardship they are suffering, as well as the hardship PFLAG’s members are experiencing, are caused by the discontinuation of what has been deemed by medical professionals to be essential care. This hardship comes as a result of the conditioning on federal funding outlined in the executive orders and is nonspeculative, concrete and potentially catastrophic. Specifically, the sudden denial or interruption of plaintiffs’ medical care has caused or is expected to soon cause unwanted physical changes, depression, increased anxiety, heightened gender dysphoria, severe distress, risk of·suicide, uncertainty about how to obtain medical care, impediments to maintaining a social life, and fear of discrimination, including hate crimes.”

Judge Brendan A. Hurson of Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, ruling that the Trump administration cannot enforce an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from providers of gender-affirming medical care for people under 19.