Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• National Trust for Historic Preservation lawsuit against White House ballroom construction upheld by lower courts — The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction of the White House ballroom, and lower courts ruled in favor of the organization, determining that the ballroom requires congressional approval. An appeals court on August 7, 2026, stated it was aware of no precedent in American history in which a president unilaterally demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized and taxpayers funded. Despite the court rulings, construction has continued with a 250-person crew working 20 hours daily, seven days a week.

Supporting reports

• US appeals court halts White House ballroom construction, upholds preliminary injunction — The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling upholding a preliminary injunction that halts construction of Trump's $400 million White House ballroom project. The court found that the President lacks unilateral authority to demolish and rebuild the White House without Congressional authorization, stating each President is a "temporary tenant, not the owner." The ruling was placed on hold for two weeks to allow the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump's White House Ballroom Project — A federal appeals court panel ruled against former President Trump's attempt to demolish parts of the White House to construct a massive ballroom, stating that such a project requires congressional approval. The decision halts the unprecedented project, emphasizing the need for legislative oversight in significant alterations to historic government properties.
• National Trust for Historic Preservation lawsuit against White House ballroom construction upheld by lower courts — The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction of the White House ballroom, and lower courts ruled in favor of the organization, determining that the ballroom requires congressional approval. An appeals court on August 7, 2026, stated it was aware of no precedent in American history in which a president unilaterally demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized and taxpayers funded. Despite the court rulings, construction has continued with a 250-person crew working 20 hours daily, seven days a week.
• Federal appeals court blocks Trump's White House ballroom project — A federal appeals court has issued a ruling blocking former President Donald Trump's project to construct a ballroom at the White House. This decision represents a significant setback for Trump, who had been pursuing the project as part of his post-presidency initiatives. The court's ruling halts any further development on the ballroom, pending further legal proceedings or appeals.

Supporting reports

• US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided DOJ's $1.776 billion settlement with Trump — US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided the Department of Justice's $1.776 billion settlement with Trump, finding the litigation constitutionally defective under Article III because Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, controlled both the plaintiff and defendant agencies (Treasury and IRS), making them never genuinely adverse. The judge found no actual case or controversy occurred, no meaningful litigation preceded the settlement, and government lawyers never filed a response or defended the agencies. Williams imposed Rule 11 sanctions and referred one of Trump's attorneys for possible professional discipline.
• Federal Judge Voids Trump's $1.8 Billion IRS Settlement — A federal judge voided Trump's $1.8 billion settlement with the IRS that included an "anti-weaponization fund" and immunity from tax audits, ruling that the president's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS was filed "to manipulate the judicial process." The judge sanctioned two of Trump's personal attorneys, banning one from practicing in the Southern District of Florida for at least one year, and suggested that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and associate Attorney General Stan Woodward could face state bar investigations.
• Federal judge nullifies Trump tax-return settlement and sanctions president's lawyers — US District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida voided a settlement agreement between the Trump administration and the president over a $10 billion lawsuit regarding leaked tax returns. The judge found the lawsuit was filed in bad faith and the settlement was collusive, designed to confer immunity on Trump and his family and create an $1.8 billion slush fund. Williams sanctioned Trump's lawyers, referred two to bar disciplinary proceedings, and blocked one from practicing in the district for one year.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement was improper and manufactured — U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Trump, his lawyers, and Department of Justice lawyers had manufactured a fraudulent settlement of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Williams found the lawsuit was brought "for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." The settlement was designed to establish a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump loyalists and to grant Trump, his family, businesses, and associates immunity from prosecution for any tax crimes revealed by audits of tax returns filed before May 19, 2026.
• Federal judge rules against Trump's IRS lawsuit — On July 13, 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that Trump and his legal team improperly manufactured a settlement in his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, which aimed to create a slush fund for Trump loyalists and grant immunity from prosecution for tax crimes. The judge found the lawsuit lacked a legitimate basis and recommended sanctions against some lawyers involved.
• Judge Williams recommended sanctions against lawyers involved in fraudulent settlement — Judge Kathleen Williams recommended legal sanctions against some of the lawyers involved in the fraudulent IRS settlement and expressed that she was "extremely troubled" by the testimony of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, which she characterized as "at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous."
• E. Jean Carroll Receives Payment from Trump — E. Jean Carroll has received a $5.6 million payment from Donald Trump, confirmed by a court filing. This payment is part of a legal settlement related to a defamation case brought by Carroll against Trump.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules president can fire independent agency heads at will — On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump in a case brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was fired in March. The court overturned a 90-year-old precedent by holding that the president has the right to remove the head of any federal government agency at will. The decision, justified through the unitary executive theory, grants the president sole total control over the executive branch and opens the door to what critics call an "imperial presidency."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down 91-year-old precedent, grants president unlimited removal power over independent agencies — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Slaughter v. Trump that federal law restricting the president's ability to fire members of independent executive agencies (including the FTC) violates the constitutional separation of powers. The decision overruled Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., a 91-year-old precedent, and endorsed the "unitary executive" theory, granting the president sweeping authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies Congress intended to be independent.
• Supreme Court rules in Trump v. Slaughter to expand presidential removal power over independent agencies — On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president has broad authority to remove members of independent federal agencies, effectively overturning the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent. The decision arose from Trump's March 2025 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Fired officials and legal experts warn the ruling eliminates civil service protections, enabling politicization, corruption, and pay-to-play dynamics in federal agencies designed to operate independently.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump can fire independent agency leaders, overturning 90-year precedent — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president can fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent. The case centered on Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter via email. The ruling affects approximately two dozen agencies with multi-member bipartisan boards, including the FTC, NLRB, and Federal Reserve. Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan dissented, arguing the decision grants the president unconstitutional power and defies centuries of political practice and congressional authority.
• Supreme Court rules president has unrestricted power to remove independent agency officials — The Supreme Court decided Slaughter v. Trump in a 6–3 decision, holding that the president has complete authority to remove officers from independent agencies established by Congress without cause. The case arose when Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner, claiming her service conflicted with his administration's priorities. The majority rejected 90 years of precedent requiring removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the ruling grants the president power exceeding even the English Crown and undermines centuries of bipartisan practice protecting nonpartisan expertise in agencies like the FTC, EPA, SEC, and others.
• Supreme Court Affirms Federal Reserve Independence — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve, rejecting challenges that could have subjected the institution to increased political influence. This decision preserves the Fed's ability to operate without direct political pressure, which is crucial for maintaining economic stability and policy effectiveness.
• Supreme Court Decision Weakens Independent Agencies — The Supreme Court delivered a ruling that significantly weakens the authority of certain independent federal agencies. This decision could lead to increased political influence over these agencies, potentially affecting their ability to function autonomously and effectively.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power — The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump has the authority to fire the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, effectively overturning a significant limitation on presidential power. This decision marks a shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, potentially increasing presidential control over such agencies. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal regulatory bodies and the separation of powers within the U.S. government.
• Supreme Court Overturns 90-Year-Old Independent Agency Protections — The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent protecting members of independent agencies from being fired by the president without cause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent that the ruling "reshapes our government," noting that dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the president's hands.
• Supreme Court Overturns Protections for Independent Agencies — The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent that protected members of independent agencies from being fired without cause by the president. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that this decision could transform these agencies into executive-controlled entities, concentrating power in the presidency. This ruling is seen as a significant shift in the balance of power within the U.S. government.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. Slaughter (25-332) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. Slaughter. Docket number(s): 25-332.
• Trump claims unchecked power following Supreme Court ruling — Following the Supreme Court's decision in Slaughter v. Trump, President Trump stated that he now has the authority to remove heads of independent agencies at will, which he believes will allow him to control these agencies to serve his administration's interests. This claim raises concerns about the potential politicization of agencies that have historically operated independently of presidential influence.
• Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump in Slaughter v. Trump — On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of President Donald J. Trump in the case of Slaughter v. Trump, allowing him to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress. This decision overruled nearly 90 years of precedent that limited presidential power over such agencies, asserting that the president has complete control over executive branch officials. The dissenting justices warned that this ruling undermines the independence of agencies designed to operate free from political influence.
• US Supreme Court rules president can fire independent agency heads at will — On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump in a case brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was fired in March. The court overturned a 90-year-old precedent by holding that the president has the right to remove the head of any federal government agency at will. The decision, justified through the unitary executive theory, grants the president sole total control over the executive branch and opens the door to what critics call an "imperial presidency."

Supporting reports

• Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Trump administration suit against Michigan for voter roll access — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit against Michigan seeking access to state voter rolls. This ruling continues a pattern in which courts have struck down Trump's attempts to obtain voter rolls in all nine cases on which there has been a ruling. The administration has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia to compel surrender of voter rolls.
• U.S. District Judge Denise Casper permanently blocks Trump's March 2025 election executive order — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently blocked much of Trump's March 2025 executive order attempting to gain power over elections. The ruling prevents implementation of provisions that would have centralized election authority in the executive branch.
• Federal judge permanently barred proof-of-citizenship registration order — On Wednesday, June 25, Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently barred the proof-of-citizenship registration order, writing that the Constitution gives the president no specific power over elections. The ruling struck down a key element of the administration's effort to federalize election administration.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in Maryland rules against DOJ in voter file access case — A federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling against the Department of Justice in a case seeking access to state voter files, marking the DOJ's ninth consecutive loss in a series of 31 cases filed to obtain such records. The court concluded that state voter files are not records that states must produce to the federal government. Five of the nine losses were decided by judges nominated by Trump, according to the article.
• Democratic Party and Marc Elias law firm file litigation against Trump executive orders on voting — The Democratic Party, represented by attorney Marc Elias and his law firm, filed lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive orders targeting voting rights. The article indicates this litigation is part of a broader defensive strategy across multiple cases, including the 31 voter file cases and anticipated litigation if the U.S. Postal Service adopts a proposed anti-voting rule.
• Supreme Court to decide mail-in voting case brought by Republican National Committee — The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide a case brought by the Republican National Committee concerning whether ballots mailed and postmarked by Election Day may be counted if they arrive after Election Day. The article notes the outcome could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and that Marc Elias's firm is defending against the lawsuit.

Supporting reports

• Trump-appointed Kennedy Center board voted to fight order removing Trump's name — A federal judge previously ruled that Congress named the Kennedy Center and only Congress can rename it, ordered Trump's name removed by June 13, and blocked a planned two-year closure of the building. This week, with the deadline looming, the Trump-appointed board voted to fight the order. The judge refused to pause the order, writing that the public is rarely served by letting the government keep breaking the law.
• Appeals court rejects emergency stay of Trump name removal from Kennedy Center — An appeals court in Washington DC rejected an emergency appeal filed by Justice Department lawyers and Trump's hand-picked Kennedy Center board seeking to pause a federal judge's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had ruled in May that Trump's name was illegally added to the iconic performing arts venue and ordered its removal within two weeks. Workers began removal efforts on June 12, 2026, despite the emergency appeal filed hours before the deadline.
• Federal judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center facade; workers comply after emergency appeal denied — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that Trump's name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center's facade and ordered its removal by Friday, June 13, 2026. Trump's board had renamed the venue in December 2026 after seizing control in February. After Trump's legal team filed emergency appeals on Friday afternoon, both were denied. Workers removed the signage early Saturday morning behind tarps. The judge found that only Congress, which designated the venue as a Kennedy memorial in 1964, could authorize a name change.
• Federal judge permits UFC event at White House despite legal challenge — Attorneys from the Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit to block a UFC fight scheduled for the White House lawn on Trump's 80th birthday (billed as a 250th anniversary celebration). On Friday, a federal judge ruled the event could proceed. The lawsuit challenged the appropriateness and use of taxpayer funds for the mixed martial arts event, which Dana White said was Trump's idea. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the venue but expressed hope the event would be successful.
• Kennedy Center removes Trump signage following court order — Charles M. Floca, Trump-appointed head of the Kennedy Center, certified compliance with a court order requiring removal of all signage renaming the center after Trump. The center removed physical signs from the building and grounds, updated its website, removed Trump references from letterhead and promotional materials, and withdrew trademark applications. Workers installed scaffolding and tarps overnight to conceal the portico wall where Trump's name had been placed, with removal work occurring after 3:00 AM. The facade remained covered throughout the day while the center evaluated further legal options.
• Representative Beatty sued to block Kennedy Center renaming — Representative Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who as an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board had been sidelined, filed suit to stop the renaming. She won the case, and Judge Cooper ordered Trump's name removed from the building, all signage, stationery, merchandise, and related materials before midnight on June 12, 2026.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge invalidates Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as unlawful tax — US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued a 42-page ruling invalidating Donald Trump's $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, which Trump had imposed via presidential proclamation in September 2025. Sorokin found the fee constituted an unlawful tax that violated federal administrative law and the Constitution, reasoning that only Congress possesses the power to levy taxes. The ruling vacated the fee, which represented a 20-to-50 fold increase over existing rates. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13829 — Judge Sorokin granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the $100,000 payment requirement imposed on H-1B petitions under Proclamation 10973 is an unlawful tax exceeding the President's authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that the agency actions implementing it violated the APA by bypassing notice-and-comment, exceeding statutory authority, and being arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, Judge Sorokin found the Government's rationale for the payment requirement was “cursory,” lacked “reasoned explanation,” and failed to address the reliance interests of employers. The court vacated the implementing policy in its entirety and entered declaratory judgment that it is unlawful, declining to issue a separate permanent injunction. In the same order, Judge Sorokin denied Defendants' motion to dismiss except as to Plaintiffs' claims against the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor, which Plaintiffs had agreed to voluntarily dismiss and which the court dismissed without prejudice.
• Federal judge strikes down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee — U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee is an unauthorized tax on businesses and must be vacated. The judge found the fee constitutes a tax rather than a penalty, meaning it cannot be imposed without congressional authorization. The precedent cited was the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling in Sebelius.
• U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin struck down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as an illegal tax requiring congressional approval. — In California v. Markwaple Mullin, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that Proclamation 10973, signed by Trump on September 19, 2025, imposing a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on H-1B visa petitions, constitutes an illegal tax that must be enacted by Congress. The court found the fee would impede hiring of educators, harm public college staffing and academic research, and worsen medical worker shortages. The court struck down the policy.

Supporting reports

• Virginia Supreme Court strikes down voter-approved congressional redistricting maps — Virginia's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on May 8 that the state cannot use new congressional maps approved by voters in an April referendum. The court found that the Democratic-controlled state legislature violated the state constitution by passing the amendment creating the maps before early voting began in the 2025 general election, rather than following the required two-session approval process. The maps would have helped Democrats gain up to four House seats. The ruling nullifies the referendum result and restores the previous maps, benefiting Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down redistricting referendum — The Virginia Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision invalidating a voter-approved redistricting referendum that had taken place on April 21, 2026. The court ruled that the legislature had not satisfied the constitutional requirement of passing the amendment through two consecutive legislative sessions with an election in between, finding that the first passage occurred while early voting was already underway in the 2025 statewide elections. The decision overturned the will of approximately 3 million Virginians who voted in the referendum.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down new congressional maps — The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state's new congressional maps, which had been narrowly approved by voters in an April referendum, ruling that the constitutional amendment was submitted by the legislature "in an unprecedented manner." The new map would have paved the way for Democrats to win as many as four additional House seats in the midterm elections. The court's decision blocked a voter-approved redistricting reform.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down voter-approved redistricting referendum — The Virginia state supreme court, voting 4–3 along partisan lines, struck down a referendum approved by Virginia voters on April 21, 2026, that would have created a temporary new congressional district map to gain four additional seats for Democrats and counter Republican gerrymandering. Voters had approved the measure in response to gerrymandering imposed by Republican legislators in Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida, which is expected to gain Republicans an additional 14 seats nationally. The court ruled that the process of passing the referendum violated the state constitution. The decision occurred in the context of Trump's low job approval ratings (low 30s), public anger over rising prices, frustration with the Iran war, and dislike of the administration's attacks on immigrants. Trump posted on social media celebrating the decision as a "huge win for the Republican Party."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rules Trump exceeded authority on tariff imposition — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that President Trump violated the Constitution by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on global imports without congressional approval. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that taxation is a core congressional power. The ruling invalidated most of the administration's tariffs. Democratic lawmakers celebrated the decision as a check on executive overreach, while Trump called it a "disgrace" and indicated he had a backup plan.
• Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs unconstitutional in 6-3 decision — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last Friday that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during peacetime. The court affirmed that Congress alone retains the power to levy taxes under the Constitution and that the IEEPA cannot supersede that authority absent genuine emergency conditions. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court overturned Trump policies in his second term and undercut his claims to sweeping executive trade authority.
• Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs unlawful, striking down invocation of International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump lacked authority to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by two Trump-appointed justices (Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and the three liberal-leaning justices. The court held that taxation powers are reserved exclusively to Congress. Trump responded with a vitriolic public attack on the justices, calling them "FOOLS" and "LAPDOGS," and immediately announced new tariffs under different legislative authority.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump's national emergency tariffs — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision invalidating Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that tariffs constitute taxation and fall under Congress's exclusive constitutional authority. The decision reduces the U.S. average trade-weighted tariff from 15.3% to 8.3%, with significant reductions on Chinese (36.8% to 21.2%), Brazilian (26.3% to 6.8%), and Japanese (14.9% to 9.9%) imports. Trump immediately announced a 10% blanket global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as an alternative.
• US Supreme Court declares Trump's IEEPA tariffs illegal — The US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot impose tariffs in peacetime using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring his tariffs enacted under that authority unlawful. The White House indicated it will replace the levies using alternative statutory tools, such as the 1974 Trade Act. International businesses and governments expressed uncertainty about future tariff regimes, as the ruling does not constrain Trump's other trade policy options. US business groups celebrated the decision as affirming rule of law and separation of powers.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs illegal under IEEPA, Trump announces new 10% global tariff under Section 122 — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday declaring that Donald Trump's tariffs lacked legal justification under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for national emergencies. The court held that tariff authority belongs exclusively to Congress under the Constitution's taxing power. Trump responded by calling the justices "a disgrace to the nation" and immediately announced a new 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits 150-day tariffs, while initiating investigations into unfair trading practices for potential permanent tariffs.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's unilateral tariff authority under IEEPA — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing global tariffs without congressional approval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision affirmed lower court findings that the tariffs—covering dozens of countries and announced on "liberation day" in April 2025—were illegal. Trump immediately vowed to continue tariffs using alternative authority under the Trade Act of 1974, announcing a new 10% global tariff and directing investigations into unfair trading practices.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs under IEEPA unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court found that tariffs Trump levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. The decision was announced on Friday, February 21, 2026. Following the ruling, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports on Friday and escalated to a 15% worldwide tariff on Saturday, claiming the court decision actually granted him broader powers than he previously possessed.
• Supreme Court ruling on tariffs declared unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. Following this decision, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports, which he later raised to 15%. He claimed that the ruling inadvertently granted him more power and threatened higher tariffs on countries he accused of taking advantage of the U.S. This ruling has led to significant uncertainty among U.S. trading partners, prompting the European Parliament to pause trade deal approvals with the U.S.
• Trump claims he has unchecked power after Supreme Court ruling — Trump publicly stated that the Supreme Court's ruling has given him "far more powers and strength" than before, suggesting he could use tariffs in a more aggressive manner. His comments reflect a disregard for the Court's authority and the principles of checks and balances.
• Trump’s tariffs face public disapproval — A poll indicated that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, with 82% believing he must obey Supreme Court rulings. This public sentiment reflects widespread dissatisfaction with his economic policies and governance.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump "liberation day" tariffs — The US Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping "liberation day" tariffs that had been imposed the previous year. The decision represented a judicial check on the executive's tariff authority and prompted the administration to announce the alternative 10% global tariff as a replacement policy.
• Supreme Court struck down Trump's broad tariff authority under IEEPA — Days before the State of the Union address, the Supreme Court struck down the President's claimed authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in what CNBC and CNN reported as one of the most consequential executive power rulings in years. In response, Trump called the ruling "unfortunate" and vowed to pursue "alternative" legal authorities to continue imposing tariffs without congressional approval, signaling his intent to circumvent the Court's decision.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the statute contains no mention of tariffs or duties and that the Constitution assigns taxing power to Congress. The decision invoked the major questions doctrine, holding that powers of vast economic significance require clear statutory language. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined Roberts's lead opinion; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the core holding, with Kagan writing separately on statutory interpretation grounds.
• Media Invitation Announced for United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. Pre-Trial Hearing — The Department of War published an advisory on 2026-02-20 through its advisories channel. The department's own account of it reads: "The War Department invites media to cover pretrial proceedings in the case of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, scheduled for May 4 - 29, 2026."
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs; CBP ordered to process $166bn in refunds — The Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "liberation day" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling he lacked legal authority. A federal judge ordered US Customs and Border Protection to process refunds to approximately 330,000 importers totaling an estimated $166 billion without requiring lawsuits. CBP filed notice it would establish a refund system within 45 days using existing liquidation procedures. The ruling resolved a core constitutional question about executive power but left implementation details to lower courts and agency discretion.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's "liberation day" tariffs as illegal — On 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed in April 2025 were illegal. The decision opened the door to an estimated $175 billion in refund claims from businesses across the country. Major companies including FedEx, L'Oreal, and Dyson have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds. The ruling has triggered a surge in demand for trade lawyers and created opportunities for hedge funds and AI firms to profit from the refund process.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs — The US Supreme Court ruled on 20 February 2026 that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing far-reaching global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs unlawful but did not address whether the Trump administration must repay an estimated $133 billion in collected tariffs, leaving the refund question to lower courts. Trump immediately signaled intent to reintroduce tariffs via alternative legal authority.
• Former South Korean President Sentenced to Life in Prison — The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison for leading an insurrection against the government. Yoon had declared martial law in December 2024, attempting to block the National Assembly and arrest opposition politicians. His actions were deemed unconstitutional, leading to his impeachment and removal from office. The court considered his age and lack of lethal force in its sentencing.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs unconstitutional — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court declared President Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. Following this ruling, Trump claimed the right to impose tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Trump was the first president to invoke this provision, and his use of it has already been challenged in court.
• U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Trump's IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional in 6–3 decision — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed under emergency declarations citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), violated the Constitution. Trump had declared national emergencies regarding drug influx and trade deficits to justify sweeping tariff increases that upended post-World War II free trade principles. The Court found that Congress alone holds constitutional authority to tax Americans, and that Trump's tariff authority under IEEPA did not extend to the broad economic restructuring he imposed. The ruling invalidated tariffs that had cost American households an estimated $1,000–$1,700 in 2025 and slowed economic growth to 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under IEEPA — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. The majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor) rejected the government's tariff authority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation.
• Supreme Court ruled against Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorized tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff authority — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously read IEEPA to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented. The majority included Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff power — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff authority — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority supported the opposite reading.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff power — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority and that IEEPA clearly authorized the power. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariffs — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump cannot use emergency powers to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Solicitor General granted amicus participation and divided argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation and commerce.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287) — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that "until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power." Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts; Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and no President had previously read it to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority; Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the statute grants sufficient authority for tariff imposition. The ruling represents the Court's most significant rebuke of the Trump administration since his return to office.
• — The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and to conduct divided argument in the pending case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. (Docket 24-1238). This procedural grant permits the federal government to present oral argument alongside the parties and allows argument time to be divided among multiple speakers.
• — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Docket number(s): 24-1287.

Supporting reports

• Federal courts blocked Trump's National Guard deployments in five cities — Federal courts have blocked or ruled against Trump's National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C., Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Memphis. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that Trump's deployment of thousands of Guard troops to patrol the capital "violates federal law" and is illegal. In Portland, Trump appointee Judge Karin Immergut found Trump "did not have a lawful basis" to federalize the Guard under the rebellion statute and rejected his portrayal of the city as "war ravaged." In Los Angeles, a federal court concluded the Guard's activities crossed into unlawful domestic law enforcement, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. In Chicago and Memphis, judges issued injunctions blocking Trump-aligned Guard deployments as unconstitutional or likely unlawful under federal and state law.

Supporting reports

• Nvidia and AMD reached chip export agreement with Trump administration — The Wall Street Journal reported that Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices agreed with the Trump administration to give the US government 15% of revenues from chip sales in China in exchange for export licenses. Legal experts note the arrangement may violate the Constitution's export clause prohibiting taxes or duties on articles exported from any state.

Supporting reports

• Trump and DOJ execute maneuver to restore Habba as interim U.S. attorney — After Attorney General Bondi fired Desiree Leigh Grace, Trump and the DOJ executed a multistep maneuver to restore Alina Habba to the U.S. attorney position. Habba resigned as interim U.S. attorney, Trump withdrew her nomination before the Senate, Bondi appointed Habba to Grace's former first assistant position and designated her a "special attorney to the attorney general." The DOJ then claimed that Habba would automatically fill the vacant U.S. attorney role for a 210-day term under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, circumventing the judges' selection of Grace and the statutory appointment process.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court grants stay on Education Department layoff order — The Supreme Court's right-wing majority granted a stay on a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from gutting the Department of Education while litigation proceeds. Federal Judge Myong Joun had ordered reinstatement of 1,378 fired workers after nineteen states and D.C. sued to stop the layoffs. The stay permits the layoffs to continue. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the majority enabled executive defiance of law and violated separation of powers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10677 — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction that had blocked the administration's plans to dismantle the Department of Education and fire thousands of department employees. The majority did not provide any reasoning. In dissent , Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the Court's order enables the executive branch to functionally “abolish” an entire department “by executive fiat.”
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. McMahon (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10601 — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of McMahon v. New York. This decision temporarily allows the Department of Education to proceed with a reduction in force that impacts nearly 50% of its workforce, approximately 1,378 employees. The stay was granted in a 6-3 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The case was initially brought by twenty states and the District of Columbia, challenging the reduction in force as unlawful.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in McMahon v. New York — The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward with gutting the Department of Education by firing nearly half of the agency's workforce. The decision bypassed lower-court review and normal appellate procedures.
• Supreme Court grants emergency appeal allowing Department of Education workforce cuts

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court blocks deportations under Alien Enemies Act; federal judges escalate enforcement against Trump administration defiance — The US Supreme Court issued a temporary order early Saturday blocking the federal government from removing detainees held in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act, after lawyers reported detainees received English-only notices with no information on how to challenge deportation. Separately, US District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for defying orders to halt deportations, and Judge Paula Xinis ordered daily compliance updates after the administration ignored orders to facilitate the return of wrongly deported Kilmar Ábrego García to the United States. The rulings underscore an escalating constitutional conflict over judicial enforcement power.
• Case update — D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-01163 — Petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion for an emergency TRO and requested the Court maintain the TRO due to the government's transfer of detainees under the AEA with less than 24 hours notice.
• Amy Klobuchar calls on Supreme Court to hold Trump officials in contempt for ignoring deportation order — Senator Amy Klobuchar called on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for allegedly ignoring a court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident the government admitted it deported by mistake to El Salvador. Klobuchar suggested the Court appoint an independent special prosecutor outside the Department of Justice to enforce the rule of law. Her comments followed Justice Samuel Alito's dissent criticizing the Court's decision to block deportations of Venezuelans held in Texas.

Supporting reports

• Immigration judge sets deadline for Trump administration to justify Mahmoud Khalil's deportation — Immigration Judge Jamee Comans ruled that the Trump administration must present evidence by 5pm Wednesday justifying the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate who holds a green card. Khalil was detained on March 8. The government claims his presence has adverse foreign policy consequences but has provided no evidence he broke the law. Judge Comans stated she may rule Friday on his release if the evidence does not support deportation. The case raises free speech concerns, as Khalil's legal team argues the deportation is retaliatory for his pro-Palestinian activism.
• Immigration judge ordered DHS to provide evidence for Khalil deportation — An immigration judge told DHS to turn over "sufficient evidence" to justify deporting Mahmoud Khalil by Wednesday, or she would terminate the case and order his release.
• Rubio offered no evidence of criminal activity for Khalil deportation — In a court filing, Rubio offered no evidence that Khalil engaged in criminal activity. Instead, the government is seeking to deport him over his "beliefs" alone.
• Immigration judge rules Palestinian organizer Mahmoud Khalil eligible for deportation based on Secretary of State memo regarding his political views — An immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and Palestinian organizer, is eligible for deportation. The ruling accepted a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that Khalil's "beliefs, statements or associations" are counter to U.S. foreign policy interests as sufficient evidence for removal of a lawful permanent resident. The judge determined she had no authority to rule on free speech concerns. Khalil, arrested by ICE in March, has been detained in Louisiana for over a month. His legal team plans to appeal and pursue an asylum case.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge compared Alien Enemies Act treatment to Nazi practices — During a court hearing, a federal appeals judge told a Department of Justice lawyer that "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act" than those sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration. The comparison reflects judicial concern about the severity of the administration's deportation practices.
• Federal judge temporarily banned trans military ban enforcement — A federal judge temporarily banned the enforcement of Trump's executive order barring trans people from the US military. The temporary block prevents implementation of the ban pending further litigation.
• Federal appeals court ruled on refugee admissions suspension — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can halt the approval of new refugees in the US but it must admit those who were conditionally accepted before the president suspended the country's refugee admissions system. The ruling partially upheld the suspension while protecting previously approved refugees.
• Federal appeals court upholds block on Alien Enemies Act deportations to El Salvador — A split three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a March 15 order by District Judge James Boasberg temporarily prohibiting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Trump administration had deported hundreds of people under a presidential proclamation designating the Tren de Aragua gang as an invading force. Boasberg had blocked further deportations and ordered planeloads of Venezuelan immigrants returned to the US, which the government did not comply with.
• Ninth Circuit refuses to pause reinstatement order for 17,000 fired federal workers — The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause a judge's earlier ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate more than 17,000 probationary employees fired from six federal agencies (Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury). A district judge had ruled on March 13 that the Office of Personnel Management improperly ordered the firings despite lacking authority to do so. The Trump administration had appealed the reinstatement order.
• US District Judge Ana Reyes blocks Trump transgender military ban implementation — US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington DC rejected the Trump administration's attempt to lift a court order preventing a ban on transgender military service scheduled to take effect Friday. Reyes criticized the proposed implementation plan requiring all 1.3 million military personnel to self-report annually on gender dysphoria, characterizing it as "rummaging through private medical records." The judge maintained the existing court order blocking the ban.

Supporting reports

• Judge rules USAid shutdown likely violated US Constitution — A federal judge, Theodore Chuang, ruled that Elon Musk and the "department of government efficiency" (Doge) likely violated the US Constitution by shutting down USAid. The judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse actions taken to dismantle the agency, including halting efforts to terminate USAid officials and contractors, and reinstating former employees' access to government systems. The ruling also requires allowing USAid to return to its headquarters if the underlying case is successful. The administration is expected to appeal the decision.
• Federal judge blocked DOGE cuts to USAID — A federal judge ruled the dismantling of USAID likely violates the Constitution and blocked DOGE from making any further cuts to the agency, protecting the congressionally-created development organization.
• Judge Chuang rules against destruction of USAID — U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a 68-page decision finding that the actions of Elon Musk and the "Department of Government Efficiency" to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the Constitution. Chuang ordered parts of USAID to be restored, emphasizing the agency's importance to public interest and congressional authority.

Supporting reports

• Trump issues executive order to end birthright citizenship — On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to overturn birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. The order declares that children born in the US to parents who are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents, or who have only temporary legal status, are not automatically US citizens. The order applies to births after February 19, 2025. The Migration Policy Institute estimated approximately 255,000 children annually would be affected, potentially adding 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants by 2045.
• Appeals court denies Trump's plea to reinstate birthright citizenship ban — A federal appeals court in San Francisco denied the Trump administration's request to reinstate a ban on birthright citizenship. This decision leaves in place an injunction issued by a federal court in Washington state. The case, brought by Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois, challenges an executive order signed by Trump on his first day in office, which aimed to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens or non-legal permanent residents. The appeals court's decision sets up a potential battle at the US Supreme Court.
• US court denies reinstatement of birthright citizenship ban — A US appeals court denied the Justice Department's emergency application to reinstate a ban on birthright citizenship. The ban, initially ordered by Donald Trump, was blocked by a court, and the appeals court ruled that the DOJ did not demonstrate an emergency need to overturn the decision. This ruling maintains the status quo regarding birthright citizenship in the US.

Supporting reports

• Judge blocks birthright citizenship order — A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, stating it would cause "irreparable harm." This decision protects the constitutional rights of individuals born in the US.

Supporting reports

• Judge grants injunction on birthright citizenship — A federal judge in Seattle granted an injunction against President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. This decision protects the constitutional rights of individuals born in the US.