Supreme Court Blockbusters Will Impact Trump’s Presidency

President Donald Trump has spent the opening year of his second term wielding executive authority at a pace unmatched in modern presidential history, issuing a flood of executive orders designed to rapidly implement his policy agenda. Those actions have included sweeping reductions to the federal bureaucracy, a no-compromise immigration crackdown, and the use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs on U.S. trading partners.

The speed and volume of President Trump’s executive actions have eclipsed those of recent administrations, allowing the White House to move quickly on campaign promises that resonated with voters, Fox News reported. But that aggressive approach has also sparked an avalanche of lawsuits, setting the stage for a series of consequential legal showdowns over the scope of presidential power under Article II of the Constitution and the proper role of the courts.

Legal challenges have targeted some of the administration’s most far-reaching orders, including efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, bar transgender individuals from military service, enact sweeping government cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency, and federalize and deploy National Guard troops. Many of those cases remain unresolved, a fact legal analysts say is notable as the administration continues to press forward.

So far, only a limited number of cases tied to President Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution. Those decisions, however, offer insight into how the courts may ultimately view the balance of power between the presidency and the judiciary.

WINS

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory to the Trump administration in Trump v. CASA, ruling 6–3 that federal district courts lack broad authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential executive orders.

While the case originated from President Trump’s executive order addressing birthright citizenship, the justices deliberately avoided ruling on the constitutionality of that policy. Instead, they focused narrowly on whether lower courts can impose universal injunctions that halt executive action nationwide.

The decision carried sweeping consequences, impacting more than 310 federal lawsuits pending at the time that challenged President Trump’s second-term executive orders.

The Court sided with arguments advanced by U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who warned that nationwide injunctions exceed the traditional limits of equitable authority under Article III and create serious practical and constitutional problems.

Firing independent agency heads

The Supreme Court has also signaled a willingness to expand presidential control over so-called “independent” federal agencies.

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted President Trump’s request to pause lower court orders that had reinstated National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris—both Democratic appointees removed by the administration.

That move suggested the Court may be prepared to revisit Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 decision that restricts a president’s ability to remove leaders of certain independent agencies without cause.

In December, the Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case centered on the president’s attempt to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Several justices appeared receptive to allowing the firing and further eroding Humphrey’s protections, though the ultimate scope of any ruling remains unclear.

LOSSES

Tariffs

President Trump’s reliance on emergency authority to impose sweeping tariffs has drawn sharp scrutiny from legal experts and skepticism from members of the Supreme Court.

In Learning Resources v. Trump, challengers argue the administration improperly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a 10 percent tariff on most imports. While the statute grants the president broad authority during national emergencies involving foreign threats, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether such an emergency exists in this context.

Several justices also noted that the law does not explicitly authorize tariffs or taxes, raising doubts about the administration’s legal footing.

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship—one of the most consequential and controversial actions of his second term.

Signed on Trump’s first day back in office, the order would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to parents who are in the country illegally or who hold only temporary legal status. Critics contend the move would overturn nearly 150 years of constitutional precedent rooted in the 14th Amendment.

The order sparked a wave of lawsuits in 2025 from dozens of states and immigration advocacy groups. To date, no court has accepted the administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, setting up what could become a landmark constitutional ruling.

As President Trump continues to press his agenda through executive action, the courts remain a central battleground—one that will shape not only his second term, but the future limits of presidential power itself.