Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — California Nurses Association v. Mullin (N.D. Cal.) 4:26-cv-10680 — Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted a preliminary injunction for the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United (CNA/NNU). The court found they are likely to succeed on their claim that the Unlawful Voter Initiative and Surge violate Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which bars intimidating people for urging or aiding others to vote. It reasoned that the use of admittedly flawed data that sweeps in U.S. citizens, rushed reviews, and publicized deployments of armed officers before the midterms created a fear among voter-outreach members the court found “objectively reasonable,” and it rejected Defendants' arguments that federal officers fall outside the statute or that their investigative authority overrides it. CNA/NNU were determined to be the only Plaintiffs with standing and only on that claim. The court found their members' fear of being wrongly targeted showed a cognizable harm to their voter-assistance and mobilization work, but not to their own voting, so it did not reach the constitutional right-to-vote claim or the § 11(b) claim on intimidation of voters themselves. It also did not reach the APA claims because CNA/NNU had not, at this stage, shown a discrete “final agency action.” In California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, Defendants are enjoined, through Nov. 3, 2026, at 8:00 p.m. (or poll closing), from conducting election-related field operations and interviews involving people they know, suspect, or should reasonably know or suspect are U.S. citizens, and from conducting such operations against those individuals based wholly on TECS records (entries in a DHS law enforcement database) generated by the Voter Eligibility Matching Policy. The order is stayed until 5:00 p.m. on Oct. 23, 2026.
• Federal judge restricts DHS voter investigations in 9 states — On October 22, a federal judge restricted certain Department of Homeland Security investigations into suspected noncitizen voting across nine states, finding that unreliable government data could cause citizens to be wrongly investigated. The judge paused her order until 5 p.m. Eastern time on Friday to allow the administration time to appeal.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Minnesota extradition request for Texas ICE agent accused of shooting — Christian Castro, a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, was charged in Minnesota with assault and falsely reporting a crime after allegedly shooting Venezuelan man Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in January. Minnesota sought his extradition from Texas custody, but US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee, declined to order Texas to comply. Texas Governor Greg Abbott refused the extradition request, citing unrelated fraud investigations in Minnesota. Castro faces release from Texas jail under state law after 90 days of detention.
• Texas federal judge denies Minnesota extradition request for ICE agent — Christian Castro, an ICE agent charged with shooting and injuring a man in Minneapolis, was released from a jail in Texas after a federal judge denied Minnesota's request to keep him in custody. Minnesota officials had filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order Governor Greg Abbott to sign an extradition request so Castro would return to the state to face four counts of assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of the Southern District of Texas sided with Texas, allowing Castro's release and permitting Texas to continue weighing whether to comply with the extradition request. Minnesota officials expressed concern that Castro will flee to Mexico to evade the justice system if released. Castro is charged with shooting and injuring Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan immigrant, and then lying about the circumstances of the shooting.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court restricted immigration enforcement at places of worship — A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld an order limiting federal immigration enforcement at eight houses of worship affiliated with Quaker, Sikh, and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship groups. The court concluded that the groups were likely to succeed in their argument that the Trump administration's policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, keeping the restriction in place.

Supporting reports

• Sen. Bill Cassidy Announces Vote to Confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General — Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) announced his decision to vote in favor of confirming Todd Blanche, former personal attorney to Donald Trump, as Attorney General. This decision came despite opposition from some Republicans, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who criticized Blanche's handling of various issues, including the release of Epstein files and immunity protections for Trump and his family. Cassidy's vote is pivotal in the confirmation process, as it ensures Blanche's appointment despite concerns about his loyalty to Trump over constitutional duties.
• Todd Blanche clears Senate confirmation hurdle for attorney general — Senator Bill Cassidy announced Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, removing the final Republican holdout and clearing the path for Blanche's confirmation by a narrow margin. Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer and current acting attorney general, had faced opposition from Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins over concerns about Department of Justice independence. Cassidy's support follows weeks of White House pressure and his own primary loss to a Trump-backed challenger in May.
• Bill Cassidy supports Blanche's confirmation as Attorney General — Senator Bill Cassidy has announced his support for Blanche's confirmation as Attorney General, likely securing the necessary votes for her appointment. This development follows a period of uncertainty regarding Blanche's confirmation prospects, with Cassidy's backing seen as pivotal in the Senate's decision-making process.
• Senate Judiciary Committee approves Todd Blanche as Attorney General — The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Todd Blanche's nomination as permanent Attorney General, putting him on track for confirmation by an extremely slim majority in the full Senate. Blanche's confirmation follows his release of documents purporting to rescind the "anti-weaponization fund," which secured support from holdout Republican senators.

Supporting reports

• US appeals court rejects Trump administration bid to redetain Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's attempt to redetain Badar Khan Suri, an Indian postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University arrested by ICE in March 2025 for pro-Palestinian social media speech. The 2-1 decision upheld a lower court's bail release and rejected the government's motion to move the case from Virginia to Texas, affirming that detained immigrants retain habeas corpus rights to challenge detention in federal court even during pending removal proceedings.

Supporting reports

• House Judiciary Chair Jordan Urges Prosecution of Former Special Counsel Jack Smith — House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan sent a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche urging the Trump Justice Department to prosecute former special counsel Jack Smith, alleging he made false statements during closed-door testimony. Smith's lawyers countered that the referral reflects "a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant." The allegation centers on Smith's testimony regarding how his office obtained congressional text messages, with Republicans claiming he knowingly lied by not mentioning a NARA subpoena.
• House Judiciary Committee refers Jack Smith for criminal investigation — House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the acting attorney general for alleged perjury, claiming Smith made false statements to Congress about access to lawmakers' phone records during testimony in December 2025 and January 2026. Jordan asserted that DOJ documents revealed Smith's team had access to text messages of 44 members of Congress, contradicting Smith's prior testimony that they only had "toll records." Smith's attorneys denied the allegations, characterizing the referral as weaponization of the justice system and retaliation for investigating Trump.

Supporting reports

• Todd Blanche confirmed as attorney general despite judicial concerns about fitness — Todd Blanche, Trump's former criminal defense attorney, held his confirmation hearing for attorney general. During the hearing, Blanche slipped when asked if he and Trump were friends, initially answering "I'm his lawyer" before correcting himself. The New York Times editorial board and U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams raised concerns about Blanche's fitness to practice law, noting that he had signed off on a "slush fund/immunity deal" with Trump and associates designed to avoid judicial review. Blanche has openly used the Department of Justice to pursue Trump's political opponents.

Supporting reports

• Todd Blanche confirmation hearing for attorney general — Todd Blanche, Trump's personal attorney and acting attorney general since April 2026, faced Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on July 15–16. He downplayed his relationship with Trump, defended his handling of Epstein files (which contained redaction errors exposing survivor identities), and addressed a $1.8 billion "slush fund" settlement with the IRS that granted Trump and family immunity from tax audits. A federal judge had excoriated the settlement as collusive. Blanche also faced questions on January 6 clemencies, the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to minimum security, and the arrest of Newark's mayor at an ICE facility.
• Ex-DOJ lawyer testifies that Todd Blanche fired her for refusing to restore gun rights to Trump ally — Liz Oyer, former pardon attorney, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Todd Blanche, Trump's nominee for attorney general, terminated her employment after she refused to recommend restoring firearms rights to actor Mel Gibson, a Trump ally with a domestic violence conviction. Blanche denied the firing was retaliatory, claiming her decisions were inconsistent with Trump's authority. Oyer called his statement "provably false" and urged senators to reject his nomination, alleging he is weaponizing DOJ as Trump's personal law firm.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules president can fire independent agency heads at will — On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump in a case brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was fired in March. The court overturned a 90-year-old precedent by holding that the president has the right to remove the head of any federal government agency at will. The decision, justified through the unitary executive theory, grants the president sole total control over the executive branch and opens the door to what critics call an "imperial presidency."

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require Fourth Amendment privacy protections — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. US that law enforcement's use of geofence warrants—which compel tech companies to hand over smartphone location data from people near crime scenes—constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring constitutional privacy protections. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, holding that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location records even when in public spaces. The ruling rejected the government's argument that accessing limited location data does not trigger Fourth Amendment protections and clarified that opting into location services does not constitute voluntary consent to government surveillance.
• Court rules that law enforcement’s use of “geofence warrant” was a “search” — The court has ruled that the use of "geofence warrants" by law enforcement constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This decision impacts how digital data can be accessed by authorities, requiring them to obtain a warrant before accessing location data from electronic devices. The ruling emphasizes the need for privacy protections in the digital age and sets a precedent for future cases involving digital privacy and law enforcement practices.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Chatrie v. United States (25-112) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Chatrie v. United States. Docket number(s): 25-112.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court blocks Trump's removal of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook can remain in her position while her legal challenge to Trump's removal efforts proceeds through the courts, effectively blocking Trump's attempt to fire her.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump's firing of Lisa Cook from Federal Reserve was unconstitutional — The US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision blocking Donald Trump's attempt to immediately remove Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor and Biden appointee, from her position. Trump had fired Cook via social media in August 2025, alleging unproven mortgage fraud. The Court ruled that Trump lacked constitutional authority to fire Cook without cause and that she was entitled to statutory procedural protections before dismissal. Cook, the first Black woman on the Fed's board, retained her seat while contesting the allegations.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Cook v. Trump ( D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02903 — On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court denied the government's application for a stay of the preliminary injunction, keeping Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in her position while the litigation continues. The Court decided on the “narrow” statutory ground that the president failed to afford her notice and opportunity to respond prior to her termination required by the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. §242. The Court declined to reach Governor Cook's constitutional due process claim - that her removal without prior notice or hearing violated the Fifth Amendment - finding the statutory violation alone sufficient to deny the stay. The Court further held that the president's determination of “cause” is judicially reviewable, that “cause” demands a substantial threshold turning on the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and its nexus to a Governor's professional duties, and that federal courts may issue interim injunctions keeping a removed officer in place while litigation proceeds. The majority also held that the Federal Reserve's for-cause removal protection is consistent with Article II of the Constitution, declining to unsettle a “special arrangement sanctioned by history” in which monetary policy is not subject to political interference. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a five-Justice majority joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh concurred separately to confirm that the Federal Reserve may continue as an independent agency following Trump v. Slaughter . Justice Jackson concurred separately, arguing that the stay application could be resolved on the equities alone because the government showed no irreparable harm. Justice Thomas dissented , arguing that the alleged mortgage fraud was “cause,” that the statute's text requires no notice or hearing, and that the Act's removal restriction is unconstitutional. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, also dissented , arguing that the Court should have confined itself to the two issues addressed by the lower courts. Justice Barrett dissented separately, faulting the majority for reaching the Article II constitutional question the government had “expressly waived” and arguing the injunction bars removal on the mortgage-fraud grounds even with proper process, warranting a stay.
• Court prevents Trump from firing Fed governor — A court ruling has prevented former President Trump from firing a Federal Reserve governor. This decision is significant as it upholds the independence of the Federal Reserve, which is crucial for maintaining economic stability and preventing undue political influence over monetary policy. The ruling reinforces the separation of powers by ensuring that executive actions do not overreach into independent agencies.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. Cook (25A312) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. Cook. Docket number(s): 25A312.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• 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 Brinkema issued preliminary injunction blocking $1.8 billion anti-weaponization payout fund — On June 13, Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking the administration's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, a pool of taxpayer money that emerged from Trump's settlement of his own lawsuit against the IRS and that could compensate his allies, including January 6 defendants, as victims of government "weaponization."

Supporting reports

• Federal judge extends block on Trump's $1.8bn IRS settlement fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema extended her order blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion fund created as part of a settlement with the IRS over the leak of Trump's tax returns. The fund had triggered bipartisan outrage when announced. Brinkema conditioned lifting the block on acting attorney general Todd Blanche and treasury secretary Scott Bessent filing a declaration under penalty of perjury within one week that the fund would not proceed. Trump's public equivocation on the fund's status prompted the extension despite Blanche's earlier congressional testimony that it was dead.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking Defendants from taking any action to create or operate the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, processing claims, making payments, appointing managers, establishing governing rules, or reconstituting the Fund under any other name. The court ordered Defendants to reverse any transfers already made to accounts for the Fund and submit a compliance status report within seven days. The court also ordered Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to file declarations under the penalty of perjury affirming they will not take further action to create or operate the Fund by June 19, 2026.
• Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema issued injunction halting Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund — Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an injunction indefinitely halting Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund for allies, political cronies, and insurrectionists. The DOJ was ordered to produce evidence within one week that the fund has been abandoned, or the civil case will proceed. The ruling represents a judicial check on executive use of public funds for political purposes.

Supporting reports

• D.C. Circuit Court denied Trump's emergency motion to stay Kennedy Center removal — Late on June 12, 2026, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump's emergency motion requesting a stay of Judge Cooper's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. Despite the court's denial, the removal of signage took longer than anticipated due to the extensive scaffolding and labor required. The Department of Justice requested twelve additional hours to comply with the court order, stating the letters would come down "in the early hours of the morning of June 13," presumably to avoid the large audience watching the removal in person and on livestream.
• Judge Cooper denied DOJ stay request on Kennedy Center removal order — Judge Cooper rejected the Justice Department's request for a stay on his removal order, ruling that the government had not demonstrated it would prevail on the merits of its appeal. Cooper stated that staying the order "would not be in the public interest, which is rarely served by the 'perpetuation' of 'unlawful' governmental action."
• Justice Department filed notice of appeal of Kennedy Center removal order — Hours after the Kennedy Center board voted to launch a last-minute appeal to Judge Cooper's removal order, lawyers from the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal. They requested a stay on the judge's order, arguing that the board would be "forced to squander time and money" if the appeals court ruled in its favor and that it "would be incredibly confusing for the public" if Trump's name went back up after removal.
• Federal judge ordered Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — A federal judge gave Trump 14 days to remove his name from the Kennedy Center. The deadline hit at midnight on June 12, 2026. Trump's legal team filed a last-minute stay request, arguing the removal would be "wasteful" and "confusing to the public," and escalated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an emergency reprieve. Plaintiffs, including board member Joyce Beatty, responded that there is no real injury if the name is later restored, and documented real harm from the renaming: artists canceled performances, ticket sales dropped precipitously, and viewership of the Kennedy Center Honors broadcast fell. A judge upheld the ruling, and the Trump name was expected to come off the Kennedy Center around 6 p.m. ET on June 12.
• Judge denied Trump's emergency motion to reverse Kennedy Center name removal ruling — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. denied Trump's last-minute emergency petition seeking to reverse an earlier court order requiring removal of his name from the Kennedy Center. A work crew was deployed at the court-mandated deadline to remove the name, but work was halted due to rain. Trump subsequently filed an emergency stay petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming the Kennedy Center board would face bankruptcy if forced to return donations received during his tenure.
• Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center facade — Workers removed the lettering referencing President Donald Trump from the facade of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on June 12, 2026, following the federal judge's order. The removal occurred around 6 p.m. ET after the midnight deadline passed.
• Department of Justice requested extension to comply with Kennedy Center removal order — The Department of Justice requested twelve additional hours from the court to comply with Judge Cooper's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center, stating that the letters would be removed "in the early hours of the morning of June 13." The request came after the government missed the midnight June 12 deadline, with the DOJ implicitly acknowledging that the removal would occur when there would not be a large audience watching either in person or on livestream.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge invalidates Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as unlawful tax — US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued a 42-page ruling invalidating Donald Trump's $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, which Trump had imposed via presidential proclamation in September 2025. Sorokin found the fee constituted an unlawful tax that violated federal administrative law and the Constitution, reasoning that only Congress possesses the power to levy taxes. The ruling vacated the fee, which represented a 20-to-50 fold increase over existing rates. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13829 — Judge Sorokin granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the $100,000 payment requirement imposed on H-1B petitions under Proclamation 10973 is an unlawful tax exceeding the President's authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that the agency actions implementing it violated the APA by bypassing notice-and-comment, exceeding statutory authority, and being arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, Judge Sorokin found the Government's rationale for the payment requirement was “cursory,” lacked “reasoned explanation,” and failed to address the reliance interests of employers. The court vacated the implementing policy in its entirety and entered declaratory judgment that it is unlawful, declining to issue a separate permanent injunction. In the same order, Judge Sorokin denied Defendants' motion to dismiss except as to Plaintiffs' claims against the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor, which Plaintiffs had agreed to voluntarily dismiss and which the court dismissed without prejudice.
• Federal judge strikes down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee — U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee is an unauthorized tax on businesses and must be vacated. The judge found the fee constitutes a tax rather than a penalty, meaning it cannot be imposed without congressional authorization. The precedent cited was the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling in Sebelius.
• U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin struck down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as an illegal tax requiring congressional approval. — In California v. Markwaple Mullin, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that Proclamation 10973, signed by Trump on September 19, 2025, imposing a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on H-1B visa petitions, constitutes an illegal tax that must be enacted by Congress. The court found the fee would impede hiring of educators, harm public college staffing and academic research, and worsen medical worker shortages. The court struck down the policy.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration transfer of National Center for Atmospheric Research supercomputing center — Senior U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from transferring NCAR's supercomputing center from Boulder, Colorado to the University of Wyoming. The judge found the move was likely retaliation against Colorado tied to the president's public dispute with Governor Jared Polis. The injunction holds while the broader case proceeds, and the judge signaled the administration is likely to lose on the merits.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — University Corporation for Atmospheric Research v. National Science Foundation (D. Colo.) 1:26-cv-01061 — Judge Jackson granted University Corporation for Atmospheric Research's (UCAR) motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining National Science Foundation (NSF) from divesting UCAR or National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) of any rights, resources, or responsibilities related to the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC). The court held that UCAR was likely to succeed on its Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim that NSF's decision to transfer stewardship of the NWSC was arbitrary and capricious, finding that the agency offered no reasoned explanation for the decision and disregarded the public-comment process it had itself announced.

Supporting reports

• U.S. Court of Appeals rules Pentagon transgender military service ban likely unconstitutional — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the Pentagon's policy barring transgender people from military service is likely unconstitutional and appears driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The ruling blocks the expulsion of current service members who sued, though it leaves the administration free to bar new transgender recruits while the case continues. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled an appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Federal appeals court rules Trump's transgender military ban likely unconstitutional — A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 that Trump and Hegseth's transgender military ban is likely unconstitutional, finding the policy appears driven by a desire to harm a politically unpopular group and is both arbitrary and based on animus. Judge Wilkins noted the administration provided no factual basis for claims that transgender service members lack honesty or integrity, and that many plaintiffs have served honorably for years and earned more than 80 commendations. The court upheld protections for currently serving transgender members while vacating the injunction as it applies to new enlistments.
• US Court of Appeals rules transgender troops may remain in military; enlistment ban upheld — A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on June 2, 2026, that existing transgender service members cannot be dismissed from the military, calling the Trump administration's removal policy "arbitrary, and based on animus." However, the court narrowed the scope of a lower-court injunction to protect only the estimated 1,000 openly transgender active-duty members, permitting the armed services to continue blocking transgender enlistment. The ruling is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Federal court blocked Alabama's congressional map as intentionally discriminatory — A three-judge federal panel unanimously blocked Alabama from using its Republican-drawn congressional map in November's midterms, ruling it intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Two of the three judges were appointed by Trump. The court found it could not require Alabamians to vote under a plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination. Alabama is appealing to the Supreme Court.