Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Senate Democrats signal they will not confirm Trump Supreme Court nominees if they win control — Sen. Chuck Schumer put Trump on notice that if Democrats win control of the Senate, they do not intend to put MAGA judges on the courts. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said he does not think a Democratic-led Senate would confirm a Trump pick for the Supreme Court, stating: "Given the history of Trump nominees, I think it is slim to none that we would support a nominee from this admin. Because we've seen this movie, we know how it ends, which is a politician in robes who is following Trump's orders on most major questions." Some Democrats argue there should be no question of confirming a Trump pick after Sen. Mitch McConnell held a seat open for 10 months under Obama to let a Republican president fill it instead. Sen. Ruben Gallego stated: "No, we've got to do exactly what McConnell did to us. To even the scales." However, Gallego said he does not want to see the practice continue after Democrats even things out.

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

• 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

• Clarence Thomas sat for 9.5 hours of podcast interviews with Republican Senator Ted Cruz — Sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to approximately 9.5 hours of one-on-one podcast interviews with Republican Senator Ted Cruz. The interviews represent a departure from institutional norms of judicial independence from partisan politics.

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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Federal judge orders Trump administration to explain tarp obscuring Kennedy Center facade — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the Trump administration to report by 31 July on the purpose and status of a tarp and scaffolding installed at the Kennedy Center after workers removed Donald Trump's name from the building's facade in a predawn operation. The tarp was placed following Cooper's court order requiring removal of Trump's name, which had been unlawfully added in December. The administration faces scrutiny for what critics characterize as obstruction of the restoration of the Kennedy Center's original name.

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.

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 extends block on Trump's $1.8bn IRS settlement fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema extended her order blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion fund created as part of a settlement with the IRS over the leak of Trump's tax returns. The fund had triggered bipartisan outrage when announced. Brinkema conditioned lifting the block on acting attorney general Todd Blanche and treasury secretary Scott Bessent filing a declaration under penalty of perjury within one week that the fund would not proceed. Trump's public equivocation on the fund's status prompted the extension despite Blanche's earlier congressional testimony that it was dead.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking Defendants from taking any action to create or operate the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, processing claims, making payments, appointing managers, establishing governing rules, or reconstituting the Fund under any other name. The court ordered Defendants to reverse any transfers already made to accounts for the Fund and submit a compliance status report within seven days. The court also ordered Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to file declarations under the penalty of perjury affirming they will not take further action to create or operate the Fund by June 19, 2026.
• Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema issued injunction halting Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund — Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an injunction indefinitely halting Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund for allies, political cronies, and insurrectionists. The DOJ was ordered to produce evidence within one week that the fund has been abandoned, or the civil case will proceed. The ruling represents a judicial check on executive use of public funds for political purposes.

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

• US District Judge Orders Kennedy Center to Remove Trump's Name from Website — US District Judge Christopher Cooper issued an order requiring the Kennedy Center to remove all references to "Trump Kennedy Center" from its website and materials. The Kennedy Center complied by removing Trump's name from its website on Monday, June 8, ahead of a June 12 deadline set by the center's general counsel. Cooper's 94-page ruling stated that only Congress can change the Kennedy Center's official name, which is statutorily designated for President Kennedy. The judge also temporarily blocked a proposed $257 million renovation project that would have closed the venue for two years.

Supporting reports

• Judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center; blocks summer closure — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ordering the Trump administration to remove all signage bearing Trump's name within 14 days. Cooper also temporarily blocked the center's proposed two-year closure for renovations, finding the board's decision "ill-informed and seemingly preordained." Trump responded by instructing the Department of Commerce to arrange a full transfer of the institution to Congress.
• Federal judge orders Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — A federal judge blocked Trump's effort to shut down the Kennedy Center and ordered his name removed from the building. Trump responded with a multi-thousand-word statement on Truth Social blaming the judge, the judge's wife, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Lisa Page, Russia investigations, E. Jean Carroll, tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the broader court system. Trump declared the Kennedy Center will "probably never open again" and stated he wants to relinquish control of the center entirely.
• Trump posted social media screed attacking Kennedy Center ruling — President Trump responded to Judge Cooper's order to remove his name from the Kennedy Center with a lengthy social media post in which he claimed he alone was "saving a dying Performing Arts Center" and stated he would "transfer this failing Institution back to" Congress. Trump also complained that the New York Times was criticizing the "magnificent restoration of the Reflecting Pool" and asserted that no president had been treated as unfairly by the courts as he had been.
• Trump threatened federal judge over Kennedy Center drone port project — Trump attacked a federal judge who blocked his planned Kennedy Center renovations, which included a drone port to be built in the White House ballroom. The President's threats against the judge occurred as he simultaneously expressed desire to cancel the "Freedom 250" anniversary celebration and replace it with a MAGA rally after several artists declined to participate.
• 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.

Supporting reports

• Bipartisan group of ex-federal judges files lawsuit challenging Trump's $1.8bn anti-weaponization fund — Thirty-five former federal judges, including conservative J. Michael Luttig and former district judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida on May 29 seeking to reopen Trump's IRS case. They argue the $1.776bn settlement fund is "a product of collusion and a fraud on the Court," claiming Judge Kathleen Williams may have been deceived before approving it on May 18. The judges contend the fund was created to distribute taxpayer dollars to Trump's political allies, including those convicted in the January 6 Capitol riot.
• Thirty-five federal judges requested Trump lawsuit reopening — Thirty-five federal judges filed a request that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopen a legal case that Trump, his oldest sons, and the Trump Organization had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Trumps had dropped the suit, the Department of Justice used it as justification for establishing the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate those claiming the legal system had been "weaponized" against them for crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The judges' filing challenges the legitimacy of the fund by questioning whether the Trumps and the IRS were actually adversaries in the case.
• Thirty-five former federal judges challenge Trump IRS settlement as fraud on the court — A group of thirty-five former federal judges, appointed by members of both political parties, filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the legal case Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The judges alleged that Trump and his organization dropped the lawsuit and announced a "settlement agreement" with the Department of Justice as a pretext to justify a $1.776 billion slush fund for paying off those convicted in connection with Trump's schemes to overturn the 2020 election results. The judges characterized the lawsuit and settlement as "fraud on the Court," noting that Trump was simultaneously the plaintiff and the person in charge of the IRS, and that the settlement lacked constitutional or congressional authority.
• Florida court ordered Trump to respond to retired federal judges' filing on slush fund — A federal court in Florida ordered President Trump to respond to a filing by 35 retired federal judges who are requesting an investigation into the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. The retired judges' filing alleges possible "collusion" in the case. This represents an early procedural victory for the judges in their challenge to the fund.