A federal judge raked President Donald Trump’s administration over the coals on Monday in a case involving his plans to renovate a public golf course in Washington, DC.

After the administration cut down more than 430 trees without properly notifying US District Judge Ana Reyes, she said last week she was “furious” and issued a court order to stop it.

Then, after Trump on Sunday said construction would begin “immediately” despite the judge’s order, she forced officials to testify on Monday and sought to highlight the apparent unwillingness of Justice Department lawyers to vouch for the administration’s claims in court.

All of this comes as the administration accuses the judge of “egregious” behavior and seeks to remove her from the case. It’s been quite the scene. But it’s also been a long time coming.

Reyes’ exasperated displays come after a series of similar examples of the administration flouting and even violating court orders.

District judges like Reyes ruled that the administration had violated court orders in at least 31 lawsuits over 15 months, according to an Associated Press investigation in May. That’s in addition to more than 250 other examples of noncompliance that judges have found related to immigration cases. And the judges finding these violations are often Republican-nominated ones.

Any one of these examples could be understood as a mistake or a mishap. But the growing volume of them — along with Trump and those around him often speaking openly about violating court orders, as Trump did Sunday — suggest there’s something more going on. (A whistleblower last year also claimed that a top DOJ official explicitly spoke about the possible need to ignore court orders.) At the same time, there’s been no accountability that is seeming to make the administration change its approach. Because this just keeps happening.

Let’s recap some of the high-profile examples of the administration flouting or violating court orders, and what became of them.

Mere weeks into Trump’s second term, a federal judge in Rhode Island found the administration had violated a court order by failing to un-freeze many of the federal grants it blocked after he ordered it to do so.

The conclusion: The judge opted not to hold the administration in contempt of court, but he did issue a warning. He quoted from a 1975 Supreme Court ruling that said: “Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect.”US District Judge James Boasberg ordered the administration to turn around planes that were deporting migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. But the flights continued.

The conclusion: Boasberg initiated contempt hearings, saying that “probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”But after a lengthy process that included plenty of stops and starts, two Trump-nominated judges on a divided appeals court ended the inquiry and called it a “clear abuse of discretion.”US District Judge Paula Xinis found the administration had engaged in “willful and intentional noncompliance” with her orders related to the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, later charged criminally and tried to deport again.

The conclusion: Xinis also repeatedly floated possible contempt. But eventually, in June 2025, Abrego Garcia was returned, despite the administration having previously claimed it didn’t have the power to make that happen.

Around the same time, US District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts said that the administration’s rapid third-country deportations of migrants despite his injunction were “unquestionably violative of this court’s order.”He also accused the administration of manufacturing chaos and trying to evade court orders.

The conclusion: Murphy said he would leave the contempt question “for another day,” but he didn’t proceed with such an inquiry.

Other judges have found hundreds of instances of immigration authorities failing to comply with immigration-related court orders. Patrick Schiltz, the GOP-nominated chief US district judge in Minnesota, said he found more than 200 such instances.

The conclusion: Schiltz at one point took the extraordinary step of summoning Todd Lyons, then the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and threatening him with contempt. But Schiltz canceled the contempt hearing after ICE complied with an order to release a wrongly detained man from Ecuador.

Despite a court order blocking Trump from barring media outlets whose coverage he didn’t like, including CNN, from the White House grounds, those journalists were initially unable to access the grounds. And Trump has since then barred CNN from traveling with him on Air Force One.

The conclusion: The access to the grounds was soon restored as the case proceeds. The access on Air Force One wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the court order, and the White House has continued to block CNN from boarding on its assigned pool days.

Despite another federal judge ruling that the administration had to cancel all future airings of Trump’s controversial taxpayer-funded political ads, the administration was again slow to comply. The ads aired hundreds more times, CNN reported last week.

The conclusion: A Justice Department lawyer apologized “to the court and the plaintiffs,” and no further legal action has been taken.

Trump-appointed US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland has found that ICE wrongfully deported more than 50 unaccompanied minors who had blanket court orders barring their removal. And in a separate case, she found it twice wrongfully deported an asylum-seeker to El Salvador, in violation of three court orders.

The conclusion: These two examples appear to be the only ones in which a judge has found the administration in contempt. Gallagher held the administration in contempt for the first one in August, according to Law360, and for the second one a few weeks ago.

Despite those two rulings, the administration has flouted or delayed complying with court orders in three other cases — the media ban, the political ads and now the golf course — since then.