In Washington, the procedural pattern has become quite familiar: A federal judge strikes down an aspect of President Donald Trump’s policies, an appellate court declines to halt the decision, and the Justice Department subsequently seeks intervention from the Supreme Court. Since the commencement of Trump’s second term, the administration’s legal team has approached the Supreme Court with emergency appeals nearly weekly, though the frequency has recently decreased.
The Supreme Court is tasked not with providing a definitive ruling but with setting interim guidelines as the legal process unfolds. In the 14 cases reviewed so far, the Trump administration has largely been successful, including a recent victory where the Court permitted the continuation of rapid deportations to countries other than migrants’ places of origin. Other triumphs for the administration include the enforcement of a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. However, the administration faced a setback when the court disallowed the application of the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans labeled as gang members.
Several appeals are still pending before the Court. One pressing issue involves the Education Department, which laid off nearly 1,400 staff members. A federal judge in Boston mandated the reinstatement of these employees and obstructed Trump’s attempt to dismantle the department, a major campaign promise. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun argued that the layoffs could severely impact the department’s functioning. While the federal appeals court in Boston refused to pause Joun’s order, the Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, petitioned the Supreme Court, suggesting that Joun had exceeded his authority and conflicting with the administration’s goals to streamline the department. Opposition came from Massachusetts school districts and education groups, who have challenged Trump’s plan.
In another development, a request was renewed to facilitate the downsizing of the federal workforce, pending a lawsuit by labor unions and municipalities. An appellate court left the downsizing plans on hold, citing potential extensive effects on systems such as food safety and veterans’ healthcare. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that significant workforce reductions require congressional consent, which the administration initially challenged but retracted for legal technicalities. This matter awaits potential action from the high court.
Addressing changes to citizenship rules, the Trump administration faced prompt judicial opposition to the executive order signed on Trump’s inauguration day. This order aimed to deny citizenship to children born to individuals unlawfully or temporarily residing in the U.S. The administration appealed against these judicial blocks that halted nationwide policy enforcement. A rare Supreme Court session in May for this emergency appeal showed the justices’ inclination to suspend changes while exploring alternative legal mechanisms to achieve similar results as the nationwide injunctions that have frequently obstructed Trump’s efforts to realign government operations.
Nationwide injunctions have posed significant hurdles for Trump’s administrative agendas, with 40 issued since his second term’s onset, according to Sauer. The Supreme Court may rule soon, likely by early summer, as it continues to navigate these complex legal challenges.