Supreme Court Considers Surge of Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Policies

April 4, 2025 TruthUSA

The president has requested that the Supreme Court examine several of the over 100 lawsuits filed against his administration.

President Donald Trump’s initiatives may prompt the Supreme Court to provide important clarifications on U.S. law as it evaluates a range of lawsuits filed against his administration.

While the outcome remains uncertain, these ongoing lawsuits have raised significant issues regarding the separation of powers and the extent of executive authority concerning federal spending, employment, immigration, and foreign policy.

The administration has already submitted at least six appeals to the Supreme Court, some of which have been dismissed. More appeals are expected to arise from the numerous lawsuits aimed at it.

This surge of cases has ignited discussions about the limits of judicial authority, bringing attention to persistent concerns over the use of nationwide injunctions by district court judges.

Separation of Powers

Trump has expressed criticism towards judges who have obstructed his actions and suggested that some ought to be impeached. This prompted a rare comment from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that impeachment is inappropriate in response to conflicts regarding judicial decisions.

The president has asserted his intention to adhere to court orders; however, the escalating tension between Trump and the judiciary has sparked speculation about a possible constitutional crisis.

“A constitutional crisis is in the eye of the beholder,” remarked Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, in an interview with The Epoch Times. He noted that the recent increase in nationwide injunctions and allegations of judge shopping—choosing court venues to obtain favorable rulings—has raised critical questions about the separation of powers.

“If there is a constitutional crisis, it would manifest as a true breakdown in the separation of powers,” Jipping added. “The separation of powers is arguably the most crucial structural component of our government as defined by the Constitution.”

Members of the Supreme Court have previously voiced their disapproval of nationwide injunctions. A recent appeal from the Trump administration has shown that some justices might be inclined to counter broad rulings issued by lower courts.

In March, the Supreme Court opted not to hear the Trump administration’s request concerning a Washington judge’s order that mandated the release of foreign assistance funds. Several factors determine whether the justices will entertain emergency appeals or grant the requested stay; the court did not release an in-depth opinion concerning its decision.

Immigration

The appeal regarding birthright citizenship could lead the court to reconsider a 19th-century precedent known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been broadly interpreted to confer birthright citizenship.

Trump and his supporters argue that the ruling, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, does not guarantee citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has urged the Supreme Court to act quickly regarding that injunction and others, emphasizing that “enough is enough” in relation to the nationwide orders from lower courts.

“Universal injunctions have proliferated since the current Administration took office,” Harris stated in March. “Only this court’s intervention can stop universal injunctions from becoming universally accepted.”

Trump is also facing numerous lawsuits related to various measures he has taken regarding asylum seekers and deportations. One particular case has prompted him to request the Supreme Court to review his implementation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a statute that has only been invoked three times in American history. Earlier this month, Trump issued a proclamation asserting that this act enables him to expel members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, classified as a terrorist organization.

He is currently seeking the Supreme Court’s assistance to overturn two orders that halted his proclamation, with Harris asserting: “This situation raises fundamental questions about who has the authority to direct sensitive national security operations in the United States—the President, as per Article II, or the Judiciary, through [temporary restraining orders].”

However, a brief note in the docket indicated that the deadline set by the lower court had elapsed, and the lower court “should clarify the obligations the Government must fulfill to comply with the temporary restraining order, taking into consideration the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” Justice Samuel Alito, joined by three other justices, expressed his astonishment at his colleagues’ decision not to block the lower court’s order.

Federal Employees

Trump has tried to dismiss large numbers of federal employees, including high-level appointees overseeing specific agencies. He has already faced a series of lawsuits regarding this matter, prompting courts to examine how much power Congress has in restricting his ability to terminate employees.

On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected petitions from former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chair Gwynne Wilcox and former Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Chair Cathy Harris to temporarily restore them while their cases are being resolved.

These lawsuits could encourage the Supreme Court to reevaluate its precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, where the Court decided that President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted unlawfully when he removed the head of the Federal Trade Commission without just cause. Congress has set conditions for the removal of both Harris and Wilcox, stating that they can only be terminated for reasons such as misconduct or negligence.

Trump is also under litigation concerning the termination of probationary employees, with some being ordered to be reinstated by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in a March 28 order. Another order halting the removal of thousands of probationary employees is presently facing a pending appeal from the Northern District of California. Senior District Judge William Alsup indicated earlier this month that the Office of Personnel Management acted beyond its authority by terminating employees in another agency.

Harris petitioned the Supreme Court on March 24 to examine Alsup’s order, contending that “like numerous other recent orders, the court’s extraordinary reinstatement order violates the separation of powers, arrogating to a single district court the Executive Branch’s powers of personnel management on the flimsiest of grounds and the hastiest of timelines.”

A group of dismissed inspector generals, two terminated FTC commissioners, and the former head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel have also filed lawsuits. The Supreme Court received an appeal regarding the last of these but put it on hold. The D.C. Circuit recently voided another of Jackson’s orders reinstating the special counsel.

Spending

Part of the Trump administration’s initial agenda involved attempts to suspend large segments of federal spending, inciting legal challenges from groups alleging that the withdrawal of funds was illegal.

The subsequent lawsuits have addressed various facets of federal spending, including so-called “gender-affirming care” as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The administration filed a brief on March 26 requesting that the Supreme Court halt the reinstatement of Department of Education grants it had previously targeted over concerns related to DEI.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun declared in a March 10 order that the states were likely to succeed in their claims that the administration breached the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a reasoned justification for the termination of the grants. Instead, they sent a standardized letter to various recipients, according to Joun.

Harris claimed that Joun had overstepped his authority by interfering in what she described as “essentially a contract dispute that rightfully belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, not a district court.” She asserted that the ruling was “predictably obstructing the executive branch’s constitutional functions,” indicating that the administration had “made a decision to terminate grants associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).”

Two additional federal lawsuits initiated in January contested a memo in which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) urged agencies to freeze spending actions. Although OMB later rescinded the memo, federal judges in Washington and Rhode Island pointed out that the White House indicated a freeze remained effective due to executive orders signed by Trump.

Source link