Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Missouri Republican legislators threatened impeachment of state Supreme Court justices over redistricting ruling — Missouri Republican lawmakers sent a letter threatening impeachment of state Supreme Court justices if they held Secretary of State Hoskins in contempt for defying a court order on redistricting. The letter, sent before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, insisted that Hoskins comply with the federal judge's order and questioned whether the state Supreme Court understood that federal law is "supreme." The impeachment threat was ultimately not carried out.

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

• Trump ally Joe diGenova resigns from DOJ investigation into alleged conspiracy against president — Joe diGenova, a longtime Trump ally appointed in April 2026 to lead a Department of Justice investigation into alleged conspiracy by former law enforcement and intelligence officials against Trump, resigned from the post after five months. DiGenova cited the time required to build solid cases. The investigation, based in Florida and targeting officials involved in Trump-related probes including the 2016 Russian interference assessment, had shown recent activity with grand jury subpoenas but produced no charges. His departure signals internal disagreement over the pace and viability of retribution cases.

Supporting reports

• Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denies stay blocking Trump-backed Missouri redistricting map — On September 10, 2026, a federal appeals court panel (Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals) declined to block the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Stephen Clark, allowing Missouri to proceed with using the Trump-backed congressional map in November's midterm elections. The decision came after the conservative group People Not Politicians filed an emergency stay request. The ruling left state election officials without legal clarity and prompted an immediate appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court receives emergency appeal challenging Missouri redistricting map — On September 10, 2026, opponents of Missouri's Trump-backed congressional redistricting map filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court after the Eighth Circuit declined to block the map's use in November's midterm elections. The appeal follows a series of conflicting rulings across four courts, including a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision blocking the map and a federal judge's TRO ordering its use. The Supreme Court must act within weeks before the November elections.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rejects Missouri Republican-backed redistricting maps ahead of midterm elections — The US Supreme Court rejected Missouri's Republican-led effort to redraw congressional maps to gain electoral advantage before the November 2026 midterm elections. After conflicting rulings from multiple courts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh ordered the state to comply with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision to block the new maps and use the 2022 maps instead. Missouri's Secretary of State Denny Hoskins had attempted to implement the new Republican-friendly maps despite a state court ruling that they violated the state constitution and were subject to a voter referendum.
• Supreme Court grants stay in People Not Politicians v. Onder redistricting case — The Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of a September 8, 2026 order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (case No. 4:26–cv–1424). The stay preserves the status quo pending appeal to the Eighth Circuit and potential certiorari review. The stay will terminate automatically if certiorari is denied, or upon issuance of the Supreme Court's final judgment if certiorari is granted.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: League of United Latin American Citizens v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security — LULAC, Common Cause, UnidosUS, and the City and County of Denver filed a complaint in D.D.C. challenging the Trump administration's policy authorizing ICE agents at polling places during the 2026 general election. Plaintiffs allege the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and exceeds DHS statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 592, which bars armed federal personnel at polling places except to repel armed enemies. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and an injunction barring armed officers from polling places, drop boxes, and curbside voting locations.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service — Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging two final rules issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on July 21, 2026. The 4(d) Rule removes protections for newly listed threatened species; the Habitat Exclusion Rule expands the framework for excluding areas from critical habitat designation. Plaintiffs allege both rules exceed FWS statutory authority, violate the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act, and fail to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments and vacatur of both rules.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: State of California v. Burgum (N.D. Cal.) — California and 20 other states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging a July 14, 2026 final rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service that rescinded the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. The rescission narrowed "take" to affirmative acts directed intentionally against particular animals, eliminating habitat modification or degradation as actionable harm. Plaintiffs allege the rescission exceeds statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act, and seek declaratory judgment and vacation of the rule.

Supporting reports

• Missouri state supreme court rules Trump-backed congressional maps must go to voter referendum — The Missouri state supreme court ruled that the newly redrawn congressional maps, backed by President Trump and designed to favor Republicans, cannot be used in the November election without voter approval via referendum. The court's decision triggered fierce opposition from Trump, state Republicans, and the state attorney general, who claimed it would disenfranchise voters and create a constitutional crisis. This ruling preceded the conflicting federal court orders issued the same day.

Supporting reports

• Missouri federal judge issues temporary restraining order requiring use of Trump-backed congressional maps in November elections — US District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on September 8, 2026, ordering Missouri to use newly drawn congressional districts favoring Republicans in the November general election, overriding the state supreme court's ruling that the maps must go to voters for approval. The TRO cited voter confusion and fairness concerns from using different maps in the primary versus general election. The order was immediately appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, creating conflicting legal directives days before the election.
• Missouri federal judge orders use of Trump-backed congressional map despite state supreme court block — On September 9, 2026, federal district judge Stephen Clark (Eastern District of Missouri) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring Missouri to use newly drawn congressional districts favoring Republicans in the November midterm elections, overriding a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the same maps. The TRO cited potential voter confusion if different maps were used for the general election versus the August primary. The decision triggered immediate appeals to the Eighth Circuit and US Supreme Court, leaving state election officials without legal clarity weeks before the election.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh denies emergency request to use Trump-backed Missouri congressional maps — Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency request from Missouri officials to use the newly redrawn congressional map favoring Republicans in the November elections. This denial occurred hours before the federal judge's contradictory TRO ordering use of those same maps. The conflicting rulings created immediate legal chaos regarding which map would govern Missouri's congressional elections.
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh denies Missouri officials' request to use Republican-favored House map — On September 9, 2026, US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency request from Missouri officials to use the House map favored by Republicans, leaving in place a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the newer maps drawn to create an additional Republican-friendly seat. Kavanaugh's denial occurred hours before a federal district judge issued a contradictory TRO ordering use of the same Republican-backed map, creating legal chaos.

Supporting reports

• DOJ solicitor general appeals mail voting injunction to Supreme Court — John Sauer, the DOJ's solicitor general, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on September 6 seeking to lift Judge Talwani's permanent injunction and permit Trump's USPS rules restricting mail voting to take effect. Sauer argued the freeze would cause "serious, irreparable harm" and claimed the order merely imposes "reasonable preparation requirements" rather than seizing control of state election administration, contradicting the judge's findings.
• Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to restrict mail-in voting ahead of midterms — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court on Sunday seeking to overturn a federal judge's injunction blocking enforcement of an executive order restricting mail-in voting. US District Judge Indira Talwani had extended the court order on Friday preventing the USPS from enforcing Trump's March executive order, which would limit ballot delivery to voters on a federal DHS-approved list. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that ballots already mailing in multiple states risked "confusion and chaos" if the injunction remained in place. This marks the third Supreme Court appeal on the matter.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge extends preliminary injunction blocking Trump mail-in voting executive order — US District Court Judge Indira Talwani extended a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump's March 2026 executive order restricting mail-in voting. The order would have created a nationwide verified voter list and limited ballot delivery to those on the list. Talwani cited the tight election timeline and risk of disenfranchisement, noting states cannot pivot ballot-mailing procedures weeks before the November midterms. The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses Jackson residents' constitutional right to clean water lawsuit — The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of a 2022 lawsuit filed by Jackson, Mississippi residents claiming that tainted drinking water violated their constitutional rights. The court ruled that the federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to clean water and that states have no constitutional duty to provide water services in a competent fashion. The court suggested residents pursue tort claims or electoral remedies instead, while acknowledging "serious government misfeasance" but declining to convert such claims into constitutional violations.