Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders White House to restore press credentials for CNN, MS Now, and Politico — District Court Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction on October 14, 2026, ordering the Trump White House to restore and maintain White House press access for journalists from CNN, MS Now, and Politico. The three outlets had been banned on September 18, 2026, by presidential order citing "fake news." Judge Kelly found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on due process and First Amendment claims, noting that Trump's own public statements admitted the ban was retaliatory for editorial content rather than based on legitimate security concerns.

Supporting reports

• Trump banned journalists from White House press room; court ruled violation of free speech and due process — U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled that Trump had banned more than 70 journalists from CNN, MSNBC, and Politico from the White House press room because he wanted more favorable coverage. Kelly ruled the ban violated both free speech and due process protections under the Bill of Rights and that Trump could not ban the organizations from the White House, though he did not address whether the administration could bar reporters from Air Force One or the Oval Office. The Justice Department announced it will appeal the ruling.
• Stay pending appeal decided — Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-03287 — Judge Kelly issued an opinion and order granting Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, which keeps in place, while the case proceeds, the relief from the court's earlier temporary restraining order: Defendants other than the President, must restore the White House “hard pass” press credentials of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO employees. The court held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment due process claim because they were not told in advance what conduct could cost them their passes or that revocation was a possible sanction. The court also found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The court concluded that the president likely revoked the passes “because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him,” rejected Defendants' national security rationale as likely “a post-hoc justification” without support in the record, and denied Defendants' request for a stay pending appeal.
• Federal judge orders White House to restore press credentials for CNN, MS Now, and Politico — District Court Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction on October 14, 2026, ordering the Trump White House to restore and maintain White House press access for journalists from CNN, MS Now, and Politico. The three outlets had been banned on September 18, 2026, by presidential order citing "fake news." Judge Kelly found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on due process and First Amendment claims, noting that Trump's own public statements admitted the ban was retaliatory for editorial content rather than based on legitimate security concerns.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — Democracy for the Arab World Now, Inc. d/b/a DAWN v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-05957 — Judge Jesse Furman granted in substantial part Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The injunction bars all Defendants except President Trump from enforcing IEEPA's civil or criminal penalties against Plaintiffs for the conduct described in their complaint, to the extent that conduct allegedly violates EO 14203's prohibition on providing “services” to or for the benefit of sanctioned persons. Following his earlier ruling in Rona v. Trump , Judge Furman held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. He found that the prohibition is a content-based regulation of their speech-based activities, meaning it restricts speech based on its function or purpose. He also found that it fails strict scrutiny, which requires the government to show a restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. He did not reach Plaintiffs' statutory or APA claims. The court denied Plaintiffs' requests to enjoin the president, declare the order facially unconstitutional, and enter a universal injunction barring enforcement against anyone.
• Federal judge blocks Trump administration sanctions on human rights groups assisting ICC Gaza investigation — US District Judge Jesse M Furman issued a preliminary injunction on October 14, 2026, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from sanctioning two human rights organizations, Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn) and Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (Taag), for assisting the International Criminal Court's investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza. The groups had challenged a February 2025 executive order imposing sanctions on entities supporting ICC investigations deemed threatening to US or Israeli national security. Furman ruled the order likely violated the groups' First Amendment rights as a content-based speech regulation that cannot survive strict scrutiny.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge voids DOJ policy collecting state voter rolls — US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the Trump administration's Department of Justice policy of collecting unredacted state voter rolls to cross-check against a federal immigration database violated federal privacy laws and exceeded DOJ authority. The policy, adopted under Trump's election integrity executive order, had already removed US citizens from voter rolls and risked further disenfranchisement. Sooknanan found Congress, not the federal government, controls voter roll maintenance. The lawsuit was brought by Common Cause after roughly 18 states complied with DOJ requests in May, providing voters' names, birth dates, addresses, and partial identification numbers.

Supporting reports

• White House bars Politico from Air Force One press pool; CNN also repeatedly excluded — The White House refused to allow Politico on Air Force One on Monday, preventing the news organization from fulfilling its press corps pool responsibilities. This follows a pattern: news outlets filed a lawsuit on September 21 alleging the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Judge Timothy Kelly sided with the plaintiffs and issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to reinstate journalists' press badges. Since then, the White House has repeatedly barred CNN from traveling on Air Force One on days when it was CNN's turn to be the TV pool representative. The Trump administration appears to be justifying these restrictions by claiming access to the White House complex differs from access to tight spaces like Air Force One. Judge Kelly is scheduled to hold a hearing on Thursday over the news outlets' request for a preliminary injunction.
• White House blocks Politico from Air Force One pool rotation — The White House decided to block Politico from riding on Air Force One and called numerous other outlets to ask one to fill the primary print slot for the out-of-town pool rotation. Each of those outlets declined to step in, leaving the pool slot unfilled.
• Trump administration defended restrictions on news organizations' press access — The Trump administration continued to defend its decision to restrict press access for reporters from CNN, MSNBC, and Politico on journalistic conduct grounds. CNN, MSNBC, and Politico filed a federal court challenge, asking a judge to continue blocking the restrictions and to rule on long-term protections. The judge previously ordered temporary relief and is expected to rule on permanent protections.

Supporting reports

• Judge dismisses reflecting pool case against David Hearn with prejudice — Judge Todd Edelman of DC Superior Court dismissed charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn over alleged damage to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, ruling the case could not be refiled. The US Attorney's office, led by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro, had already conceded the damage resulted from flawed installation, not Hearn's actions. Trump had publicly pressured for prosecution in August, calling Pirro's decision to drop charges a failure. The court found prosecutors lacked factual support and acted under political pressure.
• Judge dismisses DOJ vandalism case against David Hearn with prejudice — A judge dismissed with prejudice the Department of Justice's Reflecting Pool vandalism case against former Olympian David Hearn. The judge warned that leaving the door open could expose Hearn to a "meritless, politically motivated prosecution" and what would "objectively" be harassment.
• Judge dismisses case against David Hearn with prejudice — Judge Todd E. Edelman dismissed the government's case against Olympian David Hearn with prejudice, meaning it cannot be resurrected. The government had accused Hearn of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, although the contractors themselves acknowledged they were responsible for its torn lining. After the government acknowledged there was no merit in the prosecution, Trump continued to insist Hearn should be prosecuted. The judge stated the dismissal was necessary to protect Hearn from "what, objectively, would be harassment" from his own government and from the "extraordinary possibility that Mr. Hearn will nonetheless face a meritless, politically motivated prosecution."

Supporting reports

• Senate blocks Republican congressional stock-trading restriction bill — The US Senate voted 53–47 on Wednesday to block the Stop Insider Trading Act, a Republican bill that would have barred members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from buying individual stocks. Democrats opposed the measure, arguing it did not go far enough because lawmakers could retain existing holdings and reinvest dividends, and objected to bundled voter ID requirements they characterized as a "poison pill." The vote fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance debate.

Supporting reports

• California Supreme Court orders sheriff to return confiscated ballots — California's Supreme Court ruled that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco unlawfully confiscated over 650,000 ballots during an inquiry into unsubstantiated fraud claims following a November 2025 special election. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero found the seizure violated election law and created substantial risk to election integrity. Attorney General Rob Bonta had ordered Bianco to return the ballots; Bianco refused. The court rejected Bianco's argument that the AG could not direct a sheriff's investigation, affirming state authority over election materials. Governor Newsom signed legislation preventing future ballot seizures.
• California Supreme Court ordered sheriff to return confiscated ballots — The California Supreme Court ordered Sheriff Chad Bianco to return the confiscated ballots, ruling that it was Bianco, not voters, who was endangering elections. The court stated: "Allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret, based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity."

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules third-country deportation policy unlawful — A three-judge federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled on Friday (date of ruling not specified, but referenced as occurring before the article's publication) that the Trump administration's third-country removal policy violated due process by failing to provide adequate notice of deportation decisions or opportunity for legal contestation. Human rights lawyers argued the ruling should ground deportation flights immediately. However, the Department of Homeland Security's general counsel stated the policy would continue, and the government indicated it would appeal within the 90-day window allowed by law. The ruling relates to a March 2025 lawsuit; a district judge had issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025, but the Supreme Court lifted it in June 2025, allowing flights to resume.

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

• Judges rule against Trump administration in 75 First Amendment cases — Reuters analysis found that federal judges ruled against the Trump administration on First Amendment grounds in 75 of 93 cases where such arguments were raised, compared to 13 rulings against the Biden administration in 27 cases. The rulings covered retaliation against law firms, journalist restrictions, university funding cuts, actions against pro-Palestinian students and faculty, and excessive force at protests. Ten decisions came from Republican-appointed judges. The administration appealed approximately two-thirds of the rulings and persuaded appeals courts to pause or overturn 15 decisions.

Supporting reports

• US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided DOJ's $1.776 billion settlement with Trump — US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided the Department of Justice's $1.776 billion settlement with Trump, finding the litigation constitutionally defective under Article III because Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, controlled both the plaintiff and defendant agencies (Treasury and IRS), making them never genuinely adverse. The judge found no actual case or controversy occurred, no meaningful litigation preceded the settlement, and government lawyers never filed a response or defended the agencies. Williams imposed Rule 11 sanctions and referred one of Trump's attorneys for possible professional discipline.
• Federal Judge Voids Trump's $1.8 Billion IRS Settlement — A federal judge voided Trump's $1.8 billion settlement with the IRS that included an "anti-weaponization fund" and immunity from tax audits, ruling that the president's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS was filed "to manipulate the judicial process." The judge sanctioned two of Trump's personal attorneys, banning one from practicing in the Southern District of Florida for at least one year, and suggested that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and associate Attorney General Stan Woodward could face state bar investigations.
• Federal judge nullifies Trump tax-return settlement and sanctions president's lawyers — US District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida voided a settlement agreement between the Trump administration and the president over a $10 billion lawsuit regarding leaked tax returns. The judge found the lawsuit was filed in bad faith and the settlement was collusive, designed to confer immunity on Trump and his family and create an $1.8 billion slush fund. Williams sanctioned Trump's lawyers, referred two to bar disciplinary proceedings, and blocked one from practicing in the district for one year.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement was improper and manufactured — U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Trump, his lawyers, and Department of Justice lawyers had manufactured a fraudulent settlement of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Williams found the lawsuit was brought "for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." The settlement was designed to establish a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump loyalists and to grant Trump, his family, businesses, and associates immunity from prosecution for any tax crimes revealed by audits of tax returns filed before May 19, 2026.
• Federal judge rules against Trump's IRS lawsuit — On July 13, 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that Trump and his legal team improperly manufactured a settlement in his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, which aimed to create a slush fund for Trump loyalists and grant immunity from prosecution for tax crimes. The judge found the lawsuit lacked a legitimate basis and recommended sanctions against some lawyers involved.
• Judge Williams recommended sanctions against lawyers involved in fraudulent settlement — Judge Kathleen Williams recommended legal sanctions against some of the lawyers involved in the fraudulent IRS settlement and expressed that she was "extremely troubled" by the testimony of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, which she characterized as "at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous."
• E. Jean Carroll Receives Payment from Trump — E. Jean Carroll has received a $5.6 million payment from Donald Trump, confirmed by a court filing. This payment is part of a legal settlement related to a defamation case brought by Carroll against Trump.

Supporting reports

• US appeals court rejects Trump's bid to delay E Jean Carroll payment — A Manhattan federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump's emergency request to delay payment of $5.8 million (principal plus accrued interest) owed to E Jean Carroll following her 2023 sexual abuse and defamation trial victory. Trump filed the delay request hours after Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered the release of funds held in a court-controlled account since June 2023. The Second Circuit's rejection came after the Supreme Court denied Trump's certiorari petition on June 29, exhausting his appellate remedies.

Supporting reports

• Judge orders release of $5.8m judgment to E Jean Carroll after Trump's Supreme Court appeal fails — Manhattan federal court Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered the disbursement of $5.8 million (principal plus accrued interest) that Donald Trump owes E Jean Carroll following her 2023 civil verdict against him for sexual abuse and defamation. Trump had deposited the funds into a court-controlled account pending appeals. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review Trump's appeal on June 29, 2026, the conditions of the escrow agreement were met, triggering the judge's order to release the funds. Trump filed notice of appeal within an hour of the order.
• Kennedy Center ruling issued against Trump — A ruling was issued by the Kennedy Center against President Trump on or before July 8, 2026. The article does not provide details of the ruling's substance or outcome.
• Judge ordered release of $5.8 million to E. Jean Carroll — A judge ordered the release of $5.8 million to E. Jean Carroll—the $5 million a jury awarded her in 2023 plus interest—after the Supreme Court declined to hear Trump's appeal of the verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote that Trump "has been stalling this case for years." Trump's lawyers requested an appeals court pause the payment the same day, and the court refused Wednesday night.
• Court releases $5.6m in damages owed by Trump to E Jean Carroll — A Manhattan federal court released $5.6 million in damages that Donald Trump owes to E Jean Carroll following her 2023 sexual abuse and defamation verdict against him. The funds, held in a court escrow account (CRIS), were released on July 9 after Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered their disbursement. Trump had fought the release since June, following the Supreme Court's June 29 denial of his appeal request. Carroll's legal team requested the release immediately after the Supreme Court's decision, and the judge denied Trump's request for additional time to respond.
• Judge Kaplan orders release of $5.8m judgment to E Jean Carroll; Trump appeals — US District Judge Lewis Kaplan issued an order directing the disbursement of $5.8 million (principal plus 11% post-judgment interest) held in a court-controlled account, which a jury awarded to E Jean Carroll in her 2023 sexual abuse and defamation civil trial against Trump. Trump had requested the judge delay or deny the release, arguing it would cause him "irreparable harm," but Kaplan rejected the request within 24 hours. Trump immediately filed notice of appeal of the disbursement order.
• US appeals court rejects Trump's bid to delay E Jean Carroll payment — A Manhattan federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump's emergency request to delay payment of $5.8 million (principal plus accrued interest) owed to E Jean Carroll following her 2023 sexual abuse and defamation trial victory. Trump filed the delay request hours after Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered the release of funds held in a court-controlled account since June 2023. The Second Circuit's rejection came after the Supreme Court denied Trump's certiorari petition on June 29, exhausting his appellate remedies.
• Judge Lewis Kaplan orders Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll judgment — Judge Lewis Kaplan issued an order requiring Trump to finally pay the judgment in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The order represents enforcement of a civil judgment against the sitting president.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules TPS determinations largely exempt from judicial review — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision holding that the Department of Homeland Security Secretary's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determinations and processes are generally not subject to judicial review, except for constitutional claims. The ruling affects approximately 1.3 million immigrants, with immediate consequences for over 300,000 Haitian and several thousand Syrian TPS holders who are expected to lose protections and work authorization. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the decision enables arbitrary termination without evaluation of country conditions.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court approves asylum metering policy at US-Mexico border — The US Supreme Court ruled to approve the "metering" asylum policy at the US-Mexico border, a system previously rescinded that controlled the number of people processed at legal ports of entry. Under metering, US officials turned back asylum seekers before they reached US soil, forcing them to wait indefinitely in dangerous Mexican border towns. The ruling potentially opens the door for re-implementation regardless of the current administration's immigration stance.

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 weakens Voting Rights Act protections — The Supreme Court weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act by giving southern legislatures the right to redraw congressional districts previously drawn to ensure racial minority representation. Legal experts predict this move will benefit Republicans and drastically reduce the number of Black representatives in Congress, triggering "a huge set of ripple effects" across the political landscape.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Federal judge quashes DOJ subpoenas against Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement — Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the U.S. District Court for Minnesota issued an order quashing subpoenas issued by the Trump administration's Department of Justice against Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and other local officials. The DOJ had issued the subpoenas in January 2026, claiming the officials obstructed federal immigration enforcement during Operation Metro Surge. Judge Schiltz ruled the subpoenas were issued for unlawful, politically motivated reasons—to coerce and harass officials for adopting sanctuary policies—and violated the 10th Amendment. The court found no plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas.
• 7th Circuit orders DOJ to slow Wisconsin voter roll actions — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued an order directing the Department of Justice to reduce the pace of voter roll modifications in Wisconsin. The ruling constrained federal enforcement actions affecting voter registration.
• Federal judge in Minnesota quashes immigration enforcement subpoenas — A federal judge in Minnesota issued an order quashing subpoenas related to Trump's immigration enforcement crackdown. The ruling blocked the enforcement action at the judicial level.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in Maryland rules against DOJ in voter file access case — A federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling against the Department of Justice in a case seeking access to state voter files, marking the DOJ's ninth consecutive loss in a series of 31 cases filed to obtain such records. The court concluded that state voter files are not records that states must produce to the federal government. Five of the nine losses were decided by judges nominated by Trump, according to the article.
• Democratic Party and Marc Elias law firm file litigation against Trump executive orders on voting — The Democratic Party, represented by attorney Marc Elias and his law firm, filed lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive orders targeting voting rights. The article indicates this litigation is part of a broader defensive strategy across multiple cases, including the 31 voter file cases and anticipated litigation if the U.S. Postal Service adopts a proposed anti-voting rule.
• Supreme Court to decide mail-in voting case brought by Republican National Committee — The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide a case brought by the Republican National Committee concerning whether ballots mailed and postmarked by Election Day may be counted if they arrive after Election Day. The article notes the outcome could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and that Marc Elias's firm is defending against the lawsuit.

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 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

• Kennedy Center begins removing president's name from signage and materials — The Kennedy Center's general counsel directed staff to remove the president's name from signage, letterhead, and materials by June 12, after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on May 29 that the board lacked authority to rename the institution and also blocked its planned two-year closure. The center said it is evaluating its legal options. The ruling restored the principle that public institutions are governed by rules that do not bend to a single person.
• Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — Lawyers for the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts instructed staff to immediately begin switching the facility's name back to its original title, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The instructions, laid out in a memo sent by the center's general counsel, represent the first official signal that the national arts hub is complying with a federal court order to drop Trump's name and reconsider plans to close for two years of renovations. Changes to interior and exterior signage and furniture carrying Trump's name must be switched back by the following Friday.