Supreme Court Blockbusters Will Impact Trump’s Presidency
President Donald Trump moved with historic speed during the first year of his second term, wielding executive authority to advance an ambitious policy agenda that dramatically reshaped the federal government. His actions included aggressive cuts to sprawling bureaucracies, a no-nonsense immigration enforcement strategy, and the invocation of emergency powers to impose tariffs on foreign trading partners viewed as economic threats to American workers and industry.
The scope and velocity of Trump’s executive orders surpassed those of recent presidents, enabling rapid follow-through on campaign promises that resonated with voters demanding accountability, sovereignty, and economic nationalism, Fox News reported.
That aggressive posture, however, also sparked an avalanche of litigation. Progressive legal groups and allied state officials rushed to court, setting the stage for consequential battles over the limits of presidential power under Article II of the Constitution and the judiciary’s role in restraining executive authority.
Challenges have targeted some of the administration’s most far-reaching actions, including efforts to rein in birthright citizenship, remove transgender service members from the armed forces, implement deep structural cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency, and federalize National Guard units in response to security concerns.
Many of these cases remain unresolved, underscoring the long-term legal stakes of Trump’s second-term agenda.
While dozens of lawsuits remain active, only a small number of cases tied directly to the president’s executive actions have reached final resolution — a fact legal analysts say is notable as the administration continues pressing forward undeterred.
WINS
Limits on nationwide injunctions
In June 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for the Trump administration, ruling 6–3 in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts lack broad authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential executive orders.
Although the case stemmed from Trump’s executive order addressing birthright citizenship, the Court deliberately confined its ruling to the power of lower courts, declining to weigh in on the underlying constitutional question.
The decision had sweeping consequences, affecting more than 310 federal lawsuits pending at the time that sought to halt Trump’s second-term executive actions through universal injunctions.
The Court sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued that nationwide injunctions stretch equitable authority beyond its constitutional limits under Article III and create serious logistical and legal distortions within the federal system.
Firing independent agency heads
The Supreme Court has also signaled a willingness to revisit long-standing limits on presidential control over so-called “independent” agencies.
Earlier in 2025, the justices granted President Trump’s request to pause lower-court rulings that had reinstated National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, both Democratic appointees dismissed by the administration.
That move suggested the Court may be prepared to reconsider Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 decision that restricts a president’s ability to remove leaders of certain federal agencies without cause.
In December, the Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case centered on Trump’s attempt to remove a Federal Trade Commission official. Several justices appeared receptive to curtailing Humphrey’s protections, potentially restoring greater executive accountability over unelected regulators.
LOSSES
Tariffs
President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs has drawn skepticism from legal commentators and members of the Supreme Court alike.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, challengers contend the administration improperly relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a 10 percent tariff on most imports.
While the statute grants the president expansive authority during national emergencies linked to foreign threats, justices across ideological lines questioned whether the legal threshold for such an emergency had been met. Some also noted the law does not explicitly authorize tariffs or taxation.
Birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court has agreed to review President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship — arguably the most constitutionally significant action of his second term.
Signed on Trump’s first day back in office, the order would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or who hold only temporary legal status.
Opponents claim the move would overturn nearly 150 years of precedent associated with the 14th Amendment, while supporters argue that modern interpretations have stretched the amendment beyond its original meaning.
The order prompted a wave of lawsuits in 2025 from Democratic-led states and immigrant advocacy organizations. Thus far, no court has endorsed the administration’s constitutional interpretation, leaving the issue squarely in the Supreme Court’s hands.