Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has faced a string of legal battles at the US Supreme Court over his executive orders and policy moves. These disputes have touched on immigration, federal employment, military rules, education policy, and medical research funding.
People from both progressive and conservative groups, different states, and many individuals have questioned Trump’s changes. Their lawsuits have led to many cases and important court decisions throughout 2025. Some cases focus on how much power the president should have, what judges can do to stop national policies, and how to protect people affected by these new rules.
Most of these arguments are really about how much control the president should have under the law. Big cases began with fights over immigration and birthright citizenship. Other cases soon appeared about federal layoffs, rules for transgender people in the military, and big changes to education and research spending. Judges in lower courts often tried to limit Trump’s policies, but the Supreme Court sometimes changed or narrowed those rulings.
At the heart of many disputes is the question of how much power the Executive Branch can wield under the Constitution. The new term began with confrontations over immigration rules and birthright citizenship, and rapidly broadened to include sweeping layoffs in the federal workforce, controversial bans on transgender military service, and deep cuts to education and research programmes.
Here is a list of the key cases:
On 27 June, the court limited judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies, siding with Trump in a case over his order restricting automatic birthright citizenship. The decision did not immediately reinstate the order but directed lower courts to narrow their blocks.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, according to Reuters, “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.”
Trump had signed the directive on 20 January, instructing agencies not to recognise citizenship for US-born children unless one parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
On 23 June, the court allowed the administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, even without hearings on potential risks they might face there. Immigrant rights groups had argued the policy violated due process rights.
The justices later expanded the ruling, lifting limits on deportations to South Sudan despite instability there.
Immigration raids in California
On 7 August, the Justice Department asked the court to override a lower court order restricting immigration raids in Southern California. The order had barred agents from targeting people solely based on race, ethnicity, or language. Plaintiffs, including Latino US citizens, alleged unconstitutional profiling.
Immigration “parole” revocations
On 30 May, the court allowed the administration to revoke parole status for more than 500,000 migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Parole had been granted under the Biden administration for humanitarian reasons.
Protected status for Venezuelans
On 19 May, the justices permitted the end of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans, a programme shielding them from deportation and providing work permits. A lower court judge had called the administration’s justification “baseless and smacks of racism,” as per Reuters.
Deportation of Venezuelans
The court kept in place a block on deporting Venezuelans under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, after challenges from the ACLU. The administration had described the migrants as members of the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim their lawyers dispute.
Wrongful deportation of Salvadoran man
In April, the justices directed officials to return Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant wrongly deported despite having US citizen family members. He has since been flown back and faces criminal charges, which he denies.
On 6 May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump’s ban on transgender service members. Lower courts had blocked the policy, citing constitutional concerns. Civil rights groups and transgender troops continue to challenge the order.
On 8 July, the justices permitted large-scale federal layoffs across multiple agencies. Earlier, on 8 April, they also blocked a judge’s order that would have required the government to rehire thousands of recently dismissed employees.
In May and July, the court backed Trump’s power to remove members of independent agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and federal labour boards. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, warning that the ruling “all but overturned” precedent protecting agency independence.
Watchdog agency head
In February, the court declined to immediately allow Trump to oust the head of the Office of Special Counsel, a watchdog protecting whistleblowers. The case was later resolved when the official dropped his challenge
On 14 July, the court allowed the administration to proceed with plans to dismantle the Education Department and redistribute its functions, despite ongoing legal challenges.
Teacher training grants
On 4 April, the justices let the administration cut $600 million in teacher training funds. The programmes had focused on recruiting educators, including through diversity initiatives.
NIH research grants
On 21 August, the court permitted sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health funding for projects related to racial minorities and LGBT communities. The administration described it as part of its rollback of diversity and inclusion programmes.
On 6 June, the justices allowed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive Social Security data, despite privacy concerns raised by unions and advocacy groups.
That same day, the court temporarily blocked orders requiring DOGE to release records under the Freedom of Information Act, siding with the administration’s view that the entity was advisory rather than a formal agency.
On 5 March, the Supreme Court declined to let the administration withhold payments to foreign aid groups for work already completed. Judges had previously ordered the government to release the funds, rejecting Trump’s attempt to halt humanitarian projects.
(With inputs from Reuters)
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
