Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Trump refuses to rule out declaring state of emergency before midterm elections — In a Time magazine interview, President Trump declined to rule out declaring a state of emergency before the November midterm elections, stating "I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see." He also said he "could use" the Insurrection Act to deploy military troops domestically, noting that "a lot of people think I should use it sometimes." Trump dismissed low approval ratings as "fake numbers" and blamed media for misrepresenting his earlier statements about the Iran war's duration.
• Trump expresses regret over Supreme Court appointments and discusses using Insurrection Act — In a 75-minute TIME magazine interview, Trump stated he regretted appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett because they ruled against him on tariffs, mail ballots, and birthright citizenship. He expressed unapologetic expectations of judicial loyalty, stating "I do like loyalty, yeah." When asked whether he would rule out declaring a state of emergency before the midterms unless there was widespread violence, Trump said "I don't rule anything out or in" and indicated he could use the Insurrection Act, saying "A lot of people think I should use it sometimes."
• Trump defies congressional authority in TIME magazine interview — The President of the United States openly defied Congress during a TIME magazine interview, according to the article. The specific nature of the defiance is not detailed in the text provided, but the article characterizes the President's statements as demonstrating "no grasp on reality at all" and notes the defiance as part of a pattern of constitutional violations occurring under the current administration.

Supporting reports

• Utah Republicans threatened to impeach judge over gerrymandering enforcement — Utah Republicans threatened to impeach a state judge for enforcing a constitutional ban on gerrymandering. When the impeachment threat did not succeed in stopping the judge's rulings, Republicans subsequently packed the state Supreme Court to overturn the judge's decisions and allow gerrymandered districts.
• Utah Republicans packed state Supreme Court to overturn redistricting protections — After their impeachment threat against a judge enforcing a constitutional ban on gerrymandering failed, Utah Republicans packed the state Supreme Court. This court-packing effort was designed to overturn judicial protections against gerrymandered districts and allow partisan redistricting to proceed.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court lifts injunction, allows Trump mail-in voting crackdown to proceed — The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift a June injunction from a Massachusetts federal judge that had blocked Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in voting. The order directs the government to create a "state citizenship list" restricting mail-in ballot delivery and instructs the DOJ to prosecute state and local election officials deemed to have issued ballots to ineligible voters. Democratic-led states and voting rights groups challenged the order as unconstitutional; a second injunction remains in place. The ruling allows implementation to move forward while litigation continues ahead of November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court eased restrictions on Trump's mail-in ballot executive order — A divided Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions blocking Trump's March executive order restricting mail-in voting, ruling the states' challenge was premature rather than deciding the order's merits. The unsigned opinion held that agencies had not finalized implementation rules when the challenge was filed. The USPS published final rules Friday and plans to make them official Wednesday. Legal analysts note the ruling is narrow and technical, with additional litigation expected as lower courts may issue new injunctions against the finalized rules before the November elections.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. California (26A124) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. California. Docket number(s): 26A124.
• Supreme Court gave Trump procedural victory on mail-voting restrictions — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states challenging Trump's executive order restricting mail voting sued too early, granting the administration a procedural victory. The Court explicitly stated its decision did not mean the administration's implementation would be lawful. The Postal Service subsequently issued rules implementing parts of the order, including new voter-list and mail-ballot-processing requirements. New lawsuits followed, and on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the new mail-voting rule for 14 days pending further court consideration.

Supporting reports

• Trump appealed to Supreme Court to override lower courts' rulings on ballroom construction authority — Trump appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to override lower courts' rulings that he lacks the authority to build a ballroom structure without congressional permission. The ballroom project has become a point of controversy, with Trump spending significant time and resources on Washington, D.C. renovation and beautification projects while the administration faces other pressing issues.
• Supreme Court deadline set for Trump ballroom construction intervention — Tomorrow (August 21, 2026) is the deadline for the Supreme Court to intervene on Trump's ballroom construction project. If the Court chooses not to take the case, construction must be halted based on a prior court order.
• Supreme Court temporarily halts lower court order blocking White House ballroom construction — Chief Justice John Roberts signed a temporary order on Friday permitting construction of Trump's controversial White House ballroom to continue while the Supreme Court considers an emergency appeal from the administration. An appeals court had ordered work to stop pending legal review, concluding the project likely requires congressional approval. The administration argued the 90,000-square-foot ballroom and underground military facility are critical to presidential security. Democrats criticized the decision as "rubber stamping Trump's vanity-driven, gilded corruption." The project, already 65% complete after 10 months, is expected to cost over $400 million.

Supporting reports

• North Carolina legislature added Republicans to Judicial Standards Commission — The North Carolina legislature added more Republicans to the Judicial Standards Commission a couple of years prior to August 2026. This action concentrated partisan control over the body responsible for investigating ethics complaints against judges, further enabling the targeting of Democratic justices.
• North Carolina legislature created new Family Court with judges appointed by Chief Justice — The North Carolina legislature's recent budget bill created a new "special" Family Court whose judges will be appointed directly by Chief Justice Paul Newby. These judges can serve until age 78, the highest mandatory judicial retirement age in the country, concentrating judicial appointment power in the chief justice.
• Chief Justice Newby given power over new business court with wide jurisdiction — Chief Justice Paul Newby was previously given power over a new business court with exceptionally wide jurisdiction, further concentrating judicial authority in his hands and enabling him to shape outcomes in commercial disputes.
• Chief Justice Paul Newby previously pushed investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls — In 2023, North Carolina Chief Justice Paul Newby initiated an investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls for ethics charges related to her discussing bias and lack of diversity on the state Supreme Court. The Judicial Standards Commission backed down after Earls filed a First Amendment lawsuit. This prior action demonstrates a pattern of using ethics complaints as a tool against Democratic justices.
• Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced baseless ethics complaint before 2024 reelection — Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced a baseless ethics complaint in the weeks before her 2024 reelection campaign. The complaint was filed as part of a pattern of using ethics processes to target Democratic justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
• GOP Supreme Court majority refused to sanction Republican judges who admitted ethics violations — In 2024, ProPublica revealed that the GOP-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court majority refused to sanction two Republican judges who admitted to violating ethics rules with serious consequences. This demonstrates a double standard in ethics enforcement, with Democratic judges targeted while Republican judges face no consequences.
• North Carolina legislature passes bill allowing GOP Supreme Court justices to remove Democratic judges — The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill that grants the state Supreme Court majority power to remove judges without the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. The bill would allow GOP justices to unilaterally determine ethics violations and remove Democratic justices, circumventing the votes of millions of voters who elected them. The measure faces a likely veto from Democratic Governor Josh Stein, though two former Democrats in the legislature have recently voted to override vetoes.

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

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's executive order restricting mail-in voting — US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled unconstitutional an executive order issued by Trump on March 31, 2026, requiring the postal service to implement a barcode tracking system for ballot envelopes tied to citizenship data. The order would have denied mail-in ballots to states refusing to submit voter rolls to federal officials. Voting rights groups, 23 states, and DC sued to block the rule, arguing the Constitution grants no presidential authority over election administration. The injunction prevents the administration from creating a federal program to control state voter rolls or prosecuting states for non-compliance, though states may voluntarily participate.
• Federal judge blocks Trump executive order requiring voter citizenship documentation — US District Court Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts ruled on June 25, 2026, that Trump's executive order mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration was unconstitutional. The order would have required voters to present passports, birth certificates, or similar documents. Casper found that the Constitution grants the President no specific powers over elections, which are primarily governed by states and Congress. None of the order's provisions had been implemented before the ruling.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11581 — Judge Talwani granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 14399 - which directed DHS to compile “State Citizenship Lists” of eligible voters from federal databases and directed USPS to maintain “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists” and refuse delivery of mail ballots from voters not on those lists - legally void as ultra vires and unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers. The court held that voter eligibility is reserved exclusively to the states under the Constitution and that no federal statute delegates to the president or USPS any authority over mail-in ballot delivery. The court permanently enjoined defendant agencies from implementing those provisions with respect to the Nov. 3, 2026 general election and any earlier federal elections in Plaintiff States. The court also declared Section 5 of the EO - which provided that states should preserve election records for five years - is a nonbinding recommendation because the president lacks authority to impose a retention requirement beyond the twenty-two-month period Congress set in the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Defendants are ordered to file a status report with the court within seven days describing steps taken to ensure compliance.
• Federal judge voided mail-ballot restriction order — On Thursday, June 26, Judge Indira Talwani voided the core of the March mail-voting order, which would have used the Postal Service to limit mail-ballot delivery to a federally approved voter list and would have built that national list in the first place. Roughly two dozen states joined the suits challenging the order.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders Trump administration to explain tarp obscuring Kennedy Center facade — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the Trump administration to report by 31 July on the purpose and status of a tarp and scaffolding installed at the Kennedy Center after workers removed Donald Trump's name from the building's facade in a predawn operation. The tarp was placed following Cooper's court order requiring removal of Trump's name, which had been unlawfully added in December. The administration faces scrutiny for what critics characterize as obstruction of the restoration of the Kennedy Center's original name.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, grants presidents power to fire independent agency leaders — On June 24, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the president may fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent that had protected agency independence for 90 years. The decision followed Trump's March 2026 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and other agency officials. Legal experts warned the ruling abandons constitutional safeguards against executive overreach and replaces them with a "loyalty test," enabling future presidents to politicize agencies Congress designed to be insulated from presidential coercion.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court allows Trump administration to end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Thursday allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for over a decade. Justice Alito's majority opinion rejected claims that the policy was racially motivated, despite Trump's documented statements calling Haiti a "shithole country" and asserting Haitians were "poisoning the blood" of America. The decision strips legal status from approximately 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to end TPS for 350,000 people — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed the Trump administration to terminate temporary protected status (TPS) for more than 350,000 people from Syria and Haiti who had fled wars and violence. The six right-wing justices cited procedural reasons, though Trump loyalists interpreted the ruling as endorsement of white nationalist immigration policy.
• SCOTUS barred judicial review of TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that federal law creating the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program bars courts from reviewing determinations by then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to end TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. The decision removed judicial oversight of executive decisions to strip protected status from foreign nationals.
• Supreme Court Ruling in Mullin v. Doe — On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the consolidated cases of Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, reversing lower court decisions and allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, stated that the law governing TPS does not permit judicial review of decisions regarding the termination of TPS designations.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, requiring them to leave the country or face arrest and deportation once a termination date is set. Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the TPS law authorizes Trump to end the program without court intervention. Justice Kagan dissented, arguing the majority failed to acknowledge Trump's bigoted statements and endorsed racism.
• Supreme Court cleared way to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — In a 6–3 ideological ruling on Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court held that the law governing Temporary Protected Status bars judicial review of the Homeland Security secretary's decision to end it. The ruling permits the administration to strip protection from more than 350,000 Haitians and several thousand Syrians who have lived and worked legally in the country for up to a decade. Justice Kagan's dissent noted the president's "repellent and racially inflected" statements about Haitians. Advocates warned the reasoning endangers roughly 1.3 million people covered by TPS designations across more than a dozen countries.
• Supreme Court strips TPS from Haitians and Syrians; allows asylum turnaround policy — The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 6-3 rulings on June 26, 2026, allowing the Trump administration to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians and to implement a policy permitting border officials to turn back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border without processing claims. The decisions affect over 350,000 TPS holders and countless asylum seekers. Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates condemned the rulings as "disastrous" and a violation of international law and federal refugee protections.
• US Supreme Court allows Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from Haitians and Syrians — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on June 26, 2026, upholding the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that courts cannot review executive decisions on TPS revocation. The ruling overturned lower court injunctions and leaves hundreds of thousands of legally resident immigrants vulnerable to deportation despite their home countries being designated unsafe by the State Department.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court TPS termination ruling and listing 60 immigration enforcement actions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 26, 2026, announcing that the Supreme Court had upheld the Trump Administration's authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian migrants. The document frames this as a victory for "American sovereignty" and lists 60 actions taken as part of what it characterizes as the "largest and most aggressive immigration enforcement effort in American history," including expanded ICE workforce, accelerated deportations, border wall construction, visa restrictions, and denaturalization efforts.

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

• US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, strikes down Trump executive order — On June 1, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to strike down President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children born in the US to parents without legal status or on temporary visas. Five justices found the order unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment; Justice Kavanaugh concurred only that it violated federal law. Three conservative justices dissented, lending credibility to fringe legal theories challenging longstanding birthright citizenship doctrine. The ruling averted a crisis affecting 250,000+ children annually.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary order blocking "anti-weaponization" fund — A federal judge issued a temporary order preventing the Trump administration from establishing the nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund while a lawsuit seeking to stop it is considered. The fund, which originated from a settlement after Trump sued the IRS over disclosure of his tax returns, had been proposed to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack.
• Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's $1.8bn Anti-Weaponization Fund — US District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on Friday barring the Trump administration from transferring money into or taking further action on a $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund." The fund was created to settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons over leaked tax returns, without the government mounting a legal defense. The order preserves the status quo pending legal arguments in a challenge brought by Democracy Forward and other plaintiffs, preventing irreversible disbursement of taxpayer funds.
• Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary order halting the Department of Justice from creating, operating, or distributing funds from the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion slush fund established by the Trump administration to compensate those convicted of crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The order prohibits the administration from transferring money to the fund, considering claims for payment, or paying out any funds. Brinkema scheduled a hearing on the case for June 12. The plaintiffs challenging the fund are people and entities prosecuted or threatened by the Trump administration who argue they are not being treated equally with Trump loyalists in compensation claims.
• Motion granted — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema enjoined Defendants from taking any action related to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, considering submitted claims, or disbursing any funds. Judge Brinkema also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and granted the Defendants' request for additional time.
• Federal Judge Brinkema temporarily blocked Trump's $1.776 billion fund for fraudsters and insurrectionists — Federal Judge Brinkema issued a temporary block on any further action involving Trump's $1.776 billion fund, preserving the status quo while litigation moves forward. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 12, 2026. The fund was characterized as being for "fraudsters and insurrectionists."
• Federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Justice from taking further action on the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded initiative. The order blocks the transfer of money to the fund, consideration of claims, and disbursement of funds while plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is pending. Judge Brinkema scheduled a hearing for June 12 to hear further arguments on the case.
• Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's $1.776 Billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from creating or operating a planned $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to compensate individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the government, potentially including those Trump pardoned for Jan. 6 involvement. The order prohibits consideration of submitted claims and disbursement of funds pending a June 12 hearing.

Supporting reports

• Trump called for court-packing in response to Supreme Court tariff ruling — President Trump posted on social media complaining that the Supreme Court's decision declaring his "Liberation Day" tariffs of April 2025 unconstitutional had not included language stating that money paid to the United States did not have to be repaid. Trump criticized his own appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for showing "so little respect to our Country" and explicitly called for court-packing, stating "PACK THE COURT! I'm working so hard to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and then people that I appointed have shown so little respect to our Country, and its people." He demanded they vote his way on birthright citizenship.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act; states initiate emergency redistricting — On Wednesday, April 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act, eliminating key protections against racial discrimination in voting maps. In immediate response, Louisiana postponed its May primaries, and multiple southern states—Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee—initiated or announced special legislative sessions to redraw congressional districts. Florida's Republican-controlled legislature passed new maps delivering four additional seats to Republicans. Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee announced plans to follow suit, with governors and Republican officials explicitly targeting majority-Black districts for dilution.
• Supreme Court decision weakened Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Within days of the ruling, several Republican-controlled states moved to redraw or revisit congressional maps, including Tennessee, which signed a new map, and Alabama, which asked the Supreme Court to revisit a court order requiring a map with two largely Black districts.
• Supreme Court narrowed Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district (represented by Congressman Cleo Fields) constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district, eliminating a compelling reason to consider race in redistricting. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the ruling renders Section 2 "all but a dead letter" and permits states to "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal consequence. The decision shifts the legal standard from results-based to intent-based scrutiny, requiring plaintiffs to prove discriminatory motive rather than demonstrating discriminatory effect.
• Supreme Court ruling weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly weakened how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used to protect voters of color in redistricting cases. For decades, Section 2 has been a central tool for communities to challenge maps and election systems that dilute minority voting power. The Court's ruling gave Republican-led states new grounds to attack majority-Black districts before the midterms.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana v. Callais decision — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the ruling "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter." The decision prompted immediate action by Republican-controlled states to redraw maps, including Louisiana suspending House primaries, Tennessee redrawing its map to eliminate its only majority-Black district, and Alabama petitioning the Court to reconsider a prior order requiring two majority-Black districts.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to create majority-minority congressional districts. The decision makes it substantially harder for voters of color to challenge electoral maps that dilute their political power. Within days, Louisiana's governor suspended the state's primary election to redraw congressional maps, and Alabama filed to reinstate maps a lower court had previously struck down for diluting Black votes.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to draw majority-minority congressional districts. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that Louisiana's maps violated the equal protection clause but rejected the use of Section 2 to mandate such districts. The ruling opens the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority districts across the South, immediately threatening Black lawmakers Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures in Alabama, who may lose their seats after redistricting in 2028.
• US Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana redistricting case — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively neutralizes Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major provision preventing racial discrimination in voting. The majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, rewrote the legal test for Section 2 claims to require proof of intentional racial discrimination—a nearly impossible standard—and added new restrictions preventing consideration of race in alternative redistricting maps. The decision permits states to draw districts that dilute minority voting power under the guise of partisan goals.
• US Supreme Court ruling in Callais v. Landry weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court issued the Callais v. Landry decision, which substantially weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring litigants to prove racial motivations in redistricting rather than allowing challenges based on discriminatory effect. The ruling permits Republican-controlled state legislatures to use partisan gerrymandering as cover for racial vote dilution, particularly targeting concentrated Black voters in urban areas. The decision eliminates protections that had enabled Congress to achieve record racial and ethnic diversity, and threatens to reverse decades of voting-rights gains.
• Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6–3 to declare Louisiana's majority-minority congressional district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, ruling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision overturned decades of precedent recognizing that states could create majority-minority districts to remedy historical exclusion of Black voters and ensure Black representation. The ruling eliminated a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Supreme Court gutted voting rights protections for Black-majority districts — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that eliminated protections for Black-majority districts established under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision reversed years of congressional effort to safeguard minority voting power. Following the ruling, Republican-dominated southern state legislatures began redrawing district lines to dilute the votes of Black Democrats, effectively weakening the electoral power of Black communities.
• Supreme Court issues decision in Callais v. Louisiana — The Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Callais v. Louisiana on April 29, 2026. The article indicates this ruling is significant enough to warrant substantial analysis but does not provide details of the holding, reasoning, or outcome within the text provided.
• Supreme Court makes Louisiana v. Callais decision immediately effective — The U.S. Supreme Court made its April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais immediately effective, rather than waiting the standard 32 days for finalization. The decision struck down Louisiana's creation of a second congressional district designed to enable Black voters to elect a representative of their choice under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, finding the race-conscious district creation unconstitutional. The immediate effectiveness allowed Louisiana to redraw maps before its primary election, which was already underway.
• Supreme Court rejected majority-minority district interpretation in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais rejecting the longstanding interpretation that states may create majority-minority districts to guarantee Black representation in government. The right-wing justices in the majority declared Louisiana's construction of a majority-minority district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, characterizing it as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling continues the Court's dismantling of voting rights protections.
• Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that significantly weakens the Voting Rights Act, allowing for increased gerrymandering practices that could disproportionately affect minority voters. This ruling is expected to lead to widespread changes in how electoral districts are drawn, potentially impacting the fairness and representation in future elections across the United States.
• Supreme Court weakened Voting Rights Act provision — The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling effectively weakening a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has prohibited racial discrimination in voting for six decades. The decision will allow Republicans to redraw congressional maps in the South, potentially netting the GOP 19 additional House seats compared to 2024 maps and potentially causing the largest drop in Black representation in Congress ever. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the decision renders the provision "all but a dead letter" with "far-reaching and grave" consequences.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (24-781) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport. Docket number(s): 24-781.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Louisiana v. Callais (24-109) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. Docket number(s): 24-109.
• Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act, enabling Republican-controlled states to pursue aggressive gerrymandering of congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling removes a key federal constraint on partisan map-drawing and follows the Court's 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which barred federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims. Together, these decisions have eliminated judicial oversight of extreme partisan maps.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Wednesday, April 30, 2026, that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act, particularly Section 2, which had allowed plaintiffs to challenge electoral maps drawn in racially discriminatory ways. The ruling eviscerated protections codified during the civil rights era. Voting rights advocates, including Ashley K Shelton of Power Coalition for Equality and Justice and Anneshia Hardy of Alabama Values, responded by pledging to shift their strategy toward state-level litigation, grassroots organizing, and coalition-building across state lines to restore voting protections.
• Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v Callais eviscerates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The U.S. Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, ruled that Louisiana's attempt to create a second electoral district giving African American voters proportionate representation constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismantles a 40-year-old tool used to prevent dilution of minority voting power. The ruling overturns Congressional intent expressed in the original 1965 statute and subsequent reauthorizations, marking the culmination of decades of legal assault on voting rights protections by Roberts and Alito.
• US Supreme Court rules race-based redistricting unconstitutional in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on April 30, 2026, prohibiting states from using race-conscious redistricting to protect minority voting power. The ruling effectively dismantles Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of intentional racial discrimination rather than discriminatory effect. Multiple southern states, including Louisiana, have already begun redrawing congressional maps to reduce Black voter representation ahead of the November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that race-based redistricting claims require proof of intentional racial discrimination — The Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that plaintiffs challenging district lines as racially discriminatory must prove that lawmakers intentionally based their decisions on race rather than partisanship. The decision effectively removed federal court oversight of partisan gerrymandering and opened the door for southern states to redraw maps to shift 10–15 seats from Democrats to Republicans by targeting minority voting power.
• Supreme Court struck down Louisiana congressional map with majority-Black district — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais invalidating Louisiana's congressional redistricting map that included a second majority-Black district. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent characterized the decision as demolishing the Voting Rights Act and rendering Section 2 a dead letter. Within hours, a request was filed to expedite the judgment to allow the state legislature to redraw lines before the 2026 midterms.
• Supreme Court decision in Callais v. Louisiana gutting Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The Supreme Court issued a decision Wednesday striking down core protections of the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2. The ruling established that Section 2 violations now require a "strong inference" of intentional discrimination rather than evidence of discriminatory impact on minority voters. The decision immediately triggered chaos across voting rights litigation nationwide, with courts pausing proceedings, state officials moving to dismiss cases, and election administration disrupted as the legal standard for challenging discriminatory maps and election rules became substantially harder to meet.
• Supreme Court Decision in Louisiana v Callais — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Louisiana v Callais, effectively weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, declared a new 2024 electoral map unconstitutional because it diluted the voting power of white Republican voters, despite previous lower court rulings that supported the creation of a second majority-Black district in Louisiana. This decision has been criticized for undermining protections for Black voters and is seen as a significant step back for racial equality in electoral opportunities.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v Callais, effectively dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been used to ensure minority voters receive fair treatment in district drawing. The decision weakens Black voters' power to elect their own representatives and triggers renewed state-level efforts to enact voting rights protections. Nine states already have state voting rights acts; eleven others have introduced bills to create their own versions in response.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act in 6-3 ruling — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, eliminating federal protections for voting rights that Congress had established. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration argues before Supreme Court to overturn birthright citizenship via executive order — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump's February 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that "domicile" (permanent residence) should be required for citizenship, excluding children born to undocumented or temporarily present parents. A majority of justices appeared skeptical of the government's position. The case challenges 125+ years of precedent established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. A decision is expected in summer 2026.
• Trump’s Executive Order on Citizenship — On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which asserts that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status. This order contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
• ACLU Represents Families Against Trump’s Order — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing three families in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, includes an asylum applicant from Honduras whose child is due after the order's implementation.
• President Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for the case Trump v. Barbara, which seeks to end birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This marked the first time a sitting president has attended such proceedings. The case stems from Trump's executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which declared that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. The ACLU represents families challenging this order.

Supporting reports

• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments in birthright citizenship case — President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump sat in the front row alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The case arose from Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order declaring that individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. Three families, represented by the ACLU, sued to challenge the order. Trump departed after approximately ninety minutes, before the ACLU's oral argument began.
• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments on birthright citizenship case — On April 1, 2026, President Trump attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the birthright citizenship case, breaking precedent by sitting in the front row of public seating alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He left after an hour and a half, before the ACLU lawyer began her argument. Lower court judges had already called the executive order "blatantly unconstitutional."
• Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the legality of his executive order on birthright citizenship. This marked the first time a sitting president attended such proceedings, raising concerns about potential intimidation of the justices. Trump was present alongside his attorney general and commerce secretary but left before the plaintiffs' attorney began speaking.
• Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship arguments; justices skeptical of Trump position — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Justice Kagan stated directly that the text of the 14th Amendment does not support Trump's position and that the administration was relying on "pretty obscure sources." Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that other countries lack birthright citizenship but questioned its constitutional relevance. Justice Gorsuch raised the landmark precedent Wong Kim Ark in a manner unfavorable to the government's argument.
• Trump attends Supreme Court oral argument and leaves early — Trump became the first sitting president in history to attend a Supreme Court oral argument. He sat in the front row of the public gallery during the birthright citizenship case but left before the arguments concluded, apparently finding the proceedings not to his liking.
• ACLU Represents Families Against Trump’s Order — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing three families in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, includes an asylum applicant from Honduras whose child is due after the order's implementation.
• President Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for the case Trump v. Barbara, which seeks to end birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This marked the first time a sitting president has attended such proceedings. The case stems from Trump's executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which declared that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. The ACLU represents families challenging this order.
• Trump’s Historical Precedent at the Supreme Court — President Trump’s attendance at the Supreme Court oral arguments on April 1, 2026, breaks historical precedent, as no sitting president has previously attended such proceedings. His presence is seen as an attempt to influence the court's decision on a case that could significantly alter the interpretation of citizenship in the U.S.

Supporting reports

• US judge halts Trump's $400m White House ballroom project via preliminary injunction — US District Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction requested by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, halting construction of a $400 million White House ballroom project. Trump had demolished the historic East Wing without congressional approval. Leon ruled that Trump exceeded his authority and must obtain congressional authorization before continuing. The Trump administration immediately appealed the order. Trump attacked both the nonprofit and the judge on Truth Social, claiming the project was "under budget, ahead of schedule" and required no congressional approval.
• Department of Justice appealed Judge Leon's ballroom ruling — Following Judge Richard Leon's ruling that Trump cannot proceed with White House ballroom construction without congressional approval, the Department of Justice filed an appeal of the decision.
• Judge Richard Leon blocked Trump's White House ballroom construction project — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia ruled that Trump cannot proceed with construction of a giant ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House without congressional approval. The National Trust for Historic Preservation had sued Trump and federal agencies to halt construction, alleging Trump bypassed required legal reviews and approvals. Leon wrote that "The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!" and stated that "no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims." Leon ordered that "the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion." The Department of Justice immediately appealed.
• Appeal filed — National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04316 — The government appealed to the court's March 31 order to the D.C. Circuit, Case No. 26-5101 .
• Preliminary injunction ruling — National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04316 — In an opinion and order , Judge Leon granteda preliminary injunction stopping the planned White House ballroom project, finding the President is acting without statutory authority. “[U]nless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!,” the judge wrote. The court stayed its order for 14 days.
• US District Judge Richard Leon halted construction of Trump's ballroom project — US District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction halting construction of Trump's ballroom, ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the President lacks statutory authority for the project. The judge found no statute grants the President the claimed authority and ordered construction to stop until Congress authorizes completion. Trump responded with a lengthy Truth Social post attacking the National Trust and comparing the ballroom to other federal projects.
• NCPC approves Trump White House ballroom project despite pending judicial review — The National Capital Planning Commission, chaired by Trump's former personal lawyer William Scharf, approved Trump's $400 million East Wing ballroom project on Thursday. The approval came two days after a federal judge ruled that work cannot proceed without congressional approval and granted a preliminary injunction to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Justice Department has appealed the judge's ruling. The commission described the 90,000 sq ft ballroom as a continuation of the White House's historical evolution.
• Stay pending appeal decided — National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04316 — The administration filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of the District Court's March 31 preliminary injunction. In the alternative, the administration requested “at least” a 14-day stay so the Solicitor General could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Per the motion, the East Wing is actively under construction and the building materials onsite must be installed rather than “be exposed to the conditions and elements of an open construction site. Time is of the essence!”

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship case — Trump publicly attacked the Supreme Court, calling it "stupid" and "dumb" as he attempted to pre-spin a potential and likely loss in a case on birthright citizenship. The attack on the judiciary reflects contempt for the court and an attempt to delegitimize an unfavorable ruling before it is issued.
• Trump posted criticism of Supreme Court justices ahead of birthright citizenship oral arguments — Two days before Trump administration lawyers were scheduled to argue the birthright citizenship case before SCOTUS, Trump posted on social media that the justices are "dumb," stating: "Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the US. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES! The World is laughing at how STUPID our US Court System has become (TARIFFS!). Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!"

Supporting reports

• Federal judge rules three New Jersey prosecutors appointed by Pam Bondi were illegally installed without Senate confirmation — Federal judge Matthew Brann ruled that three prosecutors handpicked by US Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead New Jersey's attorney general office were illegally appointed, repeating the same constitutional violation that disqualified Alina Habba in December 2025. Bondi had split the position into three roles (Jordan Fox, Ari Fontecchio, Philip Lamparello) to circumvent Senate confirmation requirements. Judge Brann found no legal authority for this maneuver and warned that continued reliance on unconfirmed leadership could result in dismissal of pending criminal cases.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge voided actions taken by Kari Lake at Voice of America — U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled on Saturday that Kari Lake, a Trump-appointed official, lacked lawful authority to serve as acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees Voice of America. Lake had exercised approximately 95 percent of the CEO's duties despite not being employed by USAGM when the former CEO resigned in January 2025 and lacking Senate confirmation. The court voided her actions, including layoffs of over 1,000 journalists and staffers, funding cuts, and restructuring that reduced VOA broadcasting from 49 languages to four. The ruling reaffirms that administrations must follow legal procedures when installing control over public institutions.
• Appeals court voids Kari Lake's tenure as head of US Agency for Global Media for lack of Senate confirmation — Senior judge Royce C Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia voided the tenure of Kari Lake, a Republican former gubernatorial candidate, who unlawfully led the US Agency for Global Media for several months in 2025 without Senate confirmation. The court voided mass layoffs and other actions Lake took to dismantle the agency overseeing Voice of America and related international news broadcasters, finding her appointment violated constitutional requirements.
• Federal judge voids Kari Lake's unlawful tenure at USAGM, invalidating mass layoffs — US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Kari Lake unlawfully served as head of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the parent agency of Voice of America, after Trump appointed her without Senate confirmation on 31 July 2025. During her tenure through 19 November 2025, Lake cut over 1,000 staff positions and terminated contracts. The judge voided all actions taken during her unlawful service, citing violations of the Appointments Clause and the Vacancies Act. The ruling relied on precedent from the Third Circuit's invalidation of Alina Habba's appointment to lead the US attorney's office in New Jersey.
• Federal judge ruled Kari Lake acted unlawfully in running Voice of America — U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Kari Lake, head of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, acted unlawfully in running the Voice of America and its parent agency. The judge declared all of Lake's actions over the past year null and void, including the layoffs of more than 1,000 journalists and staffers. Lake announced she would appeal the ruling.
• Federal judge voided Kari Lake's authority over Voice of America — A federal judge ruled that Kari Lake had been unlawfully running Voice of America without proper legal authority and voided her actions. Lake had previously laid off more than 1,000 journalists and reduced Voice of America's language broadcasts from 49 to four. The ruling invalidated these personnel and operational decisions made without lawful authorization to hold the position.

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

• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of Minnesota v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:26-cv-00190 — A magistrate judge denied Minnesota's motion for expedited discovery, holding that despite the “far-reaching and deeply traumatizing effects” of Operation Metro Surge, Plaintiffs had not shown good cause because they had not yet filed the contemplated preliminary injunction motion or narrowly targeted their request to support specific and necessary ends.
• Stay motion decided — Lesly Miot v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02471 — A coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in opposition to the emergency motion to stay pending appeal.
• Case update — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04424 — Defendant answered Plaintiff's complaint and included the defense that its actions did not violate FOIA or other statutory provisions.
• Case update — State of Washington v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12006 — Plaintiff States filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment.
• Motion to dismiss decided — State of New York v. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11116 — Judge Young granted parties' joint motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice after the administration withdrew its appeal in American Federation of Teachers v. Department of Education of a court order vacating the same challenged agency action.
• Ruling vacated — Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. (C.D. Cal.) 5:25-cv-01873 — Judge Sykes granted Plaintiffs' motion to enforce judgment, finding that the government violated her prior order by continuing to detain noncitizens without a bond hearing. Judge Sykes vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that conflicted with her order, finding that the administration's continued reliance on that decision “far crossed the boundaries of constitutional conduct.” Judge Sykes also ordered the government to provide notice to a nationwide class of detained noncitizens of their ability to seek bond hearings under her order.
• Stay motion decided — U.H.A. et al v. Bondi et al (D. Minn.) 0:26-cv-00417 — Judge Tunheim granted the motion to stay consideration of Plaintiffs' contempt motion for seven days.
• Case update — Center for Constitutional Rights v. United States Department of State (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-06879 — Defendants filed a status report which indicates that USAID had begun its production of priority documents to Plaintiff and that the parties would continue to confer on narrowing the scope of Defendants' searches in light of USAID initially locating over 17 million potentially responsive records and DOS initially locating over 900,000 pages of responsive records.
• Case update — Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate et al (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-00881 — In a minute order , Judge Wang directed that the case be administratively closed.
• Complaint filed — Lemmon v. Trump (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-00544) — Private plaintiffs, including Vietnam War veterans, diplomats, and a historic preservation expert, filed a complaint in D.D.C. challenging President Trump's proposed 25-story "Independence Arch" on Memorial Circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. Plaintiffs allege the administration violated the Commemorative Works Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and National Environmental Policy Act by proceeding without required legislative approval and environmental review on an accelerated schedule ahead of July 4, 2026. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to bar construction and have filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
• Complaint filed: Williams v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration — Two scientists and an association of engineers and scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center filed suit in D.D.C. against NASA and the Archivist of the United States, challenging the September 2025 reversal of NASA's records-preservation framework and the closure of the Goddard Information and Collaboration Center and NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. Plaintiffs allege the decisions violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and seek vacatur, rescission, and an order requiring preservation of the database and records.
• Motion granted — Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior (D. Utah) 2:25-cv-00657 — Judge Barlow granted a motion allowing Peak Minerals, the owner of mineral leases at stake in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's lawsuit against the government, to intervene in the case.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Department Of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04426 — Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued an order which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion . The DOJ was ordered to expedite its processing of CREW's FOIA requests, however Judge Kollar-Kotelly declined to direct the DOJ to process its requests at a specific rate, instead opting to direct the parties to develop a proposal for the expedited processing and production of the most urgent records.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Tincher v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-04669 — The Eight Circuit stayed the appeal proceedings pending an indicative ruling by the district court on a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, following the reported end of Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis.
• Appeal filed — State of Illinois v. Noem (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00495 — The government appealed Judge McElroy's Dec. 22, 2025 order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs to the First Circuit (Case No. 26-1182 ).
• Case update — Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA (D.C. Cir.) 25-1215 — The court severed Lujan v. FMCSA , 26-1032 from Lujan v. FMCSA , 25-1215. The court ordered Lujan v. FMCSA , 25-1215 remain in abeyance pending further order of the court following the disposition of Lujan v. FMCSA , 26-1032.
• Case update — Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA (D.C. Cir.) 26-1032 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging they have exhausted administrative remedies under FOIA and are now entitled to an injunction.
• Case update — Protect Democracy Project v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04101 — The court consolidated American Public Health Association v. EPA , 26-1037 with Elena Venner v. EPA , 26-1038. These cases will proceed under American Public Health Association v. EPA .
• Cases consolidated — American Public Health Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir.) 26-1037