Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Trump refuses to rule out declaring state of emergency before midterm elections — In a Time magazine interview, President Trump declined to rule out declaring a state of emergency before the November midterm elections, stating "I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see." He also said he "could use" the Insurrection Act to deploy military troops domestically, noting that "a lot of people think I should use it sometimes." Trump dismissed low approval ratings as "fake numbers" and blamed media for misrepresenting his earlier statements about the Iran war's duration.
• Trump expresses regret over Supreme Court appointments and discusses using Insurrection Act — In a 75-minute TIME magazine interview, Trump stated he regretted appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett because they ruled against him on tariffs, mail ballots, and birthright citizenship. He expressed unapologetic expectations of judicial loyalty, stating "I do like loyalty, yeah." When asked whether he would rule out declaring a state of emergency before the midterms unless there was widespread violence, Trump said "I don't rule anything out or in" and indicated he could use the Insurrection Act, saying "A lot of people think I should use it sometimes."
• Trump defies congressional authority in TIME magazine interview — The President of the United States openly defied Congress during a TIME magazine interview, according to the article. The specific nature of the defiance is not detailed in the text provided, but the article characterizes the President's statements as demonstrating "no grasp on reality at all" and notes the defiance as part of a pattern of constitutional violations occurring under the current administration.

Supporting reports

• Time magazine releases transcript of Trump interview revealing cognitive impairment — Time magazine released a lightly edited transcript of an interview conducted by senior political correspondent Eric Cortellessa and editor-in-chief Sam Jacobs with Trump at the White House on September 28. The transcript reveals a president unable to answer questions coherently, obsessed with personal architectural projects, consumed by fantasy, and angry at media criticism. Trump claimed Supreme Court justices he appointed "voted against me too often" and suggested he expects loyalty from them, refused to rule out using the Insurrection Act before midterms or annihilating Iran, and made false claims about his cognitive abilities and poll numbers.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs on foreign countries — The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump's far-reaching tariffs on nearly every other country as part of a series of recent judicial defeats. The ruling was among multiple decisions this term in which the Court blocked or reversed Trump administration policies on tariffs, birthright citizenship restrictions, and Federal Reserve governance.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• North Carolina legislature added Republicans to Judicial Standards Commission — The North Carolina legislature added more Republicans to the Judicial Standards Commission a couple of years prior to August 2026. This action concentrated partisan control over the body responsible for investigating ethics complaints against judges, further enabling the targeting of Democratic justices.
• North Carolina legislature created new Family Court with judges appointed by Chief Justice — The North Carolina legislature's recent budget bill created a new "special" Family Court whose judges will be appointed directly by Chief Justice Paul Newby. These judges can serve until age 78, the highest mandatory judicial retirement age in the country, concentrating judicial appointment power in the chief justice.
• Chief Justice Newby given power over new business court with wide jurisdiction — Chief Justice Paul Newby was previously given power over a new business court with exceptionally wide jurisdiction, further concentrating judicial authority in his hands and enabling him to shape outcomes in commercial disputes.
• Chief Justice Paul Newby previously pushed investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls — In 2023, North Carolina Chief Justice Paul Newby initiated an investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls for ethics charges related to her discussing bias and lack of diversity on the state Supreme Court. The Judicial Standards Commission backed down after Earls filed a First Amendment lawsuit. This prior action demonstrates a pattern of using ethics complaints as a tool against Democratic justices.
• Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced baseless ethics complaint before 2024 reelection — Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced a baseless ethics complaint in the weeks before her 2024 reelection campaign. The complaint was filed as part of a pattern of using ethics processes to target Democratic justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
• GOP Supreme Court majority refused to sanction Republican judges who admitted ethics violations — In 2024, ProPublica revealed that the GOP-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court majority refused to sanction two Republican judges who admitted to violating ethics rules with serious consequences. This demonstrates a double standard in ethics enforcement, with Democratic judges targeted while Republican judges face no consequences.
• North Carolina legislature passes bill allowing GOP Supreme Court justices to remove Democratic judges — The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill that grants the state Supreme Court majority power to remove judges without the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. The bill would allow GOP justices to unilaterally determine ethics violations and remove Democratic justices, circumventing the votes of millions of voters who elected them. The measure faces a likely veto from Democratic Governor Josh Stein, though two former Democrats in the legislature have recently voted to override vetoes.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court allows Trump administration to end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Thursday allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for over a decade. Justice Alito's majority opinion rejected claims that the policy was racially motivated, despite Trump's documented statements calling Haiti a "shithole country" and asserting Haitians were "poisoning the blood" of America. The decision strips legal status from approximately 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to end TPS for 350,000 people — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed the Trump administration to terminate temporary protected status (TPS) for more than 350,000 people from Syria and Haiti who had fled wars and violence. The six right-wing justices cited procedural reasons, though Trump loyalists interpreted the ruling as endorsement of white nationalist immigration policy.
• SCOTUS barred judicial review of TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that federal law creating the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program bars courts from reviewing determinations by then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to end TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. The decision removed judicial oversight of executive decisions to strip protected status from foreign nationals.
• Supreme Court Ruling in Mullin v. Doe — On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the consolidated cases of Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, reversing lower court decisions and allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, stated that the law governing TPS does not permit judicial review of decisions regarding the termination of TPS designations.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, requiring them to leave the country or face arrest and deportation once a termination date is set. Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the TPS law authorizes Trump to end the program without court intervention. Justice Kagan dissented, arguing the majority failed to acknowledge Trump's bigoted statements and endorsed racism.
• Supreme Court cleared way to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — In a 6–3 ideological ruling on Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court held that the law governing Temporary Protected Status bars judicial review of the Homeland Security secretary's decision to end it. The ruling permits the administration to strip protection from more than 350,000 Haitians and several thousand Syrians who have lived and worked legally in the country for up to a decade. Justice Kagan's dissent noted the president's "repellent and racially inflected" statements about Haitians. Advocates warned the reasoning endangers roughly 1.3 million people covered by TPS designations across more than a dozen countries.
• Supreme Court strips TPS from Haitians and Syrians; allows asylum turnaround policy — The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 6-3 rulings on June 26, 2026, allowing the Trump administration to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians and to implement a policy permitting border officials to turn back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border without processing claims. The decisions affect over 350,000 TPS holders and countless asylum seekers. Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates condemned the rulings as "disastrous" and a violation of international law and federal refugee protections.
• US Supreme Court allows Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from Haitians and Syrians — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on June 26, 2026, upholding the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that courts cannot review executive decisions on TPS revocation. The ruling overturned lower court injunctions and leaves hundreds of thousands of legally resident immigrants vulnerable to deportation despite their home countries being designated unsafe by the State Department.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court TPS termination ruling and listing 60 immigration enforcement actions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 26, 2026, announcing that the Supreme Court had upheld the Trump Administration's authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian migrants. The document frames this as a victory for "American sovereignty" and lists 60 actions taken as part of what it characterizes as the "largest and most aggressive immigration enforcement effort in American history," including expanded ICE workforce, accelerated deportations, border wall construction, visa restrictions, and denaturalization efforts.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court clears way for asylum seekers to be physically blocked at U.S.-Mexico border — On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling clearing the way for the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border by physically blocking them from setting foot on U.S. soil. The decision permits implementation of a "metering" policy instructing border officials to stand at the border line and deny entry to migrants seeking asylum, effectively circumventing statutory asylum protections.
• SCOTUS upheld asylum-seeker turnback policy at U.S.-Mexico border — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the federal government's "metering" policy—systematically turning back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border before they can enter—does not violate federal asylum law. CBP officials implement the policy by standing at the border and refusing entry to noncitizens without valid travel documents, including asylum applicants.
• Supreme Court restored asylum-denial authority at southern border — On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court restored the administration's authority to turn away asylum seekers at overburdened crossings on the southern border, handing the administration a second immigration win in a single day.
• Supreme Court upholds Trump asylum turn-back policy at US-Mexico border — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration may revive its "metering" or turn-back policy, allowing federal agents to prevent asylum seekers from physically entering US soil and claiming asylum protections. The majority, led by Justice Alito, interpreted "arrive in" narrowly to exclude migrants stopped at the border threshold. Justice Sotomayor's 35-page dissent warned the ruling would allow the government to circumvent international and domestic asylum law, potentially exposing vulnerable people to persecution or death.
• US Supreme Court upholds Trump administration asylum metering policy at US-Mexico border — On the same day, the Supreme Court issued a second 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Alito, upholding the Trump administration's authority to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border when officials deem crossings too overburdened. The decision supports the administration's revival of the "metering" policy, which had been discontinued under President Biden, allowing the government to deny asylum claims based on border capacity determinations.

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.