A familiar pattern has emerged since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: He makes a brash proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.

It’s happened with Trump’s attempts to freeze certain federal funding, undermine birthright citizenship and push out government workers.

Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president, who is determined to expand the limits of his power — sometimes by simply ignoring the laws.

Although Democrats may be encouraged by the initial round of judicial resistance, the legal battles are only beginning. Lawsuits that originated in more liberal jurisdictions like Boston, Seattle and Washington, D.C., could find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent.

“What’s constitutional or not is only as good as the latest court decision,” said Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland public policy professor.

Roughly three dozens lawsuits have already been filed, including by FBI agents who fear they’re being purged for political reasons and families who are concerned about new limitations on healthcare for transgender youth.

The spotlight on the judiciary is brighter because the Republican-controlled Congress has essentially abdicated its role of serving as a check on the presidency. Lawmakers from Trump’s party have acceded to his demands to unilaterally cut spending and fire government watchdogs without proper notice.

That leaves only the courts as a potential guardrail on the president’s ambitions.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour blocked Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which was intended to prevent the children of parents who are in the country illegally from being automatically considered Americans.

Coughenour described birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment, as “a fundamental constitutional right” and he assailed Trump in scathing terms.

“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” said the judge, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

“There are moments in the world’s history where people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?’” Coughenour added. “In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”

The judge had previously called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” when issuing a temporary ruling.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” Coughenour said then. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”

Also on Thursday in Boston, U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. paused Trump’s plan to encourage federal workers to resign by offering them paid leave.

O’Toole, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1995, did not express an opinion on the deferred resignation program, which is commonly described as a buyout. He scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon to consider arguments.

“We continue to believe this program violates the law, and we will continue to aggressively defend our members’ rights,” American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

The White House said at least 40,000 federal workers have already agreed to quit in return for being paid until Sept. 30.

“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

It’s unclear which legal battles will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices can choose what cases to consider. But Trump has nominated three out of nine members, and the court has taken an expansive view of presidential power.