The U.S. Supreme Court has acted in a series of cases involving challenges to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump and actions by his administration since he returned to office in January. These cases have involved his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, deportations, protected status for certain migrants, a transgender military ban, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, payments to foreign aid organizations and access to Social Security data.
Here is a look at these cases.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
The justices on June 27 curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies in a ruling in the legal fight over Mr. Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The ruling did not let Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the order’s legality. The decision granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out.
“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,” conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the decision.
Mr. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.
‘THIRD COUNTRY’ DEPORTATIONS
The court on June 23 cleared the way for Mr. Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. The court granted the administration’s request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called “third countries” get a “meaningful opportunity” to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18, finding that the administration’s policy likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the policy.
SOUTH SUDAN DEPORTATIONS
The court on July 3 lifted limits Murphy had imposed to protect eight men who the administration sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan as part of its policy of deportations to “third countries.” The court granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision on the matter also extended to the judge’s separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan.
IMMIGRATION RAIDS
The administration on August 7 turned to the court to defend its aggressive immigration raids after a judge blocked agents from profiling people based on race or language in pursuit of deportation targets. The Justice Department asked the court to lift U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong’s order temporarily barring agents from stopping or detaining people without “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally, by relying solely on race or ethnicity, or if they speak Spanish or English with an accent. Frimpong’s order applied to her court’s jurisdiction over much of Southern California.
A proposed class action lawsuit filed by Latino plaintiffs including some U.S. citizens targeted by agents called the raids, interrogations and detentions a violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
REVOKING IMMIGRATION ‘PAROLE’
The court on May 30 let Mr. Trump’s administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order halting the administration’s move to end the immigration “parole” granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Mr. Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out.
Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under U.S. law to be in the country for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called “expedited removal.”
PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS
The court on May 19 allowed the administration to end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States by Mr. Biden. It granted a Justice Department request to lift U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to terminate deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the temporary protected status, or TPS, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work permits.
Chen had ruled that Ms. Noem violated a federal law that governs the actions of federal agencies. The judge also said the administration’s portrayal of the whole Venezuelan TPS population as criminals was “baseless and smacks of racism.”
DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS
The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Mr. Trump’s deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now. The action came after the court ordered on April 19 a temporary stop to the administration’s deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention center in Texas.
The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law’s use for this purpose is being contested. The administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this allegation.
WRONGLY DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN
The court on April 10 directed the administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the U.S. government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador. The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens. Mr. Abrego had challenged the legality of his deportation.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Mr. Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Mr. Abrego has pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Abrego was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and questioned about alleged affiliation with the criminal gang MS-13, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. His lawyers have denied the alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on March 15 on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador that also included Venezuelan migrants.
TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN
The court on May 6 permitted Trump’s administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, letting the armed forces discharge thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. The court granted the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle’s nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump’s policy.
Settle had found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Justice Department had said Settle usurped the authority of the government’s branch of government – headed by Trump – to determine who may serve in the military. In the case before Settle, seven active-duty transgender troops, a transgender man seeking to enlist and a civil rights advocacy group sued over the ban.
MASS FEDERAL LAYOFFS
The justices on July 8 cleared the way for the administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies. At the administration’s request, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. Ms. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONERS
The court on July 23 let Trump remove three Democratic members of the government’s top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. It lifted U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox’s order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr.
But the Supreme Court indicated that the administration was likely to show that the president is empowered by the Constitution to remove members of the commission. In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the decision “all but overturned” a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency officials.
LABOR BOARD OFFICIALS
The court on May 22 allowed Mr. Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire. Both were appointed to their posts by Mr. Biden.
The firings were part of Mr. Trump’s efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from presidential control. The May 22 decision also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. “We disagree,” the court stated, calling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”
FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
The justices on April 8 blocked a judge’s order for Mr. Trump’s administration to rehire thousands of fired employees. The court put on hold U.S. Judge William Alsup’s March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues. Mr. Alsup’s ruling had applied to probationary employees at the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury. Probationary workers typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees serving in new roles.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING
The court on July 14 cleared the way for the administration to dismantle the Department of Education, part of Trump’s bid to shrink the federal government’s role in education in favor of more control by the states. The justices lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 department workers affected by mass layoffs and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out. The department was created by a law passed by Congress in 1979.
MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
The court on August 21 let the administration proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants for research related to racial minorities or LGBT people, part of Trump’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and transgender identity. It granted the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Judge William Young’s decision in June that the grant terminations violated federal law, while a legal challenge brought by researchers and 16 U.S. states plays out in a lower court. The NIH is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research.
TEACHER TRAINING GRANTS
The justices on April 4 let Trump’s administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants – part of his crackdown on diversity initiatives. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s March 10 order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate in eight Democratic-led states funding for grants under two teacher training programs while a legal challenge by the states continues.
The states sued after the department announced that it had cut $600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called “divisive ideologies” including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. The grant programs were established to help support institutions that recruit and train educators in a bid to address critical teacher shortages, especially in rural and underserved communities.
SOCIAL SECURITY DATA
The court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in Mr. Trump’s drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems. At the Justice Department’s request, the justices put on hold U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander’s order that had largely blocked DOGE’s access to “personally identifiable information” in data such as medical and financial records while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE had been spearheaded by Elon Musk before the billionaire left the government and had a falling out with Trump. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration’s most sensitive data systems.
DOGE TRANSPARENCY
The justices on June 6 extended their block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog advocacy group that sought details on its operations. The court on May 23 had issued a temporary pause. The justices put on hold U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s orders for DOGE to respond requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information. Cooper had concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The administration contends DOGE is an advisory entity not subject to FOIA.
PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS
The court on March 5 declined to let Mr. Trump’s administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world. The court upheld U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past work.
Aid organizations accused Mr. Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorized by Congress.
FIRED WATCHDOG AGENCY HEAD
The court on February 21 declined to let Mr. Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge’s order had temporarily blocked the ouster. The court postponed action on the Justice Department’s request to lift U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s February 12 order that had temporarily blocked Trump’s removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger on March 6 ended his legal challenge to his firing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Mr. Trump’s action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers. – Reuters
A new chapter for the Philippine startup economy
Join the conversations shaping the region’s future