President Donald Trump has suffered multiple legal setbacks over the past several months as a number of his initiatives have been blocked.

Nevertheless, the president experienced a courtroom win on Thursday when a judge ruled against a Cornell University student.

Foreign student challenged two of Trump's executive orders

According to The Hill, Momodou Taal has questioned the legality of two executive orders that Trump signed earlier this year.

One of them, which was issued on January 30, called for the deportation of foreign nationals who support the Palestinian terror group Hamas.

Judge refuses Cornell student’s ask to block Trump orders targeting pro-Palestinian protests https://t.co/WQmKUPXvAT

— The Hill (@thehill) March 27, 2025

That move came one day after the president signed an earlier executive order which instructed the attorney general "to employ appropriate civil-rights enforcement authorities" in response to campus antisemitism.

The Hill noted that although Cornel University reinstated Taal after briefly suspending him last year, he has since had his student visa revoked.

Taal voiced support for Hamas following terror attacks which killed 1400 people

The student gained a measure of notoriety for his social media activity following the October 7 terror attacks which left roughly 1400 people dead.

He responded to the massacre by writing, “Colonised peoples have the right to resist by any means necessary,” and “Glory to the resistance!”

Taal previously told The Hill that he filed "the lawsuit as a form of protection seeking national injunction to challenge the constitutionality of these executive orders."

He also spoke of feeling vulnerable following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and alleged anti-Israel protest leader whom the Trump administration is trying to deport.

Taal explained that "given how they went after Mahmoud, who has a similar fact pattern, I didn’t want to be a sitting duck for eventually myself or other international students."

Plaintiffs failed to show "imminent or ongoing threat to their constitutional rights"

However, The Hill reported that Judge Elizabeth Coombe found Taal's lawsuit to be fundamentally flawed even apart from concerns over whether she has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Coombe insisted that Taal and his fellow plaintiffs "have not established that there is an imminent or ongoing threat to their constitutional rights that could be appropriately remedied by the requested restraints."

"Any future harm alleged in their affidavits appears to be speculative and even moot because of the revocation of Taal’s visa," the judge went on to add.