Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Utah judge approves redistricting map creating Democratic-leaning House seat — Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that Utah's Republican-controlled legislature's second redistricting attempt "unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats" and approved an alternative map submitted by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. The new map consolidates Salt Lake County—the state's largest Democratic-voting population center—largely within a single district rather than dividing it among all four seats, creating a competitive Democratic-leaning seat in a state where Republicans currently hold all four House positions.
• Utah judge rejected Republican-drawn congressional district map — A Utah state judge rejected congressional district lines drawn by Republican state lawmakers and approved an alternative map that includes a solidly Democratic seat ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The original Republican map was designed to protect the state's all-GOP congressional delegation through gerrymandering. The ruling is described as a major blow to Republicans' mid-decade redistricting efforts.
• Utah judge rejected Republican congressional map and ordered new map — A Utah judge rejected a congressional map passed by state Republican lawmakers on November 10 and ordered a new map that will likely give Utah Democrats a seat in the House in the 2026 midterms for the first time since 2021.

Supporting reports

• DC judge hears arguments on removal of 2,300 national guard troops from Washington streets — US District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden nominee, on Friday heard arguments in Washington DC on a request from DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb for an order to remove more than 2,000 guard members from Washington streets. Trump had issued an executive order in August declaring a crime emergency in DC despite DOJ data showing violent crime at a 30-year low. More than 2,300 guard troops from eight states and the district were deployed under the army secretary's command, with attorneys indicating troops would likely remain through at least summer 2026.

Supporting reports

• Letitia James pleads not guilty to mortgage fraud charges brought by Trump-appointed prosecutor — New York Attorney General Letitia James appeared in federal district court in Norfolk, Virginia, and pleaded not guilty to charges of bank fraud and false statements. The indictment, filed by Trump-appointed US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, alleges James falsely claimed a Norfolk home purchased in 2020 would be a secondary residence to obtain favorable loan terms when she used it as an investment property. Career prosecutors had objected to the charges, citing insufficient evidence and no material profit to James. James is expected to file a motion to dismiss on grounds that Halligan was improperly appointed.

Supporting reports

• Stay motion decided — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration's emergency motion to stay a district court order that had blocked the federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. In a 2-1 decision, the panel concluded that the President likely lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) , finding his decision “reflect[ed] a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.'” The majority found that the district court had erred by minimizing evidence of violence in the months before the federalization order was issued and that it placed too much emphasis on Trump's social media remarks, writing that the deployment constituted a “proportionate” and “measured” response by “sending only a minimal number of Guardsmen to restore order around a federal building” and that the decision of how many troops to send “warrants the highest possible deference.” Judge Graber dissented, warning that the ruling “hands the President a blank check to militarize domestic disputes whenever he declares himself dissatisfied with civilian law enforcement.” The stay reinstates the administration's power to deploy the Oregon National Guard while the appeal proceeds.
• Federal appeals court ruled Trump administration can deploy National Guard to Portland — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with deploying National Guard troops to Portland. Two Trump-appointed judges wrote that "Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis" to support the deployment. A Clinton-appointed judge dissented, writing that the decision "is not merely absurd, it erodes core constitutional principles."
• Ninth Circuit judge requests en banc rehearing vote on Trump troop deployment ruling — Hours after the three-judge panel decision, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the case should be reheard by a larger en banc panel of all 29 active judges. This triggered a formal order requiring written briefs from Oregon and Portland (supporting rehearing) and the Trump administration (opposing it) by midnight Wednesday. All 29 judges will then vote on whether to grant the rehearing. The dissenting judge, Susan Graber, had urged vacatur of the panel's decision, and Oregon's governor and attorney general both called for the full court to reverse the ruling.
• Three-judge federal appeals panel lifts block on Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland — A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 on October 21 to lift a lower court's injunction blocking Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. Trump had ordered the deployment citing federal property protection; Oregon's governor and attorney general challenged it as unlawful. The dissenting judge called the ruling "absurd" and without legal justification. Hours later, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the full 29-judge court should rehear the case, triggering a briefing schedule with a Wednesday midnight deadline.
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pauses lifting of Portland national guard block — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday paused the lifting of Judge Immergut's first temporary restraining order blocking deployment of 200 Oregon national guard troops to Portland until the following Tuesday evening. The pause was granted to allow the court time to decide whether to rehear the appeal of that order before a larger 11-judge panel, effectively extending the deployment block for at least four additional days.
• Case update — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied an administrative stay on an earlier order temporarily blocking the administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard while the legal challenge against it proceeds. The ruling temporarily reinstates the district court's order while the full court determines whether to rehear the case en banc.

Supporting reports

• Federal grand jury indicted John Bolton for classified information disclosure — A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted former national security advisor John Bolton on eighteen counts: eight counts of communicating secret information to unauthorized recipients and ten counts of unauthorized possession of classified documents. The charges relate to Bolton sharing classified diary material with relatives that later informed his memoir "The Room Where It Happened." The indictment references Bolton's criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of Signal messaging to plan military operations.
• Trump's former National Security Advisor John Bolton was indicted for retaining classified information — John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor, was indicted for keeping more than 1,000 pages of diaries containing highly classified information and sharing them with two relatives. The indictment also notes that Bolton's email account was hacked by Iran, exposing some of the classified secrets.
• John Bolton indicted for mishandling classified information — John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser and prominent critic of the president, was indicted for allegedly mishandling classified information. Bolton faces 18 criminal charges, including eight counts of transmitting national defense information and 10 counts of unlawfully retaining national defense information. In a statement, Bolton said he "look[s] forward to the fight to defend my lawful conduct and to expose [Trump's] abuse of power."
• John Bolton indicted on 18 counts of mishandling classified information — The Department of Justice filed an 18-count indictment against John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser, charging him under the Espionage Act with transmitting and retaining highly classified information. Bolton allegedly sent diary entries containing classified details to two unnamed individuals via personal email and messaging accounts. The grand jury indictment was handed down in federal district court in Maryland on October 17, 2025. Bolton's defense argues the diaries were personal records shared only with family and known to the FBI since 2021.
• John Bolton pleads not guilty to 18-count indictment for mishandling classified information — Former national security adviser John Bolton surrendered to authorities and pleaded not guilty in Maryland federal court to an 18-count indictment alleging he shared classified diary notes with relatives lacking security clearances, stored classified documents at his home, and sent top-secret information via personal email. Bolton's lawyer characterized the prosecution as political retaliation for his 2020 memoir critical of Trump. Career prosecutors in the Maryland US attorney's office filed the charges, which were initially dropped by the Biden DOJ in 2021 but reopened after the CIA director and FBI director reviewed Bolton's hacked emails.

Supporting reports

• Judge Susan Illston grants temporary restraining order blocking Trump's mass layoffs during government shutdown — On Wednesday (October 15, 2025), Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court's Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's latest mass layoffs from the government shutdown. The order represents a significant legal victory for unions battling the administration's workforce reduction efforts.
• Federal court rules Trump's federal worker layoffs during shutdown illegal — A federal court in San Francisco ruled that Trump's layoffs of federal workers during the government shutdown were illegal. The ruling represented a judicial check on executive action during the shutdown.
• Federal judge temporarily blocked firing of federal employees during shutdown — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying the move appeared to be politically motivated and adding, "It's a human cost that cannot be tolerated."
• Federal judge issues temporary injunction blocking federal worker layoffs — A federal judge on October 16, 2025, issued a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's layoffs of more than 4,000 federal workers. The injunction halted the firings, though the administration signaled that additional cuts were planned and that the current layoffs represented only a partial reduction in the workforce.
• Judge Illston grants temporary injunction blocking Trump administration federal employee firings during shutdown — Federal Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees during the government shutdown. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions (AFGE and AFSCME) alleging that the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management violated law by threatening and executing reductions in force during the shutdown. Judge Illston found evidence that OMB and OPM "took advantage of the lapse in government spending" and acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in excess of authority.
• Trump administration lays off 4,000 federal workers; federal judge issues temporary injunction — The Trump administration laid off more than 4,000 federal government workers during the shutdown. On October 16, 2025, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the firings. The Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, stated that the 4,000 layoffs were merely a "snapshot" and that the total number could exceed 10,000. The administration indicated further cuts were expected.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration attempts to deploy California Guard to Portland; Judge Immergut issues second order barring deployment — In response to Judge Immergut's order blocking the Oregon Guard deployment to Portland, the Trump administration attempted to send California National Guard troops previously federalized by Trump into Portland. Judge Immergut issued a second order flatly barring Trump from deploying any federalized Guard in Oregon, finding the move was "in direct contravention" of her earlier decision.
• U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut blocks Oregon National Guard deployment to Portland — U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued an order blocking Trump's deployment of 200 federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. Immergut found that Trump's "determination was simply untethered to the facts" and therefore he lacked the authority to federalize the Oregon Guard under Title 10. The ruling was based on evidence that local and state law enforcement officials had refuted Trump's claims about conditions in Portland.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut reportedly extended two Temporary Restraining Orders by 14 days, one blocking a Sept. 28 memorandum authorizing the federalization of the Oregon National Guard and the second preventing the deployment of federalized National Guard troops, including from other states, to Portland. The orders were set to expire on Oct. 17. On Oct. 8, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of the TRO blocking federalization of the National Guard, holding that the “administrative stay will best preserve the status quo” while the appeal is pending, although it left in place the order prohibiting the deployment of the Guard.
• Oregon federal judge extends temporary restraining orders blocking Trump national guard deployment to Portland — U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut extended two temporary restraining orders by 14 days that prevent the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The orders had been set to expire that week. Immergut, nominated by Trump in his first term, previously ruled that Trump's claims about Portland conditions resembling a war zone were "simply untethered to the facts." A three-judge appeals panel is considering the government's request to lift the first order. Immergut scheduled a non-jury trial for October 29 to determine whether to impose a longer-term deployment block.

Supporting reports

• Federal court rejects administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship as unconstitutional — A second federal court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, ruling that such action would be unconstitutional. This represents judicial rejection of a major administration policy initiative targeting the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to those born in the United States.

Supporting reports

• Judge Waverly Crenshaw found realistic likelihood of vindictive prosecution of Ábrego García — In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw found there was a "realistic likelihood" that the Department of Justice had sought immigrant-trafficking charges against Kilmar Ábrego García as punishment for challenging his removal to El Salvador.
• U.S. District Judge Crenshaw rebukes Justice Department for vindictive prosecution of undocumented immigrant — U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville rebuked the Justice Department and its top officials for prosecuting Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, on federal charges in what appears to be a vindictive prosecution. Crenshaw indicated that officials from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security may have prosecuted Abrego for filing a successful lawsuit challenging his unlawful deportation to El Salvador. The New York Times notes that vindictive prosecution motions are very difficult to win, and the court's consideration of this motion represents "a hugely embarrassing blow to the Trump administration."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration fires 100+ immigration judges and recruits military lawyers to replace them — The Trump administration has fired more than 100 immigration judges since taking office, including roughly one-third of judges in San Francisco's major immigration court. In late August, the administration scrapped the rule requiring temporary immigration judges to have spent a decade practicing immigration law before qualifying for the bench, then cleared 600 military lawyers to fill vacant judge seats. This action has thrown already backlogged courts into chaos, with a 3.6 million case backlog.

Supporting reports

• Trump appoints Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney to prosecute Comey — Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney to pursue charges against former FBI director James Comey. Halligan's prior role in the administration involved efforts to eliminate slavery from Smithsonian exhibits, which Cobb characterized as an attempt to "whitewash" American history and "paint America as something that it isn't."

Supporting reports

• Trump fires federal prosecutor who declined to prosecute Comey — Trump fired federal prosecutor Erik Siebert after Siebert declined to bring charges against former FBI director James Comey. Trump then appointed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, to pursue the case instead. This action demonstrates selective removal of prosecutors based on their willingness to prosecute the president's political opponents.
• Trump indicts former FBI director James Comey on charges of lying to Congress — Former FBI director James Comey was indicted on charges of allegedly lying to Congress. The indictment was brought by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, after Trump fired the previous federal prosecutor, Erik Siebert, when he declined to bring charges. Ex-Trump lawyer Ty Cobb characterized the indictment as part of a "concerted effort" to "rewrite history" and criticized it as "wholly unconstitutional [and] authoritarian," noting the grand jury approved only two counts by a slim 14-23 margin.
• DOJ indicted former FBI Director James Comey — The Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey. Fox legal analyst Andy McCarthy stated the indictment "doesn't give you notice of what Comey has actually done" and "factually there's nothing there," characterizing it as "lawfare" designed to put Comey through the legal process. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe stated that DOJ never contacted him for an interview before the indictment despite his interactions with Comey potentially being central to the prosecution.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Trump v. Slaughter — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Slaughter. This decision temporarily halts the reinstatement of Rebecca Slaughter, a former Federal Trade Commission commissioner, who was previously ordered by a lower court to be reinstated after being terminated. The stay was granted in a 6-3 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. This order allows the federal government to maintain the status quo while the case continues through the appeals process.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — The Supreme Court ruled that Trump can move forward with firing Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democratic leader of the Federal Trade Commission, while the Court takes up her case. The justices will decide whether the president has the ability to fire heads of independent agencies, potentially overturning a 1935 landmark ruling that limited presidential removal power. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that the Court's majority has "handed full control of all those agencies to the president," who may remove "any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all."

Supporting reports

• Judge Merryday dismissed Trump's $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times — U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, threw out the defamation complaint filed by President Trump on September 15 against the New York Times. The judge called the complaint "decidedly improper and impermissible" and criticized Trump's legal team for using the lawsuit as a public forum for abusive language. The complaint contained eighty pages of praise for Trump and allegations against the Times before two defamation counts. Merryday imposed a forty-page limit on any amended complaint.
• Federal judge dismisses Trump's $15 billion libel lawsuit against New York Times — US District Judge Steven Merryday in Florida dismissed President Trump's $15 billion libel and defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, ruling that the complaint lacked "any legitimate legal claims." Merryday, a Bush appointee, gave Trump 28 days to file a revised complaint and ridiculed the original filing, stating that a complaint is not "a public forum for vituperation and invective" or "a megaphone for public relations."
• Federal judge tossed Trump's defamation lawsuit against New York Times — A federal judge dismissed Trump's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, calling the complaint "improper and impermissible" and stating that "a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary." The judge ordered any revised complaint be limited to 40 pages.

Supporting reports

• US appeals court blocks Trump's removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to allow President Trump to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, upholding a lower court's temporary block. Trump had claimed Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office; Cook denies the allegations and argues they are pretextual retaliation for her monetary policy stance. The 2-1 decision (Biden appointees Garcia and Childs in majority; Trump appointee Katsas dissenting) preserves Cook's seat ahead of a Fed policy meeting. The administration signaled intent to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court allows Slaughter firing to proceed pending appeal — The US Supreme Court issued an order allowing Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to take effect while the Court agreed to hear full arguments on the merits of the case. The order drew dissents from the three liberal justices, signaling deep disagreement over presidential removal power and independent agency protections.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• California governor files preliminary injunction to block extended national guard deployment — Following Judge Breyer's ruling, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a preliminary injunction on September 2 seeking to block the Trump administration's extension of national guard troops' deployment in Los Angeles through the November election. Newsom argued there was no justification for continued military presence against communities. Approximately 300 troops remained deployed at the time, down from thousands sent in June.
• Federal judge rules Trump administration illegally deployed national guard in Los Angeles — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) by deploying thousands of national guard troops to accompany federal immigration agents on raids in Los Angeles in June 2025. The ruling, effective September 12, barred troops from conducting arrests, searches, crowd control, and other law-enforcement functions. California Governor Gavin Newsom had filed suit in June, arguing the deployment constituted militarization of domestic streets. The Trump administration vowed to appeal.
• Judge Breyer ruled Trump administration's use of military in Los Angeles violated Posse Comitatus Act — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally when they deployed the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge found that armed soldiers set up protective perimeters, traffic blockages, and engaged in crowd control, directly violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. military to execute domestic law. The judge noted that 300 troops remain in Los Angeles and warned that Trump and Hegseth have stated their intention to deploy National Guard troops in other cities, "thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief." Breyer prohibited the defendants from deploying or using military or National Guard troops to execute laws and stayed the order until noon September 12 to allow appeal.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's LA military deployment violated Posse Comitatus Act — A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of the military to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the army from performing domestic law enforcement actions without authorization from Congress. While the judge noted that it's legal to deploy the officials to protect federal property, he said that Trump is using the military as a "national police force with the President as its chief."
• Judge Blocks Military Deployment for Law Enforcement in Los Angeles — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling that prohibited the Trump administration from using military troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles, citing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge's order prevents the deployment of National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement activities, emphasizing the need to uphold legal boundaries between military and civilian roles.
• Judge Rules Against Trump's Use of Military for Domestic Law Enforcement — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally by deploying the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles to enforce domestic law, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge prohibited the use of military troops for law enforcement activities and warned against creating a national police force under presidential control.
• Judge rules Trump violated federal law in Los Angeles national guard deployment — A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that President Trump violated federal law when he deployed thousands of national guard troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer during protests against ICE operations. The ruling represents a legal challenge to Trump's authority to unilaterally deploy military forces domestically without proper statutory authorization or state consent.
• Federal judge rules Trump's military deployment to Los Angeles unlawful — A federal judge found that Trump illegally deployed thousands of military troops to Los Angeles in June and barred the Pentagon from using National Guard and Marines for police functions such as arrests and crowd control. The order takes effect September 12. The ruling upheld California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit challenging the deployment as a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military use in domestic law enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Trump denounces Utah redistricting ruling as "absolutely unconstitutional" — On Wednesday night, President Trump posted on Truth Social attacking Judge Gibson's redistricting order, calling it "absolutely unconstitutional" and questioning how Utah—a state he won in every election—could have "so many Radical Left Judges." Trump urged Utah Republicans to "stay united" and keep the state's four Republican House members in place. Gibson was appointed to the district court in 2018 by Republican Governor Gary Herbert.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules most of Trump tariffs illegal under IEEPA — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC ruled 7-4 on Friday that President Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by imposing most of his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs "unbounded in scope, amount and duration" and that IEEPA does not explicitly grant tariff-imposition power. The ruling does not take effect until 14 October, allowing time for appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump immediately disputed the decision on social media, claiming the tariffs remain in effect and accusing the court of political bias.
• Federal appeals court struck down Trump's emergency tariffs as illegal — A federal appeals court, by a 7–4 majority, upheld a May decision by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade striking down President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs as illegal. The court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has "meaningful limits" and that "an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would be unconstitutional." The court stated "Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to other the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." The decision concluded Congress did not give the President "wide-ranging authority to impose" sweeping tariffs, noting such authorization would mean "Congress had bestowed on a federal agency the taxing power," a "sharp break with our traditions." The decision will not take effect until October 14 to allow the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Trump defied court ruling on tariffs and claimed they remain in effect — Shortly after the federal appeals court decision striking down his tariffs, Trump posted on social media claiming "ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT" and calling the court's decision "Highly Partisan" and incorrect. Trump stated the United States would "win in the end" and that if the tariffs were removed it would be "a total disaster for the Country." Trump asserted that tariffs are "the best tool to help our Workers" and expressed confidence that "with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation." Trump's statement represents a direct defiance of the court's ruling and an assertion that executive will supersedes judicial authority.

Supporting reports

• August 2025 state court ruling strikes down 2021 Utah congressional maps and reinstates Proposition 4 — On August 25, 2025, third district judge Dianna Gibson ruled that Utah lawmakers had unconstitutionally overridden Proposition 4, the 2018 voter-approved initiative that created an independent redistricting commission. Gibson sided with the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, striking down the state's 2021 congressional maps and reinstating Proposition 4 as binding law. The ruling allowed independent bodies to redraw districts.
• Utah judge orders congressional map redraw — A judge in Utah ruled that the state must redraw its congressional maps that carved up the Democratic stronghold of Salt Lake City before the 2026 midterms, using an independent commission. The move could make one of the state's four congressional districts competitive for Democrats. Trump later called the ruling "absolutely Unconstitutional" and questioned how the state could "end up with so many Radical Left Judges," despite the judge being appointed by a Republican governor in 2018.
• Utah district court orders redraw of congressional map for 2026 elections — District court judge Dianna Gibson ruled Monday that Utah's 2021 congressional map is unlawful because the Republican-controlled legislature circumvented a voter-approved independent redistricting commission. The legislature had repealed the 2018 ballot initiative creating the commission, replaced it with an advisory board, and ignored the commission's proposals in 2021. Gibson ordered lawmakers to adopt a compliant map by September 24, 2025. The new boundaries could create a competitive Democratic district in Salt Lake City.
• Utah judge struck down Republican-drawn congressional maps — Utah District Judge Dianna Gibson struck down the state's Republican-drawn congressional maps and ordered the Legislature to redraw boundaries before the 2026 midterm elections. Judge Gibson ruled that the 2021 redistricting plan violated a 2018 ballot initiative that established an independent commission to curb partisan influence. The current map splits Salt Lake City, Utah's Democratic stronghold, across all four congressional districts, diluting its influence and ensuring Republican control of all four seats. The Legislature has until September 24 to adopt new maps.
• Federal appeals court blocks Pennsylvania mail-in ballot law — A federal appeals court ruled that a law to toss out mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania if they arrive in envelopes with a missing or wrong date violates the Constitution, noting that "only in the exceedingly rare circumstance does it contribute to the prosecution of voter fraud."

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders Kari Lake to answer questions — A federal judge ordered senior adviser to the US Agency for Global Media Kari Lake to answer questions under oath about her efforts to effectively dismantle Voice of America (VOA), giving her "one final opportunity, short of a contempt trial, to provide such explanation" after failing to comply with orders seeking information about whether the Trump administration violated an April ruling to restore VOA programming.
• Federal judge ordered Kari Lake to submit to questioning on Voice of America — U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Trump administration official Kari Lake to submit to questioning under oath regarding her efforts to dismantle Voice of America despite Congressional mandates that it be maintained. Judge Lamberth stated Lake was "verging on contempt of court" for failing to comply with repeated orders to make information available about her intentions for Voice of America and its federal parent, the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Lake and two aides were ordered to testify by September 15 and provide detailed information previously withheld about Voice of America. Lake responded by claiming district court judges are overstepping their authority.
• Federal judge blocks removal of VOA director and orders compliance demonstration — US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Kari Lake cannot remove Michael Abramowitz as VOA director without approval from the International Broadcasting Advisory Board, finding such removal would be "plainly contrary to law." Lamberth also ruled separately that the Trump administration had failed to demonstrate compliance with his prior orders to restore VOA operations, giving the administration "one final opportunity, short of a contempt trial" and ordering Lake to sit for deposition by 15 September.