In recent developments from Washington, President Donald Trump has been employing a strategy reminiscent of tactics used during his first term in dealing with legal challenges in the courts. Faced with numerous setbacks in the lower federal courts, the Trump administration is turning to the conservative-majority Supreme Court more frequently, seeking intervention at earlier stages in various cases.
In the past week alone, the Justice Department has submitted three requests to the Supreme Court, bringing the total to six since Trump assumed office just over two months ago. These are part of a broader challenge against more than 130 lawsuits opposing the President’s slew of executive orders, with the court system increasingly becoming a battleground for contesting his policies. These legal actions are primarily originating from more liberal regions of the United States.
According to data released by the Justice Department in a recent Supreme Court filing, federal judges have issued adverse rulings against the administration in over 40 instances, granting temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. These cases address issues such as shifts in birthright citizenship, federal spending allocations, transgender rights, and deportations carried out under an infrequently invoked 18th-century law.
The frequency of appeals to the Supreme Court—a court Trump has notably influenced by nominating three justices—is not just about obtaining favorable outcomes. There’s an underlying objective to communicate a message to federal judges, who Trump and his supporters argue are exceeding their judicial remit. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris articulated this sentiment, stating that the Supreme Court needs to intervene urgently to prevent what is seen as overreach in the issuance of temporary restraining orders.
Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and an expert on the rise of emergency appeals, highlighted the tension in these cases. He posed a critical question regarding how firmly the Supreme Court will stand in opposition to the President’s strategies. Historical context provided by Vladeck shows that during Trump’s initial presidency, the Justice Department engaged the Supreme Court 41 times with emergency appeals, obtaining full or partial victories in 28 cases. Comparatively, previous administrations under Obama and George W. Bush pursued emergency relief through the Supreme Court on only eight occasions spanning sixteen years.
Typically, Supreme Court cases evolve over extended periods, sometimes months. However, emergency measures are often expedited, concluding in weeks or even days, with concise briefings and rulings delivered devoid of detailed legal reasoning usually associated with high court decisions. This year’s trend has seen the Supreme Court largely sidestep these urgent administration requests, although this could prove challenging as the volume and profile of appeals intensify.
One notable test case involves Trump’s deportation order, which aims to significantly impact immigration policy—a cornerstone of his presidential campaign. The administration employed an 18th-century statutory provision to hasten the deportations of Venezuelan migrants purported to have ties to a notorious gang. However, lawyers contesting these deportations argued that due process was overlooked, leading to a favorable ruling for them from U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg. Despite government planes continuing some flights, a legal tussle remains ongoing, with the Trump administration appealing to the Supreme Court to resume deportations while rerouting judicial oversight to Texas.
Adding to the legal complexity, the mass dismissal of federal employees has led to significant litigation. The administration’s decision to reduce the federal workforce dramatically has resulted in lawsuits from affected employees, particularly probationary workers. A California judge’s instruction to reinstate thousands of these workers prompted the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the federal judiciary is encroaching upon executive branch prerogatives.
Furthermore, Trump’s staunch opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, particularly in educational contexts, has faced judicial roadblocks. Lawsuits from Democratic-led states argue that federal funding cuts to teacher training linked to the anti-DEI push exacerbate educator shortages. A judge in Boston has temporarily blocked these reductions, a decision now contested in the Supreme Court by the Justice Department.
Lastly, Trump’s attempt to amend birthright citizenship regulations, enshrined in the Constitution, has yet to gain judicial support. While a nationwide block exists against the order, the administration’s strategy pivots on narrowing the scope of such judicial interventions, seeking high court involvement to limit the reach of these blocks.