The Judiciary vs. the President

1) A Federal judge rules that the President cannot cut Federal funding to cities that refuse to enforce Federal laws. The argument is that Congress has approved the spending, and therefore the money must be spent! I'll grant that there's a kind of legitimacy to the Article I argument being made here, but it is surprising to learn that the executive -- who swears to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' -- is forbidden from taking action to try to see that laws are in fact faithfully executed rather than ignored.

2) A Federal judge ruled that the administration is forbidden to refuse to pay for sexual reassignment surgery for transgender troops. I can't tell from the article what the legal reasoning was here; as presented in the article, the judge apparently accepts that this is a 'harmful consequence' of Trump's policy, and therefore(?) it must be stopped. I suppose no soldier has ever suffered a harmful consequence from a President's policy? Stop-loss, for example?

3) That judge and another Federal judge both ruled that the President cannot restore the policy on transgender troops that the last President maintained until his final year in office, which policy every previous President maintained throughout their entire term in office. The argument is that the policy that was universally practiced until last year "shocks the conscience."

This is an aggressive set of rulings, all from just the last couple of days but of a piece with the judiciary's highly aggressive approach to this administration. I wonder if they won't regret it in the long term.