The findings, based on a review of 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Mr Trump returned to the White House and began reshaping government programmes, suggest a pattern of non-compliance that legal experts warn poses a serious threat to the rule of law.

In the 165 cases where courts had ruled against the administration as of mid-July, the government is alleged to have frustrated or outright defied judicial orders in 57 – amounting to almost 35 per cent.

Plaintiffs claim that Justice Department lawyers and the federal agencies they represent have, in some instances, ignored rulings, provided false information, withheld evidence, circumvented court orders, and invented legal pretexts to carry out actions that judges had barred.

Judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have often agreed with these assessments. However, none has yet imposed punitive measures, allowing alleged defiance to continue for weeks or even months in some cases.

Legal analysts say courts are often slow to initiate contempt proceedings, particularly when rulings are under appeal. There are also concerns about enforcement, as the US Marshals Service – responsible for executing court orders – is overseen by a director appointed by the president, raising doubts about whether it would act against recalcitrant officials.

The gravity of the allegations has been underscored by a whistleblower complaint submitted to Congress last month, which accused justice officials of ignoring immigration rulings, advancing arguments with no legal basis, and misrepresenting facts in court.

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor also criticised the administration, writing that officials had “openly flouted” a judge’s order by deporting migrants to countries where they held no citizenship.

While immigration remains the most prominent area of conflict, other disputes involve federal spending and staffing. The administration has also been accused of failing to comply with rulings blocking cuts to aid and workforce reductions.

Mr Trump and his officials deny that they have defied court orders, and instead accuse the judiciary of overreach. In June, the Supreme Court limited the circumstances under which nationwide injunctions against presidential policies can be issued, a decision Mr Trump celebrated as a rebuke to what he called “judicial tyranny”.

“We’ve seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,” he said, incorrectly attributing all adverse rulings to Democratic appointees.

Legal experts have described the administration’s approach as unprecedented. Retired federal judge and former Watergate prosecutor Paul Michel likened the situation to the 1974 showdown between the Supreme Court and President Richard Nixon, when Nixon initially refused to release Oval Office tapes.

“The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,” Mr Michel said. “We’re in new territory.”

Concerns over the administration’s defiance date back to the early part of Mr Trump’s second term, when the Supreme Court ordered him to allow the release of congressionally approved foreign aid that he had frozen. Two months after a federal court temporarily blocked the freeze, lawyers for relief organisations said the government had taken “literally zero steps to allocate this money”.