Trump Action Archive

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

• Department of Justice refuses to comply with court order to release unredacted Epstein files — Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a status conference in Phang v. Blanche on Thursday, August 14. The lawsuit, filed by independent journalist Katie Phang, seeks unredacted versions of Epstein investigation documents that the Department of Justice has withheld in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress mandated be released by December 19, 2025. Sullivan had granted Phang's request in late June and ordered the DOJ to produce unredacted documents in July; the DOJ refused both times. When Sullivan asked if he would learn anything more from the government, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block answered affirmatively. Sullivan warned he had held prosecutors in contempt in the past and gave Phang's lawyers ten days to propose an order.

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

• DOJ argues courts lack authority to block White House ballroom construction — The Trump administration asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court decision blocking construction of a $400 million ballroom and underground bunker at the White House's demolished East Wing. A DOJ lawyer argued that only Congress, not courts, has authority to halt the project, citing national security imperatives. The National Trust for Historic Preservation had sued after Trump ordered demolition without completing required environmental and historic preservation reviews. The Senate had removed $1 billion in Secret Service funding for the project from a spending bill.
• Trump's DOJ argues government can demolish Statue of Liberty without legal recourse — In an appeals court argument over White House ballroom construction, Trump's Department of Justice argued that the federal government has the right to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty and that once demolition is complete, no court would have standing to stop it or provide remedy. When Judge Millett asked if people could obtain an injunction before destruction, the DOJ answered affirmatively that nothing could be done. The DOJ also argued courts cannot stop the ballroom construction even if the administration violated the law, claiming only Congress can intervene.

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

• U.S. District Judge Richard Leon halted above-ground construction of White House ballroom — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, issued an order halting above-ground construction of a proposed White House ballroom but permitting construction of the below-ground bunker to continue. The decision prompted President Trump to post four lengthy social media screeds attacking the judge as "Trump Hating" and claiming the ballroom is essential to national security, containing bomb shelters, military installations, and protective infrastructure. Trump characterized the judicial order as "illegal overreach" and "a mockery to our Court System."
• Federal judge limits Trump's White House ballroom project — Federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that construction on Trump's planned White House ballroom project can proceed only on an underground portion deemed necessary for national security, not on the 90,000-square-foot aboveground addition Trump wanted for entertaining VIP guests. Judge Leon wrote that "national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity." Trump had argued the entire project counted as a security project because of bulletproof glass and bomb shelters.
• Trump attacks federal judge blocking White House ballroom construction — Trump attacked a federal judge on Truth Social who blocked the administration's above-ground construction of a White House ballroom, calling the judge "Trump Hating" and "highly political" and baselessly accusing him of "illegal overreach." The judge had authorized below-ground construction, citing protection of national security facilities. Trump claimed the below-ground portion will include bomb shelters and medical facilities.
• President Trump attacked federal judge Richard Leon in social media posts over ballroom ruling — President Trump posted four lengthy social media screeds attacking U.S. District Judge Richard Leon for halting above-ground construction of a proposed White House ballroom. Trump characterized the judge as "Trump Hating," accused him of "illegal overreach," and claimed the judicial order is "a mockery to our Court System." Trump asserted that the ballroom is essential to national security and that no judge can be allowed to stop the project, framing judicial review as an attack on presidential authority and national defense.
• 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 D.C. Circuit granted Defendants' emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Leon's April 16, 2026 order and set an expedited briefing schedule, noting: “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

Supporting reports

• Trump Justice Department argues Epstein Files Transparency Act cannot be enforced by courts — The Trump Justice Department filed arguments in federal court asserting that the Epstein Files Transparency Act cannot be enforced by any judge because the law does not explicitly provide a private right of action. According to the administration's legal position, courts are powerless to compel the release of the Epstein files. The administration is effectively asserting that no court can force it to comply with the law, placing itself beyond judicial oversight.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders release of Kilmar Ábrego García from ICE custody; DHS vows appeal — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered the release of Kilmar Ábrego García from an immigration detention facility in Pennsylvania on Thursday, December 11, 2025, finding that the federal government lacked lawful authority to detain him without a final deportation order. Ábrego, a Salvadoran national and construction worker, was freed shortly before 5pm ET. The Department of Homeland Security immediately condemned the ruling as "naked judicial activism" and announced plans to appeal. Ábrego plans to return to Maryland, where he has lived with his U.S. citizen wife and child.
• Judge Xinis ruled ICE could not hold Ábrego García without final deportation order — On Thursday, December 12, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that ICE could not hold Kilmar Ábrego García because there was no final deportation order for him, noting that the judge had not ordered one in the original 2019 decision protecting him from deportation.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration appeals SNAP benefits ruling — On November 6, 2025, immediately after Judge John McConnell's order to restore SNAP benefits, the Trump administration filed an appeal of the ruling.
• Trump administration appealed to First Circuit and sought emergency stay from Supreme Court — The Trump administration appealed Judge McConnell's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and requested that court pause the order while it decided the appeal. When the First Circuit had not ruled by late Friday afternoon, the administration filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay McConnell's order, preventing the distribution of SNAP benefits.
• Trump Administration Criticizes Federal Judge Over SNAP Ruling — Trump's legal team criticized the Rhode Island federal judge who ordered the release of SNAP benefits, claiming the ruling "makes a mockery of the separation of powers." This statement reflects the administration's broader strategy of defying judicial authority while prioritizing political interests.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge ordered SNAP benefits funding from emergency reserve — U.S. District Judge John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to fund SNAP benefit payments using the $4.65 billion emergency reserve Congress had set aside. McConnell suggested the administration could make full November payments by also tapping the Child Nutrition Program and other funds, but left discretion to the administration.
• Federal judge orders administration to restore SNAP benefits — On November 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in the District of Rhode Island found that the Trump administration had violated his prior court order by withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The judge accused the administration of withholding benefits "for political reasons" and cited Trump's social media post stating SNAP would be funded only after the shutdown ends as evidence of "intent to defy the court order." McConnell ordered full SNAP payments to states by November 7 for distribution to beneficiaries.
• Judge McConnell found administration ignored court order and mandated full SNAP benefit distribution — After the Trump administration failed to comply with his initial order to distribute at least partial SNAP benefits, Judge John McConnell found the administration in violation and issued a new order requiring the Trump administration to distribute the full amount of SNAP benefits for November to the states for distribution by the end of Friday (November 7, 2025).
• Trump administration appeals SNAP benefits ruling — On November 6, 2025, immediately after Judge John McConnell's order to restore SNAP benefits, the Trump administration filed an appeal of the ruling.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge allows Texas National Guard deployment to Chicago to proceed while Illinois lawsuit pending — U.S. District Judge April Perry declined to immediately block the deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Chicago in response to a lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul against the Trump administration. The judge allowed the federal government to continue the deployment while it responds to Illinois's suit, setting a midnight Wednesday deadline for the government's reply. Texas Guard members departed Fort Bliss on Monday evening; Illinois Governor JB Pritzker stated the administration had not consulted him and called it "Trump's invasion."
• Federal judge declines to block National Guard deployment to Chicago — U.S. District Judge April Perry declined to immediately block Texas National Guard troops from entering Chicago on October 7, 2025, despite a pending lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the city of Chicago seeking to stop the deployment. The judge's refusal to grant an injunction allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mobilizing troops to the city.
• Federal judge holds hearing on legality of Chicago national guard deployment — U.S. District Judge April Perry held a hearing in downtown Chicago on the constitutionality of the national guard deployment after Illinois and Chicago officials filed to declare it illegal. State and city attorneys argued the deployment violates the Constitution and represents a "constitutional crisis," while a Department of Justice lawyer defended it as necessary due to "tragic lawlessness." The hearing drew heavy public turnout requiring an overflow room.
• Judge Ellis restricts federal agents' use of force in northern Illinois — US District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction restricting federal agents' use of force against protesters and journalists in northern Illinois who do not pose a serious threat. The order prohibits pepper balls, rubber bullets, and physical force such as pulling, shoving, or tackling. Ellis also required federal agents to wear visible identification such as badges, addressing concerns about masked plainclothes officers conducting immigration enforcement operations.
• Judge Perry temporarily blocks Trump's national guard deployment in Chicago — US District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from federalizing or deploying the national guard in Illinois. The order, effective Thursday and lasting two weeks, came after the state of Illinois sued over Trump's directive to send hundreds of troops to Chicago for immigration enforcement and crime reduction. Perry found no credible evidence of rebellion in Illinois and criticized the Department of Homeland Security's characterization of events as "simply unreliable." The White House stated it would appeal.
• U.S. District Judge April M. Perry blocks federal National Guard deployment in Chicago for two weeks — U.S. District Judge April M. Perry issued a temporary restraining order halting the federal deployment of 200 National Guard troops from Texas and 300 from Illinois in and around Chicago for two weeks. Perry stated: "I have found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois." She cited grand jury refusals to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement and questioned the Department of Homeland Security's credibility and assessment of conditions in Chicago.
• Grand juries refuse to indict Chicago protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement — Grand juries in Chicago, including one on Tuesday night, refused to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement. Judge Perry cited these refusals in her decision to block the federal National Guard deployment, stating they cast doubt on the Department of Homeland Security's credibility and assessment of conditions in Chicago. The grand jury refusals suggest local juries do not view the alleged assaults as warranting criminal charges.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration pressured Supreme Court on tariff ruling — The Trump administration ramped up public pressure on the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that his tariffs are illegal. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that delaying a ruling until June 2026 could result in $750 billion to $1 trillion in tariffs already collected, with unwinding causing significant disruption. The court was scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules Trump exceeded presidential authority on tariff imposition — A federal appeals court found that Trump overstepped his presidential authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries earlier in 2025, including a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners and reciprocal tariffs on specific nations. The ruling sent shock waves across global markets. The Trump administration subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules Trump's tariffs exceed presidential authority — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump's tariffs "assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations" of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law the administration invoked. The court found that the word "tariff" does not appear in IEEPA and questioned whether the statute grants the president sufficient power to impose tariffs. The appeals court paused its ruling, allowing tariffs to remain in place until 14 October while the case proceeds to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court allows deportation of eight men to South Sudan without torture-risk review — The US Supreme Court issued an order on Thursday allowing the Trump administration to deport eight men held at Camp Lemonnier (a US military base in Djibouti) to South Sudan, reversing a district judge's ruling that required immigrants facing third-country deportation to first demonstrate reasonable fear of torture, persecution, or death. Most men are from Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba, and Myanmar—only one from South Sudan. The conservative majority's decision follows a prior ruling permitting rapid deportations to unconnected countries without such protections.
• US judge clears path for deportation of eight immigrants to South Sudan — A US district judge in Boston denied emergency requests by eight immigrants to halt their deportation to South Sudan, clearing the way for their transfer after the Supreme Court clarified that the judge could no longer block the action. The men, convicted of serious crimes and from countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba, and Myanmar, were scheduled to be flown to South Sudan on Friday evening. The case represents the latest round in litigation over the Trump administration's campaign to deter immigration through high-profile deportations to countries where migrants report safety concerns.

Supporting reports

• Stephen Miller disclosed Palantir stock holdings — News broke that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, widely believed to be responsible for the administration's draconian immigration policies, owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of stock in Palantir, the data and intelligence software company owned by Peter Thiel. Palantir has valuable contracts with ICE to track undocumented immigrants.
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures for new ACIP members not published in writing before meeting — The eight newly appointed ACIP members were asked to verbally disclose conflicts of interest at the meeting, but it is unclear whether written conflict-of-interest disclosures were published in advance. The new members did not appear on the Trump administration's conflict-of-interest tracker for ACIP members as of Wednesday morning. An HHS spokesperson stated ethics reviews had been conducted but did not clarify when or where disclosures would be published. One member dropped out Tuesday evening after a government financial review.
• Trump celebrates Supreme Court ruling as vindication of executive power expansion — President Trump declared the Supreme Court's decision a "giant win" and stated that the ruling would allow his administration to "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." Trump framed the decision as freeing the executive from judicial constraints, signaling intent to enforce previously blocked policies across all states without nationwide court protection.
• Supreme Court limits lower courts' power to block federal executive orders via nationwide injunctions — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa Inc ending the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders. The ruling prevents judges from halting or slowing presidential orders before their constitutionality is tested, including Trump's executive order attempting to remove birthright citizenship protections. Liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision undermines the rule of law and shifts the burden of defending constitutional rights onto individuals.
• Supreme Court restricts courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders — The Supreme Court issued a decision significantly limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. The ruling fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach. Previously, courts had issued approximately 35 nationwide injunctions against Trump administration actions during the first six months of his second term. The decision leaves narrow exceptions, such as when a judge determines nationwide relief is necessary to protect plaintiffs from irreparable harm, as in the birthright citizenship case.
• US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, restricting federal judges' power to block Trump orders — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies; instead, court orders apply only to specific plaintiffs who sue. The decision arose from Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. While the ruling did not immediately implement the birthright citizenship ban, it fundamentally shifts judicial oversight by preventing courts from protecting all Americans from allegedly unconstitutional policies. The policy cannot take effect for 30 days. Immigration advocates are refiling lawsuits as class actions to seek broader protections.
• Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, restricting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling was announced on June 27, 2025. President Trump immediately claimed the decision as a major victory that would enable him to end birthright citizenship by executive action, citing a fabricated historical narrative about the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil War.
• SCOTUS ruled on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship executive order — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that nationwide injunctions likely exceed congressional authority, narrowing the scope of injunctions that had blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The ruling left underlying injunctions in place for named plaintiffs but created uncertainty about nationwide relief. A class-action lawsuit was immediately filed after the ruling to seek broader protection.
• Supreme Court Grants Partial Stay in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, which was consolidated with Trump v. New Jersey and Trump v. Washington. The Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lower courts had issued universal injunctions blocking the enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority by issuing nationwide injunctions and limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions but did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 27, 2025, celebrating a Supreme Court decision that restricts the use of nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The document states that the ruling "restores the proper separation of powers" and claims that 35 of 40 nationwide injunctions filed against Trump's second-term executive actions originated from five jurisdictions (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and D.C.). The fact sheet lists pending policy actions it states can now proceed, including ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and other measures.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Docket number(s): 24A884.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sued federal judges in Maryland over deportation order — On June 24, the Trump administration sued every federal judge in Maryland, challenging an order blocking them from immediately deporting any immigrant in the state who is challenging their removal through a habeas petition. The administration is arguing that the pause violates a Supreme Court ruling.
• Department of Justice files complaint against U.S. District Court of Maryland over automatic immigration injunctions — The Department of Justice announced filing a complaint against the U.S. District Court of Maryland, challenging a "Standing Order" that automatically issues injunctions against federal immigration enforcement actions. The court's order requires automatic injunctions for habeas petitions filed by detained aliens in Maryland. DOJ argues the order violates procedural requirements, congressional intent, and Supreme Court precedent. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the order as judicial overreach undermining executive authority and the democratic process.
• Trump DOJ sues Maryland federal judiciary over deportation stay order — The Trump Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the entire bench of Maryland federal judges, challenging an order issued by Chief Judge George Russell that bars deportation of undocumented immigrants for at least one day after they file legal challenges to their detention. The DOJ characterized the judicial order as "unlawful" and an improper use of equitable powers. The lawsuit specifically names Judge Paula Xinis, who is overseeing a high-profile case involving Salvadoran national Kilmar Ábrego García and considering sanctions against government officials for refusing to facilitate his release.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court stays judicial order blocking third-country deportations — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority issued an unsigned order on Monday pausing a federal judge's ruling that required immigrants facing deportation to third countries to receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest removal. The stay allows the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to nations they are not citizens of, including conflict-ridden places like South Sudan. The decision overturned a May ruling by Boston-based Judge Brian Murphy, who had blocked the deportation of eight men to South Sudan after finding the administration violated due process rights.
• U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump administration authority to deport migrants to third countries — On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to deport migrants to countries other than their country of origin, including nations plagued by violence, without additional legal process beyond an initial removal hearing and without regard to conditions migrants may face in those countries. The court majority did not explain its reasoning. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented sharply. Legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted the ruling expands prior decisions that had already cleared the way for treating up to one million migrants as removable.
• Case update — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — The Supreme Court stopped a lower court's order which has prevented the administration from removing immigrants to third countries without an opportunity to present their claims of potential torture first. The Supreme Court's order is now in place while the litigation proceeds. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. — The Supreme Court granted the Department of Homeland Security's emergency application for a stay in the case of Department of Homeland Security, Applicants v. D.V.D., et al. This decision allows the federal government to proceed with its actions that were previously blocked by a lower court order. The case involved immigration enforcement actions challenged by the respondents, and the stay permits the continuation of these actions pending further litigation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries — On June 23, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow the Trump administration to move forward with sending migrants to countries other than their own, temporarily overturning a lower court ruling that prevented the deportations until migrants could challenge them in court. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin posted on Twitter, "Fire up the deportation planes."

Supporting reports

• Remand ordered — CREW v. DOGE (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00511 — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to stay the lower courts' action, and also to treat the petition as a writ for certiorari. The Court ruled that the district court could not order the Government, in discovery, “to disclose the content of intra-Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed.” On remand, the Court of Appeals is instructed to narrow the discovery order with deference to internal Executive Branch communications.
• Supreme Court grants stay in U.S. Doge Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — The Supreme Court granted a stay in the case of U.S. Doge Service, et al., Applicants v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. This decision allows the Department of Government Efficiency to proceed with its actions that were previously challenged by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The stay was granted despite dissent from Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, indicating a division within the Court on this matter. The stay effectively pauses the lower court's ruling against the Department of Government Efficiency, pending further litigation.
• U.S. Doge Service v. CREW: Certiorari Granted and Stay Issued — The Supreme Court granted a stay and treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of U.S. Doge Service, et al. v. CREW. The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's order denying a writ of mandamus and remanded the case for further consideration. The Court found that the District Court's discovery order requiring disclosure of intra-Executive Branch recommendations was not appropriately tailored, citing separation of powers concerns. The stay on the District Court's orders will remain pending further proceedings.

Supporting reports

• Judge Boasberg orders government not to deport men to CECOT; administration defies order — Judge James Boasberg issued an order prohibiting the government from deporting men to CECOT and instructing that if planes were already airborne, they be turned around. The administration proceeded with deportations despite the judicial order. On April 16, Boasberg issued an opinion concluding that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt of court for defying his order.
• US District Judge James Boasberg finds probable cause of contempt against Trump administration for defying deportation halt orders — US District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for defying his orders to halt deportations. Boasberg outlined a series of escalating punitive actions he could take against Trump officials, though an appellate court has paused the contempt process while the administration appeals.

Supporting reports

• FBI arrests Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan on obstruction allegations related to immigration enforcement — The FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan on Friday, April 18, 2025, alleging she obstructed federal immigration officers attempting to arrest a defendant in her courtroom. According to the criminal complaint, Dugan directed the defendant and his attorney to a private exit to evade the arrest team. FBI Director Kash Patel posted a photograph of Dugan in handcuffs on social media. Republicans called for her removal; Democrats condemned the arrest as an attack on judicial independence and weaponization of federal law enforcement by the Trump administration.
• FBI Director Kash Patel posts photograph of arrested judge on social media — FBI Director Kash Patel posted a photograph of Judge Hannah Dugan in handcuffs on Twitter/X on Friday night with the caption "No one is above the law." The post served as a public signal that the Trump administration welcomed a political confrontation over the judge's arrest and framed the arrest as enforcement of equal accountability.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration orders mass layoffs at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — The Trump administration, through staff from Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency," issued reduction-in-force letters terminating approximately 1,500 of the CFPB's 1,700 employees on April 17. The layoffs eliminated entire divisions including the office of servicemember affairs, office of older Americans, and office of fair lending. According to an employee declaration, the effort was managed by Gavin Kliger and staff were kept working 36 hours straight to ensure notices went out. Employees raised concerns about violations of court orders requiring "particularized assessment," but were told "all that mattered was the numbers."
• Federal judge bars Trump administration from rapid deportation policy — Federal Judge Brian Murphy on Friday barred the Trump administration from implementing a new policy that would allow it to rapidly deport hundreds or thousands of immigrants to countries other than their own without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate they face persecution, torture, or death. The ruling blocks a policy that would circumvent due process protections for asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants.
• Federal judge blocks mass layoffs at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration's termination of approximately 1,500 of the CFPB's 1,700 employees, announced on Thursday via reduction-in-force letters. The layoffs, orchestrated by staff from Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency," eliminated entire divisions including servicemember affairs, older Americans, and fair lending offices. The judge's order came after a federal appeals court had modified (but not eliminated) an earlier injunction limiting the agency's ability to terminate staff. The administration's compliance with the ruling remains unclear.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge finds probable cause for contempt charges against Trump officials over Alien Enemies Act deportations — Chief US District Judge James Boasberg issued a 46-page opinion finding probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for violating his temporary injunction blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration failed to recall deportation flights that had already departed, claiming the verbal order was not binding and that planes outside US airspace were beyond judicial jurisdiction. Boasberg rejected these defenses, warned of appointing an independent prosecutor if the White House stonewalled contempt proceedings, and ordered officials to either return the deported individuals or face contempt charges.
• Federal judge finds Trump administration in criminal contempt for defying court order — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an opinion finding that the Trump administration's "hurried removal" of men to El Salvador after Boasberg had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting such removal demonstrated "a wilful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt." Boasberg quoted Chief Justice John Marshall, stating the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders by coordinate branches. Boasberg indicated he will use declarations, hearings, or depositions to identify responsible individuals, and if the government refuses to prosecute, he will appoint a private prosecutor.
• Appeal filed — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — Judge Boasberg issued an order holding that there's probable cause to find the Defendants acted with criminal contempt in violating his orders. He offered the government to stave off a criminal referral by “purging” the contempt. He wrote, “The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court's classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.” The defendants appealed his decision to the D.C.Circuit. On the same day, the Plaintiffs submitted a new motion for a TRO asking the court to direct the government to provide 30 days' notice before seeking to remove any class member under the AEA. The Plaintiffs also stated that they intend to amend their complaint “to reinstate their habeas claim on behalf of class members detained in CECOT and to seek the return of these Plaintiffs to the United States.”
• Judge Issues Contempt Ruling Against Trump Administration — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the Trump administration's removal of detainees to El Salvador, despite a temporary restraining order, demonstrated willful disregard for judicial authority. The judge indicated that if the government does not rectify its contempt, he would pursue prosecution against those responsible for ignoring the court's order.
• Judge Boasberg issues 46-page opinion finding probable cause of criminal contempt — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a scathing 46-page opinion finding probable cause that Trump administration officials acted in criminal contempt of his order to recall deportation flights containing alleged Venezuelan gang members. The opinion represents a judicial escalation in response to the administration's apparent willingness to violate court orders and test the limits of the legal system.
• Case update — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — The D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, issued an administrative stay in the appeal from Judge Boasberg's April 16 contempt-related order.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge rebukes Trump administration for defying Supreme Court order to return wrongly deported man — US District Judge Paula Xinis sharply rebuked Trump administration officials on Tuesday for taking no steps to secure the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a Supreme Court order to "facilitate" his return. The judge rejected the administration's narrow reading of the order and its claim of powerlessness. She ordered the administration to produce details under oath within two weeks about its efforts to return Ábrego García, and authorized depositions of up to six officials including ICE and DHS leadership.
• Federal judge launched two-week inquiry into Trump administration's refusal to return Abrego Garcia — A federal judge launched a two-week inquiry into the Trump administration's refusal to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the US, saying "nothing has been done" to do so. The inquiry represents judicial investigation into potential contempt of court.
• Judge Boasberg issues 46-page opinion finding probable cause of criminal contempt — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a scathing 46-page opinion finding probable cause that Trump administration officials acted in criminal contempt of his order to recall deportation flights containing alleged Venezuelan gang members. The opinion represents a judicial escalation in response to the administration's apparent willingness to violate court orders and test the limits of the legal system.
• Judge Xinis opens investigation and rebukes administration for non-compliance — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis rebuked the Trump administration for doing "nothing" to secure the release of Kilmar Ábrego García as ordered by the Supreme Court. Xinis ordered the administration to answer written questions and provide depositions about steps taken to comply with the Supreme Court order, opening a formal investigation into potential deliberate flouting of the decree.

Supporting reports

• Court Orders Return of Deportee Amid Legal Controversy — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident who was deported due to an "administrative error." The administration filed an emergency motion to appeal the order, despite the judge's ruling that the deportation was unlawful and a violation of constitutional rights.
• Trump administration filed emergency motion to block return order for Abrego Garcia — Following U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis's order that the government return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States by 11:59 p.m. on April 7, the Trump administration immediately filed an emergency motion to stop the order while it appeals her decision. The motion sought to prevent compliance with the judge's ruling that the deportation was unlawful.
• U.S. District Judge Xinis ordered government to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 7. Abrego Garcia was in the United States legally, is married to a U.S. citizen, and is the father of a U.S. citizen. In 2019, a court barred the government from deporting him to El Salvador. On March 31, an ICE official told the court under oath that Abrego Garcia had been arrested and deported to prison in El Salvador because of an "administrative error." The government claimed it could not retrieve him because he is no longer in U.S. jurisdiction. In her April 7 opinion, Judge Xinis stated that "there were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal" and that his detention "appears wholly lawless" and constitutes "a clear constitutional violation." She criticized administration officials for asserting "they can forcibly remove any person—migrant and U.S. citizen alike—to prisons outside the United States, and then baldly assert they have no way to effectuate return because they are no longer the 'custodian.'"
• Judge Paula Xinis orders daily compliance updates and depositions after Trump administration ignores court orders on wrongful deportation case — US District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to provide daily updates on efforts to comply with her April 10 order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. After the government made clear it was doing nothing to comply, Xinis ordered government officials to respond to written questions and sit for depositions. Lawyers reported on Tuesday that the government was ignoring that order as well. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's request to halt Xinis's rulings.
• Federal judge ordered government to file status update on Abrego Garcia by 9:30 a.m. — U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to file an update by 9:30 a.m. on April 11 explaining where Kilmar Abrego Garcia is, what the government is doing to get him back, and what additional steps it will take. She scheduled an in-person hearing for 1:00 p.m. The government responded that the judge had not given them enough time to answer and suggested it would delay, citing the Supreme Court's instruction that the judge show deference to the president's foreign affairs authority.
• Government attorney stated lack of knowledge about Abrego Garcia's location and no action taken — At the 1:00 p.m. hearing before Judge Paula Xinis, the government's attorney, Drew Ensign, stated that he did not have information about where Kilmar Abrego Garcia is and that the government had done nothing to get him back. Ensign said he might have answers by the following Tuesday. Judge Xinis ordered the government to provide an update by the next day. The government's filing at 12:15 p.m. had claimed Abrego Garcia is "in the custody of a foreign sovereign," but the attorney's testimony contradicted any claim of active efforts to secure his return.
• Government fails to comply with court order regarding Abrego Garcia — Following the Supreme Court's order, the government failed to provide information about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's whereabouts and did not take steps to facilitate his return, raising concerns about compliance with judicial directives.
• Government lawyer claims lack of information and ignores court order — On April 11, 2025, the lawyer representing the government, Drew Ensign, told the court that he did not have information about where Kilmar Abrego Garcia is located and ignored Judge Xinis's order to provide information about what steps the government was taking to bring him back. This non-compliance occurred despite the Supreme Court's April 10 decision requiring the government to facilitate his release and to share information about steps taken.
• Trump administration defies court order on wrongly deported Maryland resident — A federal judge in Maryland admonished Trump administration lawyers for failing to comply with a court order requiring details on the whereabouts and status of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident with a valid US work permit who was wrongly deported to El Salvador on March 15. The US Supreme Court had upheld the judge's order for his return, but the administration claimed it needed more time and that foreign affairs considerations made compliance impracticable. The judge demanded daily updates and expressed frustration at the government's lack of concrete action.