Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January, the U.S. Supreme Court has been repeatedly drawn into high-stakes disputes over his administration’s policies and executive actions. The justices have been asked to rule on matters touching nearly every corner of governance, including monetary policy, trade, immigration, citizenship, civil rights, foreign aid, and the federal workforce. These cases collectively represent one of the broadest tests of presidential authority in modern history.
Firing of Federal Reserve Governor
On September 18, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for permission to proceed with the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking what would be an unprecedented step in the central bank’s 111-year history. The Justice Department urged the justices to overturn U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb’s ruling, which had temporarily blocked Cook’s dismissal. Cobb determined that Trump’s claim—that Cook had committed mortgage fraud before taking office—was not sufficient grounds for removal under existing statutes.
Federal law stipulates that Fed governors can be removed only “for cause,” though the term has never been judicially defined. Cook, who is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump in August, arguing that the president’s allegations were merely a pretext to oust her for her monetary policy views.
Tariffs Dispute
The Court agreed on September 9 to review the legality of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs—an essential pillar of his trade agenda. Lower courts had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs on a wide range of goods. With trillions of dollars in customs duties at stake over the coming decade, the justices are scheduled to hear arguments on November 5.
Immigration Enforcement and Deportations
Trump’s hardline immigration agenda has triggered a series of urgent appeals. On September 8, the Court allowed federal agents to resume immigration raids in Southern California, despite a lower court ruling that the practices likely violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The justices have also been asked to weigh in on Trump’s efforts to roll back deportation protections granted to Venezuelans under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, revoke immigration “parole” for more than half a million migrants, and expand deportations to “third countries” without due process hearings. In multiple rulings, federal judges found the administration’s policies unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has, at times, permitted them to move forward while legal challenges continue.
Birthright Citizenship Restrictions
In a landmark development, the Supreme Court on June 27 restricted the ability of lower courts to block Trump’s executive order aimed at curbing birthright citizenship. The directive, signed on his first day back in office, denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the country unless one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. While the ruling did not affirm the order’s legality, it signaled a narrowing of judicial power to issue nationwide injunctions.
Civil Rights and Transgender Policies
The Court has also been central to disputes over Trump’s policies affecting LGBTQ+ rights. On September 19, the administration asked the justices to reinstate its policy prohibiting passports from reflecting gender identities other than male or female. Earlier, on May 6, the Court allowed Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect, authorizing the discharge of thousands of service members. Lower courts had ruled these policies discriminatory, but the administration argued that they were grounded in executive authority over national security and federal documentation.
Federal Workforce and Agency Control
Trump has sought to consolidate executive control over federal agencies traditionally insulated from politics. In multiple cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the administration to proceed with mass layoffs, the removal of independent commissioners, and significant agency restructuring. This includes authorizing the dismantling of the Department of Education, approving the termination of Consumer Product Safety Commission officials, and granting wide access to sensitive Social Security data for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
In each instance, the justices temporarily suspended lower court rulings that found Trump’s actions unlawful, effectively permitting the administration to advance its agenda while broader constitutional challenges unfold.
Foreign Aid and Domestic Spending
The Court has also weighed in on Trump’s fiscal policies. On September 9, the justices paused a ruling requiring the administration to release $4 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already appropriated. Earlier, on March 5, they upheld a lower court’s order directing the government to pay foreign aid groups for services already rendered, despite Trump’s attempts to block funding for humanitarian projects abroad.
Education and Research Cuts
In a series of rulings over the summer, the Court permitted the administration to cut billions in federal funding, including grants for teacher training and research initiatives focused on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ populations. These actions align with Trump’s broader efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across government institutions.
Conclusion
The sheer scope of cases before the Supreme Court underscores the extraordinary reach of Trump’s executive agenda and the constitutional tests it has triggered. From monetary independence and immigration law to civil rights and federal governance, the justices are being asked to navigate questions that will shape the balance of power between the presidency, Congress, and the judiciary for years to come.
Ref: Reuters
