Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judges criticize Supreme Court's emergency docket handling in Trump cases — Lower court federal judges, in rare media interviews and court opinions, have publicly criticized the Supreme Court for overturning their rulings through brief, unsigned emergency orders without legal explanation. Judges across the ideological spectrum say the practice creates legal confusion, undermines public trust in the judiciary, and fails to defend lower courts against Trump's attacks on judicial integrity. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump on nearly every emergency application filed in his second term—over 20 in seven months—a record pace.

Supporting reports

• Judge Allison Burroughs critiques Supreme Court's treatment of emergency orders as binding precedent — In a ruling on Trump's attempt to strip research funding from Harvard, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs publicly criticized the Supreme Court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent when those orders appear to overturn longstanding precedent without explanation. Burroughs argued that the Supreme Court's informal orders create confusion in a "rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape" and that criticizing district courts for "defying" the high court is unhelpful when courts are working to apply both existing precedent and interim Supreme Court guidance.

Supporting reports

• Justice Gorsuch accuses lower courts of defying Supreme Court orders in NIH funding case — In an emergency order allowing Trump to cancel approximately $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, accused lower courts of deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court's orders. Gorsuch claimed this was the third time in weeks the Court had to intervene in a case "squarely controlled" by its precedent and suggested lower court misbehavior prompted the Supreme Court's involvement. Gorsuch referred to the Court's emergency orders as "precedents."

Supporting reports

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents in NIH case, accusing majority of "Calvinball jurisprudence" — In dissent to the Supreme Court majority's decision allowing Trump to cancel NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of "Calvinball jurisprudence"—a reference to a fictional game with no fixed rules. Jackson wrote that the Court appears to operate under two rules: that there are no fixed rules, and that the Trump administration always wins. Jackson has previously denounced the Court's use of the shadow docket.

Supporting reports

• Judge William Young apologizes to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for NIH ruling — U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee overseeing litigation challenging Trump's attempt to eliminate NIH grant funding, publicly apologized to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during a court hearing. Young stated he did not intend to defy any Supreme Court precedent and that such defiance would be "foreign" to his conduct as a judicial officer. The apology followed Gorsuch's accusation that lower courts were deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court's orders.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed emergency appeal on tariff ruling — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling that found the majority of the president's tariffs illegal, claiming in the filing that tariffs "are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity" and warning that a failure to allow them to move forward "would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe." The administration also filed a motion to expedite the case.
• Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn federal appeals court tariff ruling — President Trump filed a petition with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 4, 2025, challenging a federal appeals court decision that struck down most of his "liberation day" tariffs imposed on April 2, 2025. The lower court ruled 7-4 that Trump overstepped his presidential powers by invoking a 1977 national emergency law to justify reciprocal tariffs of 10–50% on imports. Trump requested expedited review with arguments by November 10 and a ruling by year-end. The tariffs remain in place pending Supreme Court review.
• Trump appeals tariff ruling to Supreme Court — A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 that Trump exceeded presidential authority by imposing tariffs on nearly every country without statutory authorization. The court found that while the president has emergency powers, none permit unilateral tariff or tax imposition. Trump has already petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, signaling the case will likely reach the conservative-majority bench.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court overturned federal court order halting ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — In July 2025, a federal court ordered federal agents to halt indiscriminate raids and racial profiling in Los Angeles. In September 2025, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling. The ACLU and immigrant rights groups have since submitted an amended legal complaint challenging the decision. The reversal left communities without judicial protection against profiling tactics.
• Supreme Court rules against racial profiling challenge in immigration enforcement case — In September 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority sided against Los Angeles-area plaintiffs challenging "roving" ICE immigration patrols. The plaintiffs alleged that stops based on race, language, employment status, or location violated Fourth Amendment protections. The ruling effectively legalized racial profiling in immigration enforcement, according to critics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion asserted that people with legal status would only be "briefly" questioned, a characterization contradicted by subsequent reporting of traumatic detentions of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
• Supreme Court ruling permits race and ethnicity as enforcement factors in immigration stops — In September 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing immigration enforcement agents in southern California to interrogate anyone they suspected of being in the country illegally, explicitly noting that perceived race or ethnicity can be a relevant factor in such determinations. Legal experts note this ruling may complicate challenges to racial profiling under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court judges stay closure order for Florida's "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — Two Trump-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Miami District Judge Kathleen Williams's preliminary injunction ordering closure of "Alligator Alcatraz," a 3,000-capacity immigration detention camp in the Florida Everglades. Williams had ruled the facility's hasty construction breached federal environmental laws. The appeals panel found 2-1 that because Florida initially funded construction with state money, no environmental impact study was required. The stay allowed the facility to resume operations and rapidly refill with detainees after a brief shutdown period in late August.
• Appeals court judge stays closure of "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — Barbara Lagoa, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored a 2-1 majority ruling in September 2025 that stayed (paused) a Miami district judge's order to close "Alligator Alcatraz," a state-run detention camp for undocumented migrants in the Florida Everglades. The ruling reversed the lower court's finding that the DeSantis administration must comply with federal environmental regulations. The facility, criticized for harsh conditions, remains operational. Lagoa's husband, Paul Huck, is a senior attorney at a law firm that has received over $10 million in state contracts from the DeSantis administration, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.
• Eleventh Circuit stays federal judge's order to close "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit voted 2–1 on September 4, 2025, to stay (suspend) a federal district judge's order requiring closure of the "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention center in Florida's Everglades within 60 days. The stay allows construction and operation to continue while Florida's appeal proceeds. The facility, built by Florida at a cost of approximately $250 million and operated on behalf of ICE, has faced criticism for harsh conditions, abuse allegations, denial of due process, and environmental damage.