The Trump administration’s apparent legal strategy of stonewalling congressional subpoenas on the basis Congress lacks investigative authority was put to rest last week in two court proceedings, and the results were swift and decisive.

Within three days, two federal judges ruled in favor of congressional subpoena powers, demonstrating a flaw in the administration’s strategy to fight all subpoenas. The rulings also showed speed in decision-making usually uncharacteristic of complex federal litigation. Judge Amit Mehta issued a sweeping 41-page ruling seven days after hearing arguments. That ruling confirmed the House Oversight Committee’s authority to subpoena financial records from an accounting firm Trump used.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued Congress is a legislative body and there is no legislative purpose to reviewing the president’s financial records. Mehta said the courts have long held Congress is acting to legislate when using its subpoena powers.

The Trump team then argued Congress is not a law enforcement agency, nor is the president a proper subject of investigation. Mehta cited the Watergate hearings that led to the resignation of former President Richard Nixon to quash that argument. Mehta went on to argue it is “simply not fathomable” a constitution that grants the House “full Power of Impeachment” would deny the same body the power to investigate a president for unlawful conduct.

Two days later, Judge Edgardo Ramos, in ruling against Trump appeals that subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One lacked the same legitimate legislative purpose, found the administration’s argument “unpersuasive,” adding it is “not the role of the judicial branch to question” congressional motives. Ramos denied every claim made by Trump lawyers.

If Trump’s legal strategy to date has been to hamstring congressional investigative efforts by using the usually much slower mechanism of judicial review, the strategy doesn’t seem to be working.

This approach stands in stark contrast to other inquiries into the executive branch by the legislative branch of government. For instance, former Attorney General Eric Holder under Barack Obama was held in contempt during a congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, involving the illegal sale and tracking of guns to presumed Mexican drug cartels. That inquiry took eight years to unravel in the courts because the Obama administration released some information while arguing to withhold other documents.

Trump’s position to withhold all information may significantly contribute to his judicial undoing.

In both of the rulings last week, Trump arguments lacked nuance, or contested legal principles, so both judges were able to make swift rulings, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti recently noted in a Politico report. For instance, in one case, Trump lawyers cited only one case in support of their argument to withhold documents from Congress and that case actually contradicted their claims.

Mariotti touched on how if the administration was more accommodating in limited release of requested information, as was the case with Operation Fast and Furious, and then provided fact-specific and precedent-laden objections to other information that required judges to engage in time-consuming review, the administration could extend judicial examination well beyond the 2020 presidential election that many believe Trump will win if congressional investigations or an impeachment inquiry are not started before.

All this is to say, once the courts begin chipping away at administration claims, that pattern will guide rulings on future disputes. Since the Trump lawsuits have virtually ignored the constitutional system out of the gate, judges are unlikely to confer the usual deference they otherwise might on a sitting president, despite Trump having appointed hundreds of judges to the federal bench, some of whom may concur with his sweeping views of executive power.

By fighting every request, ignoring subpoenas, and avoiding even the appearance of compliance with case law, the courts may determine the administration is acting in bad faith, and that only gives traction to more investigations and a greater likelihood of an impeachment inquiry, Mariotti noted.