Supreme Court Weighs Wave of Challenges to Trump Agenda

The president has asked the high court to review multiple of the 100-plus lawsuits against his administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on April 3, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

President Donald Trump’s agenda could lead to the Supreme Court clarifying U.S. law in major ways as it considers a series of lawsuits brought against his administration.

While his success is uncertain, the pending lawsuits have raised questions about the separation of powers and the scope of executive authority over spending, federal employment, immigration, and foreign policy.

The administration has filed at least six appeals to the high court, with some already rejected. More appeals are likely to emerge from the more than 100 lawsuits filed against it.

The flurry of cases has also sparked debate over the scope of judicial authority, bringing to the forefront ongoing concerns about the use of nationwide injunctions by district court judges.

Separation of Powers

Trump has been critical of the judges who have issued blocks on his actions and said that some should be impeached. That appeared to prompt a rare statement from Chief Justice John Roberts who said impeachment was inappropriate in response to disagreements over judicial decisions.

The president has said he will follow court orders but the increasing tension between Trump and the courts has prompted speculation about an impending constitutional crisis.

”A constitutional crisis is in the eye of the beholder,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping told The Epoch Times. He added that the spate of nationwide injunctions and purported judge shopping, or the practice of choosing venues to sue in hopes of getting a favorable judge, raised questions about separation of powers.

“If there is a constitutional crisis, a real breakdown in the separation of powers would be one,” Jipping said. “The separation of powers is probably the single most important structural element of our system of government under the Constitution.”

Members of the court have already expressed disapproval of nationwide injunctions. A more recent appeal by the Trump administration indicated a willingness by some members of the court to counter broad decisions by lower court judges.

In March, the Supreme Court declined to take up the Trump administration’s appeal of a Washington judge’s order requiring the disbursement of foreign assistance funds. Various factors influence whether the justices take up emergency appeals or grant the type of stay the administration was requesting. The court did not issue a detailed opinion explaining its decision.

Immigration

The birthright citizenship appeal could lead the court into a reconsideration of a 19th-century precedent known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship in a sweeping fashion.

Trump and others argue the decision and the basis for it in the Fourteenth Amendment don’t guarantee citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked the Supreme Court to respond quickly to that injunction and others while clarifying that “enough is enough” with lower courts’ nationwide orders.

“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris told the court in March. “Only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

Trump has also faced multiple lawsuits over various actions he has taken regarding asylum seekers and deportations. One case in particular has led him to ask the Supreme Court to review his application of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which has been used only three other times in the nation’s history. Earlier this month, Trump issued a proclamation stating that the act allows him to remove members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, which has been designated a terrorist organization.

He is currently asking the Supreme Court to block two orders halting his proclamation, with Harris stating: “This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country—the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through [temporary restraining orders].”

Instead, a brief docket note stated that the deadline for the lower court order had passed and that the lower court “should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” Justice Samuel Alito, joined by three other justices, penned an opinion stating he was stunned by his colleagues’ decision not to halt the lower court.

Federal Employees

Trump has attempted to terminate mass numbers of federal employees, including high-ranking appointees leading certain agencies. Already, Trump has encountered a series of lawsuits over this issue and led courts to review how much Congress can restrict his ability to fire employees.

On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected requests from former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chair Gwynne Wilcox and former Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Chair Cathy Harris to temporarily reinstate them as appeals in their cases unfold.

Those cases and others could prompt the Supreme Court to revisit its precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted illegally when he terminated the head of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. As in that case, Congress has placed conditions on the removal of both Harris and Wilcox, stipulating that they may only be removed for reasons such as malfeasance or negligence.

Trump is also facing lawsuits over the firing of probationary employees, some of whom were ordered to be reinstated by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in a March 28 order. Another order blocking the removal of thousands of probationary employees is facing a pending appeal from the Northern District of California. Senior District Judge William Alsup said earlier this month that the Office of Personnel Management exceeded its authority by firing employees in another agency.

Harris asked the Supreme Court on March 24 to review Alsup’s order. She said that ”like many 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 fired inspector generals, two fired FTC commissioners, and the former head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel sued as well. The Supreme Court received an appeal on the last of those but put it on pause. The D.C. Circuit, last week, vacated another of Jackson’s orders reinstating the special counsel.

Spending

Part of the Trump administration’s opening agenda has involved attempts to freeze large portions of federal spending, prompting legal challenges from groups claiming the withdrawal of funds was unlawful.

The ensuing lawsuits have touched on various areas of federal spending, including so-called “gender-affirming care“ and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The administration filed a March 26 brief asking the Supreme Court to halt the reinstatement of Department of Education grants it had targeted over concerns about DEI.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun said in a March 10 order that the states were likely to succeed in their claims that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it didn’t provide a reasoned explanation for the grant terminations. Rather, it sent a standardized letter to various recipients, Joun said.

Harris said that Joun had exceeded his authority by interfering with what she described as “essentially a contract suit that belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, not a district court.” She added that the order was “predictably impeding the executive branch’s constitutional functions,” noting that the administration had “made a judgment to terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related grants.”

Two other federal lawsuits filed in January challenged a memo in which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) urged agencies to freeze spending. Although OMB rescinded the memo, federal judges in Washington and Rhode Island pointed to the White House stating that a freeze was still in effect due to executive orders Trump had signed.