Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Judge Cannon interrupts and cuts off Ryan Routh's opening statement in Trump assassination attempt trial — Ryan Routh, 59, representing himself without legal training, began his opening statement in his trial for attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a Florida golf resort in September 2024. Judge Aileen Cannon interrupted him three times within five minutes, citing improper procedure and accusing him of making "a mockery of the court" after he discussed evolution, global conflicts, and Hitler rather than mounting a defense. Cannon excused the jury to reprimand him, then suspended his remarks entirely. The trial proceeded with prosecution witnesses including Secret Service agent Robert Fercano, who testified he spotted a rifle near Trump and fired at the armed person.

Supporting reports

• Rear Admiral questioned legal basis for boat strike — Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002, questioned the legal basis for the boat strike, noting that if the men on the boat were retreating, there was no "imminent threat" to justify the use of force under the laws of war.

Supporting reports

• Iowa county official defies governor's half-staff flag order for Charlie Kirk — Jon Green, chair of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors in Iowa, publicly announced he would not comply with Governor Kim Reynolds's directive to lower flags at half-staff in honor of Charlie Kirk, a rightwing activist fatally shot on September 11. Green cited Reynolds's failure to issue similar orders after other prominent gun violence cases, including the killing of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman. Reynolds responded by criticizing Green's decision as "disgraceful" and putting "politics above human decency." Green stated he would accept any legal or electoral consequences for his refusal.

Supporting reports

• Three former FBI agents filed lawsuit against Kash Patel — Three former FBI agents filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel portraying him as a "partisan neophyte more interested in social media and swag" than professional law enforcement, occurring on the same day Patel mishandled the Kirk shooting investigation.
• Three former FBI officials sue Kash Patel for wrongful termination over Trump investigations — Three senior FBI officials—Brian Driscoll Jr., Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans—filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC against FBI Director Kash Patel and the federal government, alleging wrongful termination and unlawful political influence. The complaint alleges Patel stated he was instructed by the White House to fire agents who worked on Trump investigations, and that Emil Bove pressured officials to compile lists of agents involved in January 6 investigations. The officials seek reinstatement, backpay, and a declaration that their firings were illegal.
• Three former FBI officials sued Patel and DOJ for politicizing the FBI — Three former top officials at the FBI filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Patel, the FBI, Attorney General Bondi, the Department of Justice, and the president, accusing them of unlawfully politicizing the FBI and purging anyone who had ever worked on a criminal investigation of Trump. The lawsuit suggests Bongino had an "intense focus on [using] his social media profiles to change his followers' perceptions of the FBI."
• FBI director and deputy director focused on social media rather than investigation — FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, both MAGA influencers without law enforcement experience, appeared to prioritize social media activity over the investigation into Kirk's shooting. Hours after the shooting, Patel's personal social media account posted a picture of himself and Kirk; minutes later, Patel's official FBI account posted conflicting updates about the suspect's custody status. Both officials appeared focused more on posting than conducting investigative work.

Supporting reports

• House passes Stop Illegal Entry Act imposing mandatory 10-year sentences for migrants re-entering after removal — The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed HR3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act, on 11 September 2025, imposing mandatory minimum sentences of 5–10 years for migrants convicted of illegal re-entry combined with other crimes. The bill passed largely along party lines with 11 Democratic votes and White House support. Criminal justice groups warn it would incarcerate thousands for non-violent offenses, cost approximately $440,000 per person, paralyze federal courts by eliminating plea incentives, and disproportionately affect migrants fleeing violence or seeking family reunification. Senator Ted Cruz is advancing the measure in the Senate, where it requires 60 votes to proceed.

Supporting reports

• Texas Redistricting Lawsuit Filed — A lawsuit has been filed challenging the newly drawn congressional maps in Texas, alleging that the maps are a partisan gerrymander favoring the Republican Party. The plaintiffs argue that the redistricting process violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by diluting the voting power of minority communities. The case has been filed in federal court, and the plaintiffs are seeking a court order to block the use of the maps in upcoming elections.
• Missouri Republicans approve mid-decade congressional redistricting eliminating Democratic seat — Missouri Republicans approved a new congressional map on September 12, 2025, that eliminates a district currently held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver in Kansas City and redistributes voters into GOP-friendly districts, increasing Republican seats from six to seven of eight. The map now goes to Republican Governor Mike Kehoe for signature. Opponents plan to gather signatures for a statewide referendum within 90 days to force a voter decision on the maps in 2026.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration walked back Guatemalan deportation claims — The Trump administration walked back its claims that hundreds of Guatemalan children it tried to deport back to their home country last month had been requested to return by their parents after a Justice Department attorney acknowledged that the claims had no factual basis and had been contradicted by a Guatemalan government review, which concluded that most of the parents couldn't be located and the majority who were had wanted their children to remain in the US.

Supporting reports

• Alabama petitions Supreme Court to reverse private right of action in Milligan v. Allen — Alabama filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to consider new arguments to reverse the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' determination that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides a private right of action. The petition, filed in the case Milligan v. Allen, also raises the constitutional questions at stake in Louisiana v. Callais regarding whether majority-minority districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Alabama requests stay in redistricting lawsuit pending Callais decision — Alabama filed a request with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of a lower court's decision ordering the state to draw new congressional maps. The stay request seeks to pause the redistricting order until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, signaling that the outcome of that VRA case will determine Alabama's redistricting obligations.

Supporting reports

• Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rules Section 2 contains no private right of action in Arkansas case — The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action, meaning only the Attorney General—not private plaintiffs such as voters or voting-rights organizations—can enforce the provision. This decision effectively gutted Section 2 enforcement in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The plaintiffs in that case declined to appeal to the Supreme Court, fearing it would entrench the decision nationwide.
• Eighth Circuit rules Section 208 of VRA contains no private right of action — The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which ensures that voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency can receive assistance casting their ballots, does not explicitly provide a private right of action. The decision upheld an Arkansas law that makes it a crime for anyone other than a poll worker to assist more than six people in casting their ballots.

Supporting reports

• Louisiana reverses legal position in Callais, joins conservative plaintiffs in attacking VRA Section 2 — After the Supreme Court's reargument order in Louisiana v. Callais, Louisiana reversed its legal strategy. Previously, the state had argued its congressional map was drawn with political rather than racial considerations. The state now joined the conservative plaintiffs in directly attacking Section 2's remedy—the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district—as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Supporting reports

• Mississippi petitions Supreme Court to rule on Section 2 private right of action — Mississippi filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to rule on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides a private right of action. The petition appeals a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had determined private plaintiffs do have a right to sue under Section 2.

Supporting reports

• Republican National Committee urges Fifth Circuit to adopt no-private-right-of-action interpretation for Section 208 — The Republican National Committee filed a brief with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals urging it to adopt the same interpretation as the 8th Circuit—that Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action. This follows the 8th Circuit's decision upholding an Arkansas law criminalizing assistance to more than six voters per person.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court schedules reargument in Louisiana v. Callais on VRA Section 2 remedy — The U.S. Supreme Court delayed issuing an opinion in Louisiana v. Callais during summer 2025 and announced a reargument scheduled for October on whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. The case originated after Louisiana was ordered in 2024 to redraw maps with an additional majority-Black district following a successful Section 2 challenge. The reargument signals the Court may be preparing a sweeping ruling that could substantially narrow or eliminate the VRA's most powerful remaining provision.

Supporting reports

• Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians appeals to Supreme Court on Section 2 private right of action — Native American plaintiffs led by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court after the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that private plaintiffs cannot bring Section 2 claims via Section 1983. The tribes had successfully challenged North Dakota's state legislative maps under both Section 2 and Section 1983, resulting in a VRA-compliant map used in 2024. The Supreme Court agreed to pause the 8th Circuit's ruling while it deliberates the appeal.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice reverses position on voting rights cases under Attorney General Pam Bondi — Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the U.S. Department of Justice has reversed its position on numerous voting rights cases, including Louisiana v. Callais. The reversal signals a shift away from federal enforcement of voting-rights protections and aligns the DOJ with conservative legal arguments attacking the Voting Rights Act.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court uses shadow docket to overturn lower court rulings without explanation — The Supreme Court has dramatically expanded its use of the "shadow docket"—unsigned, unexplained decisions traditionally reserved for emergencies—to overturn lower court rulings in favor of Trump. The court, three of whose justices Trump appointed, has sided with him in shadow docket decisions more than 70% of the time. These decisions lack hearings, briefs, or written justification, undermining judicial transparency and the rule of law while supporting the administration's narrative that courts are subverting Trump's presidency.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Driscoll v. Patel (D.D.C. 1:25-cv-03109) — Three senior FBI officials, including former FBI Acting Director Brian J. Driscoll, Jr., filed suit in federal district court challenging their summary dismissal by FBI Director Kash Patel on August 8, 2025. The plaintiffs claim they were entitled to statutory protections under the FBI Senior Executive Service (5 U.S.C. § 3151), which permits removal only for specified causes such as misconduct or neglect of duty. They allege their terminations violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the First Amendment, arguing the dismissals were retaliatory and based on perceived political disloyalty rather than lawful cause. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement and an injunction against further adverse action without due process.

Supporting reports

• Republicans block release of Epstein files in Rules Committee vote — All eight Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted to block the release of the Epstein files after Trump warned them it would be a "hostile act" to vote for release. The Republicans who voted to block were Virginia Foxx (NC), Michelle Fischbach (MN), Ralph Norman (SC), Chip Roy (TX), Nick Langworthy (NY), Austin Scott (GA), Morgan Griffith (VA), and Brian Jack (GA). Democrats have secured 216 signatures on a discharge petition and expect two special election victories to provide the votes needed to force a floor vote on release.

Supporting reports

• Michigan judge dismissed fake elector charges — A Michigan state judge dismissed charges against a group of fake electors who signed certificates that falsely stated Trump won the state in the 2020 presidential election, ruling that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove their intent to commit fraud. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the dismissal "the most dangerous slippery slope for American democracy" and expressed terror about the 2026 elections.
• Michigan judge dismisses charges against 15 Trump fake electors — Judge Kristen Simmons in Michigan dismissed felony charges against 15 of 16 people accused of falsely signing documents claiming Trump won the 2020 election. The judge ruled the state had not provided sufficient evidence of intent to prove fraud, characterizing the defendants' actions as exercising their constitutional right to seek redress. The dismissal represents a significant setback for efforts to hold Trump and allies accountable for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.

Supporting reports

• Navarro files appeal demanding DOJ explain withdrawal from defending his subpoena conviction — Peter Navarro, Trump's White House trade adviser, filed a 13-page appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit requesting the justice department explain why it will not defend his 2022 conviction for defying a January 6 committee subpoena. Navarro was convicted after refusing to testify, claiming executive privilege. After Trump returned to office and Navarro joined the White House, federal prosecutors withdrew their defense of the conviction and urged appointment of external counsel. Navarro's filing argues the DOJ must provide detailed explanation for abandoning its legal position, citing separation-of-powers concerns and potential implications for congressional subpoena enforcement against presidential advisers.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court lifts injunction on ICE roving patrols in Los Angeles — The Supreme Court's conservative majority temporarily lifted a lower court injunction that had restricted "roving" immigration patrols in the Los Angeles area. The lower court had found that federal ICE agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race, language, employment, or location. The lifting of the injunction allows ICE to resume these patrols without the prior civil rights constraints. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling and warned it could trigger broader erosion of civil rights protections nationwide.
• Supreme Court lifts order barring race-based immigration enforcement — On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted an order that had previously barred the Trump administration from stopping people solely on the basis of race, language, or job. Immigration advocates expect this ruling will enable further acceleration of deportation raids targeting Southeast Asian communities.
• Supreme Court lifts restraining order on ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority granted a stay against a lower-court restraining order that had barred ICE agents from conducting "roving patrols" in Los Angeles based on race, language, or occupation. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had found "mountain of evidence" that enforcement tactics violated the Constitution and amounted to racial profiling. The 6-3 decision allows the Trump administration to resume sweeping immigration operations without the judicial restrictions, marking a major victory for the administration's mass deportation campaign.
• Supreme Court lifts restrictions on immigration patrols in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision lifting a temporary restraining order that had barred federal immigration agents from stopping people in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity, language, employment type, or location. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence cited race as a "relevant factor" in forming reasonable suspicion. The ruling immediately enabled the Department of Homeland Security to resume "roving patrols" across the LA area, where prior sweeps had detained U.S. citizens and separated families. Civil rights advocates and local officials condemned the decision as legalizing racial profiling.
• Supreme Court lifts temporary restraining order on ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reverse a temporary restraining order that had banned ICE from stopping people based on race, language, or job. U.S. District Judge Maame E Frimpong had granted the order after finding "mountain of evidence" of constitutional violations through racial profiling. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion held that ethnicity can be a "relevant" factor in immigration enforcement. ICE immediately resumed sweeping raids in Los Angeles, with the agency announcing it would "flood the zone" in the city.
• Supreme Court ruled racial profiling legal in immigration detentions — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that racial profiling is permissible when conducting immigration detentions. Justice Kagan's dissent documented that ICE in Los Angeles was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: race, language spoken or accent, location, and type of work. The District Court had previously ruled such stops constituted illegal racial profiling. The decision applies nationwide. Justice Kagan warned that the ruling undermines Fourth Amendment protections for people based on appearance, accent, or low-wage employment.
• U.S. District Court judge issued order prohibiting race-based immigration stops; Supreme Court enjoined the ruling — On July 11, 2025, a U.S. district court judge issued an order prohibiting federal agents from stopping individuals as potential undocumented immigrants based primarily on apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, working in agriculture or construction, or combinations thereof. On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined that ruling, allowing federal agents to continue targeting people based on perceived race, language, or occupation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion dismissed concerns about Constitutional violations, while Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissented, warning that "constitutional freedoms are lost."
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Perdomo — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Perdomo. This decision allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue conducting immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, California, without the restrictions imposed by a lower court order. The lower court had previously ruled that the federal government must stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court's decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Supreme Court paused ruling preventing ICE racial profiling — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 unexplained decision, paused a lower court ruling preventing federal immigration officials from stopping suspects in Los Angeles based solely on factors like race, occupation, accent, or speaking Spanish. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the decision allows "the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."
• US Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ICE racial profiling in immigration enforcement — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority lifted judicial restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles, allowing federal agents to stop people if they appear Latino or speak Spanish. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling. The ruling reversed the temporary restraining order that had provided relief to Los Angeles communities and reinstated the government's ability to conduct indiscriminate enforcement operations based on perceived immigration status indicators.
• Supreme Court shadow docket decision permitting racial profiling — The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket decision that allows racial profiling. The decision was characterized as ominous in its implications for civil rights and equal protection. No additional procedural or factual details were provided in the source text regarding the specific case, parties, or scope of the ruling.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Doe v. Department of Defense (D. Md. 8:25-cv-02947) — Two minor children and a young adult filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the Department of Defense's June 11, 2025 revision to the TRICARE policy manual, which eliminated coverage for gender transition medications and therapy for both children and adults. The revision followed President Trump's January 28, 2025 Executive Order 14187. Plaintiffs allege the policy change violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow required rulemaking procedures and notice requirements, and violated separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgment that the new policy is unlawful and a permanent injunction against enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice Roberts allowed Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC member — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts allowed Trump to move forward with the firing of a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission, directly contravening a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a federal law meant to restrict the White House's ability to control the agency, while litigation around her termination continues.
• SCOTUS stays District Court order in Trump v. Slaughter — The Supreme Court, acting through Chief Justice Roberts, issued an emergency stay of a July 17, 2025 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (case 1:25-cv-909). The stay halts the lower court's ruling pending further order from the Court or the Chief Justice. Respondents are directed to file a response by September 15, 2025 at 4 p.m. EDT. The underlying case involves Trump and other applicants against Rebecca K. Slaughter and others.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire Democratic FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — The Supreme Court allowed Trump to ignore a lower court decision that he could not fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last remaining Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, while her case was in the courts. This overturns precedent established since 1935 that the president does not have the power to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress. The decision was issued without hearings, briefs, or written explanation under the "shadow docket."