Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Senate Democrats signal they will not confirm Trump Supreme Court nominees if they win control — Sen. Chuck Schumer put Trump on notice that if Democrats win control of the Senate, they do not intend to put MAGA judges on the courts. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said he does not think a Democratic-led Senate would confirm a Trump pick for the Supreme Court, stating: "Given the history of Trump nominees, I think it is slim to none that we would support a nominee from this admin. Because we've seen this movie, we know how it ends, which is a politician in robes who is following Trump's orders on most major questions." Some Democrats argue there should be no question of confirming a Trump pick after Sen. Mitch McConnell held a seat open for 10 months under Obama to let a Republican president fill it instead. Sen. Ruben Gallego stated: "No, we've got to do exactly what McConnell did to us. To even the scales." However, Gallego said he does not want to see the practice continue after Democrats even things out.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Clarence Thomas sat for 9.5 hours of podcast interviews with Republican Senator Ted Cruz — Sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to approximately 9.5 hours of one-on-one podcast interviews with Republican Senator Ted Cruz. The interviews represent a departure from institutional norms of judicial independence from partisan politics.

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

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court clears way for asylum seekers to be physically blocked at U.S.-Mexico border — On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling clearing the way for the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border by physically blocking them from setting foot on U.S. soil. The decision permits implementation of a "metering" policy instructing border officials to stand at the border line and deny entry to migrants seeking asylum, effectively circumventing statutory asylum protections.
• SCOTUS upheld asylum-seeker turnback policy at U.S.-Mexico border — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the federal government's "metering" policy—systematically turning back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border before they can enter—does not violate federal asylum law. CBP officials implement the policy by standing at the border and refusing entry to noncitizens without valid travel documents, including asylum applicants.
• Supreme Court restored asylum-denial authority at southern border — On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court restored the administration's authority to turn away asylum seekers at overburdened crossings on the southern border, handing the administration a second immigration win in a single day.
• Supreme Court upholds Trump asylum turn-back policy at US-Mexico border — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration may revive its "metering" or turn-back policy, allowing federal agents to prevent asylum seekers from physically entering US soil and claiming asylum protections. The majority, led by Justice Alito, interpreted "arrive in" narrowly to exclude migrants stopped at the border threshold. Justice Sotomayor's 35-page dissent warned the ruling would allow the government to circumvent international and domestic asylum law, potentially exposing vulnerable people to persecution or death.
• US Supreme Court upholds Trump administration asylum metering policy at US-Mexico border — On the same day, the Supreme Court issued a second 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Alito, upholding the Trump administration's authority to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border when officials deem crossings too overburdened. The decision supports the administration's revival of the "metering" policy, which had been discontinued under President Biden, allowing the government to deny asylum claims based on border capacity determinations.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center; blocks summer closure — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ordering the Trump administration to remove all signage bearing Trump's name within 14 days. Cooper also temporarily blocked the center's proposed two-year closure for renovations, finding the board's decision "ill-informed and seemingly preordained." Trump responded by instructing the Department of Commerce to arrange a full transfer of the institution to Congress.
• Federal judge orders Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — A federal judge blocked Trump's effort to shut down the Kennedy Center and ordered his name removed from the building. Trump responded with a multi-thousand-word statement on Truth Social blaming the judge, the judge's wife, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Lisa Page, Russia investigations, E. Jean Carroll, tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the broader court system. Trump declared the Kennedy Center will "probably never open again" and stated he wants to relinquish control of the center entirely.
• Trump posted social media screed attacking Kennedy Center ruling — President Trump responded to Judge Cooper's order to remove his name from the Kennedy Center with a lengthy social media post in which he claimed he alone was "saving a dying Performing Arts Center" and stated he would "transfer this failing Institution back to" Congress. Trump also complained that the New York Times was criticizing the "magnificent restoration of the Reflecting Pool" and asserted that no president had been treated as unfairly by the courts as he had been.
• Trump threatened federal judge over Kennedy Center drone port project — Trump attacked a federal judge who blocked his planned Kennedy Center renovations, which included a drone port to be built in the White House ballroom. The President's threats against the judge occurred as he simultaneously expressed desire to cancel the "Freedom 250" anniversary celebration and replace it with a MAGA rally after several artists declined to participate.
• Kennedy Center begins removing president's name from signage and materials — The Kennedy Center's general counsel directed staff to remove the president's name from signage, letterhead, and materials by June 12, after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on May 29 that the board lacked authority to rename the institution and also blocked its planned two-year closure. The center said it is evaluating its legal options. The ruling restored the principle that public institutions are governed by rules that do not bend to a single person.
• Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — Lawyers for the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts instructed staff to immediately begin switching the facility's name back to its original title, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The instructions, laid out in a memo sent by the center's general counsel, represent the first official signal that the national arts hub is complying with a federal court order to drop Trump's name and reconsider plans to close for two years of renovations. Changes to interior and exterior signage and furniture carrying Trump's name must be switched back by the following Friday.

Supporting reports

• Trump posted social media screed attacking Kennedy Center ruling — President Trump responded to Judge Cooper's order to remove his name from the Kennedy Center with a lengthy social media post in which he claimed he alone was "saving a dying Performing Arts Center" and stated he would "transfer this failing Institution back to" Congress. Trump also complained that the New York Times was criticizing the "magnificent restoration of the Reflecting Pool" and asserted that no president had been treated as unfairly by the courts as he had been.

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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks RFK Jr's vaccine committee appointments and immunization schedule changes — Federal Judge Brian E Murphy ruled that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's firing of all 17 ACIP members and replacement with hand-picked advisers likely violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The judge stayed 13 of the new appointments, invalidating their votes and blocking unprecedented January changes to the US immunization schedule, including bans on thimerosal in flu vaccines and the MMR-chickenpox combination vaccine. The ACIP meeting scheduled for later that week was postponed.