Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Ketanji Brown Jackson issues public rebuke of Supreme Court over political appearance and erosion of public trust — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a rare public criticism of the US Supreme Court at an American Law Institute conference, warning that the court "can and should be better" and risks losing public confidence due to decisions by its 6-3 conservative supermajority. She specifically cited the court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act and emergency orders allowing Trump policies to take effect, arguing the court must appear apolitical and "be very constrained" to maintain legitimacy. Jackson emphasized that "public confidence is really all the judiciary has."

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 decision impacts Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court issued a decision that significantly impacts the Voting Rights Act, altering the legal framework that has protected voting rights for decades. This ruling has broad implications for how elections are conducted and how voting rights are enforced across the United States. The decision reflects a shift in the judicial interpretation of voting rights protections, potentially affecting voter access and election fairness.
• Freedom House and V-DEM release 2026 reports documenting global democratic decline — Freedom House released its 2026 report subtitled "The Growing Shadow of Autocracy," finding that freedom continues to decline across the globe. Simultaneously, V-DEM released its 2026 report subtitled "Unraveling the Democratic Era?," delivering the same message. Both organizations documented rapid deterioration in freedom under Donald Trump's second administration, including attacks on free and fair elections, persecution of critics in the press, and the rise of a violent and unaccountable security state.

Supporting reports

• Virginia Democrats sought to overturn court decision via judicial retirement — The DownBallot reported that Virginia Democrats are seeking to overturn the state Supreme Court's decision invalidating a constitutional amendment that voters had ratified for new congressional districts. The proposed solution is to send the entire court into early retirement by lowering the mandatory retirement age. Article VI, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution grants the legislature unlimited authority to set judicial retirement age. Current law mandates retirement at 73; states vary widely in their retirement age requirements.

Supporting reports

• Fired judges file suit challenging terminations; Merit Systems Protection Board denies jurisdiction — A group of fired immigration judges filed suit against the Department of Justice challenging the administration's authority to terminate immigration judges without cause or explanation. The Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent federal agency created to protect federal employees from political termination, ruled it had no jurisdiction to review the removals. The fired judges are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing the decision departs from more than a century of civil service precedent protecting judges from at-will removal.

Supporting reports

• Fired judges file suit challenging terminations; Merit Systems Protection Board denies jurisdiction — A group of fired immigration judges filed suit against the Department of Justice challenging the administration's authority to terminate immigration judges without cause or explanation. The Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent federal agency created to protect federal employees from political termination, ruled it had no jurisdiction to review the removals. The fired judges are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing the decision departs from more than a century of civil service precedent protecting judges from at-will removal.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice Roberts defends Supreme Court impartiality amid Trump-aligned rulings — Chief Justice John Roberts addressed a judges and lawyers conference in Hershey, Pennsylvania, asserting that the Supreme Court is not composed of "political actors" and operates outside the political process. His remarks came amid public criticism of recent court decisions, including one undermining the Voting Rights Act and others benefiting Trump's policies. Roberts acknowledged that some decisions may be unpopular but insisted the court makes legal, not policy, determinations. The statement reflects ongoing tension within the court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting sharply on the Voting Rights Act ruling.

Supporting reports

• Senate Banking Committee approves Kevin Warsh nomination for Federal Reserve chair — The Senate Banking Committee voted 13–11 along party lines to advance Kevin Warsh's nomination as Federal Reserve chair, replacing Jerome Powell. All Republicans supported Warsh after the Department of Justice ended a criminal investigation into Powell that Senator Thom Tillis had viewed as a threat to Fed independence. Democrats opposed the nomination, citing concerns that Warsh would act as a "sock puppet" for Trump and compromise the Fed's political independence. The full Senate is expected to confirm Warsh within days, potentially by May 15 when Powell's term ends.

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

• Tennessee abortion ban lawsuit halted by last-minute appeal — Rachel Fulton, a Tennessee woman who was forced to travel out of state for a medically necessary abortion after her wanted pregnancy was diagnosed with a lethal fetal condition that endangered her life, joined a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights in 2023 against Tennessee's abortion ban. The trial was set to begin on April 28, 2026, but a last-minute appeal by the state halted proceedings indefinitely. The case involves six patient plaintiffs and medical organizations challenging the state's ban as applied to life-threatening pregnancies.

Supporting reports

• ICE re-arrests El Gamal family hours after federal judge's release order — An Egyptian mother and five children were released from ICE detention in Dilley, Texas on April 23 following a federal judge's order, but were re-arrested on April 25 hours after arriving home in Colorado. The Trump administration accused them of being "associates" to the father's alleged hate crime attack. ICE placed them on a deportation flight to Michigan, but a Colorado federal judge ordered the plane to turn around. The family was released again on April 29. Their attorney characterized the re-arrest as "kidnapping" in violation of the Texas judge's order.
• Egyptian family of six re-detained by ICE days after court-ordered release — Hayam El Gamal and her five children were released from ICE custody at the Dilley detention center in Texas on Thursday, April 24, 2026, but were taken back into custody on Saturday, April 26, and placed on a private jet to Egypt. Their attorney Eric Lee stated the re-detention violated a court order and constituted "an absolutely brazen violation of separation of powers." US District Judge Fred Biery granted an emergency motion to block the deportation on Saturday. The family had been detained for 10 months; El Gamal's husband was arrested in June 2025 in connection with a firebombing attack that injured over a dozen people and killed an 82-year-old woman.

Supporting reports

• Virginia court blocks voter-approved congressional redistricting referendum — On April 22, 2026, Judge Jack Hurley Jr of Tazewell County Circuit Court blocked Virginia from implementing new congressional maps approved by voters the previous day (51.5% to 48.5%). The maps would have replaced the state's non-partisan redistricting process with one favoring Democrats. The Republican National Committee had sued, arguing the referendum's timing and phrasing were illegal. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones announced plans to appeal, asserting voters' will should prevail.
• Republican National Committee sued to invalidate Virginia redistricting referendum — The Republican National Committee, now controlled by Trump, filed suit challenging the validity of the Virginia redistricting referendum approved by voters on April 21, 2026. A Virginia judge ruled that both the constitutional amendment and the referendum were invalid, declaring that "any and all votes for or against the proposed constitutional amendment in the April 21, 2026 special election are ineffective" and prevented officials from certifying the results.
• Virginia Attorney General challenged court order invalidating redistricting referendum — Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones filed a challenge to the Virginia judge's order invalidating the redistricting referendum, arguing that "Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have the power over the People's vote." Jones stated the office would defend the outcome of the April 21 election in court.

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked Virginia redistricting election on social media, claiming rigging and unintelligible referendum language — President Trump posted on social media attacking the Virginia redistricting referendum, repeating claims that the election was rigged through mail-in ballots and asserting that the referendum language was "purposefully unintelligible and deceptive." He stated that despite being "an extraordinarily brilliant person," he could not understand the referendum language, and called on courts to "fix this travesty of 'Justice.'"

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

• Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers public critique of Supreme Court emergency orders favoring Trump administration — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke for nearly an hour at Yale Law School, delivering a sustained public attack on conservative justices' use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration. She characterized the orders as "scratch-paper musings" lacking explanation and oblivious to real-world harms. Jackson noted the court has issued roughly two dozen such orders allowing Trump to implement controversial policies on immigration and federal funding cuts despite lower courts finding them probably illegal. She called for restraint and transparency, stating the court should avoid "continually touching the third rail of every divisive policy issue."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration fires immigration judges who blocked deportations — The Trump administration abruptly fired two immigration judges appointed by the Biden administration in 2024 who were approaching the end of their probationary terms. Both judges—who had granted asylum at higher rates than peers—had blocked deportations of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk and Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi. The firings were reported by the New York Times on April 11.
• Department of Justice terminates six immigration judges, including two who ruled against deportations of pro-Palestinian students — The Department of Justice terminated six immigration judges, including Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, who had ruled against the Trump administration in deportation cases involving pro-Palestinian university students Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi. Both judges were Biden appointees with prior immigration defense experience. Patel rejected deportation grounds against Öztürk; Froes blocked removal of Mahdawi. The administration stated judges are evaluated on conduct, impartiality, and performance, but NPR analysis found the Trump administration appears to target judges with immigrant representation backgrounds.

Supporting reports

• Lower federal courts issue rulings blocking Trump administration policies on immigration, tariffs, and DOJ prosecutions — Since Trump's second term began, district court judges nationwide have issued sharply critical rulings challenging the legality of administration policies on immigration, tariffs, and DOJ prosecutions of political opponents. A Just Security study found over 210 cases since early 2025 where courts ruled against administration conduct, including 34 instances of non-compliance with court orders, 90 cases of judicial distrust in government representations, and 91 findings of arbitrary and capricious administrative action. Trump has responded with escalating attacks on judges, calling them "crooked" and "lunatic," and urging House Republicans to pass legislation "cracking down on rogue judges."

Supporting reports

• 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.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules 8-1 against Colorado conversion therapy ban — The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado's 2019 law prohibiting licensed clinicians from seeking to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of youth patients under 18 violates free speech rights. The court found the ban "presumptively unconstitutional" as viewpoint discrimination and remanded the case to an appeals court for strict scrutiny review. Colorado's law remains in effect pending appeal, but the ruling threatens similar bans in 22 other states and raises concerns about states' ability to regulate medical professionals' speech and protect vulnerable youth from harmful practices.

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

• Trump administration implements final version of commercial driver's license restrictions after court block — Following a federal court's November 2025 halt of interim restrictions, the Trump administration issued an updated final version of commercial driver's license requirements for immigrants. The new rules went into force in late March 2026, requiring English proficiency and valid immigration status. The policy effectively circumvented the earlier judicial block and continues to remove immigrant drivers from the workforce.
• Transportation Department tightens commercial driver's license requirements for non-citizens and non-permanent residents — The Trump administration's Transportation Department implemented new restrictions on commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) for immigrants without U.S. citizenship or permanent residency, requiring English proficiency and stricter documentation. The rules, which came into force in late March 2026, have resulted in approximately 9,500 drivers being removed from roads for failing English proficiency tests. Additionally, 7,000 trucking training providers and schools have had their accreditations revoked. The policy has caused significant enrollment drops at trucking schools, with some reporting 70% declines, forcing staff reductions and threatening business closures.

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice John Roberts warns that attacks on judges are "dangerous" and "have got to stop" — On March 17, 2026, Chief Justice John Roberts, in remarks at Rice University, warned that growing verbal attacks on judges are "dangerous, and have got to stop." Roberts' comments came shortly after Trump's attacks on Judge Boasberg and within weeks of Trump's attacks on Supreme Court justices who voted against his tariff policies. Multiple reports indicate that threats of violence against judges have risen significantly in the past year.
• Chief Justice Roberts publicly rebukes Trump's personal attacks on judges — Chief Justice John Roberts delivered remarks at Rice University calling hostility directed at judges "dangerous" and stating it "has got to stop." Though Roberts did not name Trump, the statement responded to Trump's recent social media attacks on federal judges, including Judge James Boasberg, whom Trump called "corrupt" and demanded be removed and disciplined. Roberts distinguished between legitimate criticism of judicial decisions and personally directed attacks, emphasizing that judges work hard to get decisions right and that personal hostility undermines judicial independence.