U.S. Supreme Court Grapples with Trump’s Executive Actions in High-Stakes Cases
Since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has been thrust into the center of legal battles over his administration’s sweeping executive actions. From immigration policies to federal workforce firings, the court has addressed a series of challenges that test the limits of presidential power and the judiciary’s role as a check on the executive branch. These cases, which have sparked heated debate, highlight the ongoing tension between Trump’s agenda and constitutional protections, with significant implications for American law and policy.
Transgender Military Ban Takes Effect
On 6th May 2025, the Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to implement a controversial ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military. The unsigned order lifted a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, who had ruled that the policy likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The decision allows the military to discharge thousands of transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges continue in lower courts. The Justice Department argued that the judiciary should not interfere with the executive branch’s authority to determine military eligibility, while critics, including seven active-duty transgender troops and a civil rights group, contend the ban is discriminatory. A separate case challenging the policy is ongoing, with a ruling expected by June 2025.
Birthright Citizenship Under Scrutiny
One of the most contentious issues before the court is Trump’s executive order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, which would affect an estimated 150,000 newborns annually. Signed on his first day back in office, the order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Critics, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general and immigrant rights advocates, argue the policy violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, as affirmed in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. On May 15th, the court heard arguments on the order, with conservative justices appearing open to limiting the use of nationwide injunctions that have blocked Trump’s directive in states like Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts. The administration has also challenged the judiciary’s authority to issue such broad injunctions, arguing they overstep judicial bounds. A final ruling is pending, but legal scholars suggest the court may uphold the 14th Amendment’s protections, potentially invalidating Trump’s order.
Federal Labor Board Firings Blocked
On May 22nd, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from removing two Democratic-appointed members of federal labor boards, Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board. The decision upheld orders by Washington-based federal judges, who ruled that the firings violated protections for independent agency officials established by the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States precedent. This case is seen as a critical test of Trump’s efforts to exert control over federal agencies designed to operate independently. Some justices have signaled a willingness to revisit the 1935 ruling, which could reshape the balance of power between the president and federal agencies if overturned. The legal battle continues in lower courts, with broader implications for the independence of federal institutions.
Deportations and the Alien Enemies Act
The Supreme Court has also intervened in cases involving Trump’s immigration crackdown, particularly his use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, designated as a foreign terrorist organization. On April 7th, the court imposed limits on these deportations, requiring detainees to receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, following arguments that the administration failed to provide due process. On May 17th, the court maintained its block on these deportations, rejecting the administration’s claim that the wartime law allows removals without judicial review. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the court lacked authority to intervene at this stage. The case, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, underscores concerns about the administration’s compliance with judicial orders and due process protections.
These cases are part of a broader wave of over 200 lawsuits challenging Trump’s policies, ranging from mass deportations to the termination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and punitive actions against law firms. Federal judges have issued more than 70 rulings impeding Trump’s agenda, including at least 19 orders halting deportations and 14 blocking transgender-related policies. However, the administration has secured some victories, such as the temporary implementation of a DEI ban at federal agencies and the ability to conduct immigration raids in certain contexts. Legal experts warn that Trump’s aggressive assertions of executive power, coupled with his public criticism of judges as “crooked” or “radical,” risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary. In March, Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump’s call for the impeachment of a judge who blocked deportations, emphasizing that appeals, not impeachment, are the appropriate response to adverse rulings. Additionally, the families of at least 11 judges who ruled against Trump have faced threats and harassment, including anonymous pizza deliveries and bomb threats, raising concerns about judicial independence.