Factbox-Major cases involving Trump before the US Supreme Court

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with a series of cases involving challenges to the actions of President Donald Trump and his administration since he returned to office in January. These cases have involved the U.S. Federal Reserve, tariffs, immigration policy, domestic troop deployment, birthright citizenship, transgender rights, firings of federal workers and agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, foreign aid and other matters.

Here is a look at these cases.

TRUMP TARIFFS

The court will hear arguments on November 5 over the legality of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs in a major test of one of his boldest assertions of executive power that has been central to his economic and trade agenda. It took up the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing most of his tariffs under a federal law meant for emergencies. The case implicates trillions of dollars in customs duties over the next decade. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. The tariffs were challenged by various businesses and 12 U.S. states.

CHICAGO-AREA TROOP DEPLOYMENT

The administration on October 17 asked the court to allow Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area, as he moves to dispatch military personnel to a growing number of Democratic-led locales and expand the use of the armed forces for domestic purposes. The Justice Department asked the court to block U.S. District Judge April Perry’s ruling that halted the deployment of hundreds of troops over the objection of Illinois state officials and local leaders, while litigation challenging Trump’s plan continues. The administration has said that danger to federal property and personnel posed by protests against Trump’s hardline immigration enforcement policies justified the deployment. Given events on the ground, the judge questioned the administration’s stated reasons for sending in the military.

FIRING FED GOVERNOR

The justices will hear arguments in January over Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a major legal battle over the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official as he challenges the central bank’s independence. The court declined to immediately decide a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge’s order that temporarily blocked Trump from removing Cook. In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only “for cause,” though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. Trump claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump in August after the president announced he would remove her. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give the president the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance. The precise date of the arguments has not been set.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FIRING

The justices will hear arguments on December 8 over Trump’s firing of a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission in a major test of presidential power over government agencies designed by Congress to be independent. The court has let Trump remove Rebecca Slaughter for now while the case plays out. Slaughter sued after being dismissed from the consumer protection and antitrust agency before her term expires in 2029. The case gives the court a chance to overrule a landmark 90-year-old precedent upholding job protections put in place by Congress to give the heads of certain federal agencies a degree of independence from presidential control. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in July issued an order blocking Trump’s firing of Slaughter, rejecting the administration’s argument that the tenure protections unlawfully encroach on presidential power.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP 

The administration asked the court on September 26 to decide the legality of Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship in the United States, teeing up a major test of one of his most contentious policies that could alter how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood on the subject. The Justice Department filed two appeals of lower court rulings that blocked an executive order Trump signed in January as a key part of his hardline approach toward immigration. The order 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, called a “green card” holder.

At an earlier phase of the case, the Supreme Court on June 27 curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies. The ruling did not let Trump’s birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately and did not address the directive’s legality. 

IMMIGRATION RAIDS

The court on September 8 backed Trump’s hardline approach toward immigration by letting federal agents proceed with raids in Southern California targeting people for deportation based on their race or language. It granted a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge’s order temporarily barring agents from stopping or detaining people without “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally, by relying on race or ethnicity, or if they speak Spanish or English with an accent, among other factors. U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong had found on July 11 that the administration’s actions likely violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS

The court on October 3 again cleared the way for the administration to revoke a temporary legal protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the United States, backing a key Trump priority as he pursues a policy of mass deportations. It granted the administration’s request to put on hold U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s ruling that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to end the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, granted to the migrants under Trump’s Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while litigation proceeds.

The court in May sided with the administration to lift Chen’s temporary order issued at an earlier stage of the case. The TPS 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.

REVOKING IMMIGRATION ‘PAROLE’

The court on May 30 let 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 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.”

DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS

The court on May 16 kept in place its block on 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. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this allegation.  

‘THIRD COUNTRY’ DEPORTATIONS

The court on June 23 cleared the way for 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 Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the policy.

SOUTH SUDAN DEPORTATIONS

The justices 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.

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. Abrego had challenged the legality of his deportation.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego pleaded not guilty.

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. 

PASSPORTS FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

The administration on September 19 asked the court to allow it to block the issuance of passports that reflect the gender identities of transgender and nonbinary Americans. The Justice Department asked the justices to lift U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick’s order that bars the State Department from enforcing Trump’s policy. The dispute is one of several over Trump’s executive order directing the government to recognize only two biologically distinct sexes, male and female. Kobick ruled that the passport policy was arbitrary and rooted in an irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans that violated their equal protection rights under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

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 right to equal protection under the law. 

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. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority, siding with a group of unions, nonprofits 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. 

LABOR BOARD OFFICIALS

The court on May 22 allowed 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 Biden. The firings were part of Trump’s efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from presidential control. 

FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The justices on April 8 blocked a judge’s order for 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. 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.

FOREIGN AID CUTS

The court on September 26 allowed Trump to withhold about $4 billion in foreign aid authorized by Congress for the current fiscal year as he pursues his “America First” agenda. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. The justices for now granted the Justice Department’s request to block U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order that had directed the administration to promptly take steps to spend the aid at issue. Acting in a lawsuit by aid groups challenging Trump’s action, Ali ruled that the administration must comply with appropriations laws unless Congress changes them. The administration said the aid was “contrary to U.S. foreign policy.”

PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS

The justices on March 5 declined to let 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.

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.

SOCIAL SECURITY DATA

The court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in 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.

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 to 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. 

(Reporting by John Kruzel in Washington and Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)