WASHINGTON — It has become a routine process: A judge in the lower courts hinders a segment of President Donald Trump’s initiatives, an appellate panel declines to stay the order as the legal proceedings continue, and subsequently, the Justice Department appeals to the Supreme Court.
Since the onset of Trump’s second term, his administration’s legal team has approached the top court with emergency appeals nearly weekly.
The Supreme Court, however, is not asked for a final verdict but to establish interim directives while the case navigates through the judicial system.
So far, the justices have addressed 11 cases, with the Trump administration securing triumphs more often than setbacks.
The administration celebrated a win in securing the enforcement of the transgender military service ban under Republican leadership, but it faced a defeat when barred from deporting Venezuelans accused of gang affiliations under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to a well-known El Salvadorian prison.
The latest emergency plea was filed on May 27th.
A federal judge criticized the administration regarding deportations to South Sudan, prompting the Trump administration to request the Supreme Court to intervene against a U.S. District Judge’s order in Boston. The judge argued the White House violated his prior decree with a deportation flight to the African nation carrying individuals convicted of crimes in the U.S.
Judge Brian Murphy concluded that these immigrants deserve a legitimate opportunity to express concerns about potential dangers upon deportation.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump’s chief legal representative at the Supreme Court, urged for an immediate ruling permitting the continuation of these deportations.
He criticized Murphy’s hindrance of deportations, noting the delicate diplomatic challenges in finding countries willing to accept these individuals.
The legal teams representing the deported individuals have been given until Wednesday to respond.
Meanwhile, efforts to bring transparency to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), previously supervised by billionaire Trump advisor Elon Musk until his recent departure, have met resistance. A lawsuit seeks public disclosure on DOGE’s operational proceedings.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) contend that the DOGE, pivotal in Trump’s government reform efforts, should comply with the Freedom of Information Act.
The organization warns that DOGE possesses substantial authority sans transparency. Conversely, the administration maintains that DOGE functions as an advisory entity, exempt from FOIA mandates.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling suggests DOGE’s role exceeds mere advisement, especially in closing the U.S. Agency for International Development and reducing government spending significantly.
The administration has challenged Cooper’s orders demanding document disclosure and mandated responses from acting Administrator Amy Gleason under oath.
Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary halt on these orders, pending further Supreme Court deliberation.
Another legal battle involves access to Social Security systems. Federal privacy laws held by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland have inhibited the Trump administration’s attempts to allow DOGE unrestricted access under the guise of identifying federal government inefficiencies.
The court rebuked DOGE’s pursuits, representing them as an unwarranted “fishing expedition” based on mere suspicions of fraud.
The Trump administration argues that the ruling interrupts DOGE’s activities and encroaches upon executive branch prerogatives, and is seeking relief from the Supreme Court.
The justices could decide on this matter at any point.
Lastly, efforts to alter longstanding citizenship rules are underway. Upon assuming office, Trump’s executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born to undocumented or temporary residents faced immediate judicial obstacles.
The administration has contested multiple court orders impeding nationwide implementation of these changes.
In a rare procedural move, the justices have already listened to arguments in an emergency appeal earlier in May. While the final resolution remains indeterminate, the justices appeared keen on maintaining the status quo while seeking alternatives to blanket national injunctions.
These injunctions are perceived as both a crucial check on Trump’s governmental restructures and a source of growing irritation for him and his supporters.
During the recent hearings, Sauer revealed that 40 nationwide injunctions have been instated since Trump began his second term.
The Supreme Court’s decision is anticipated by early summer at the latest.