Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially refused to intervene in Missouri redistricting case — A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, composed of two Trump appointees and another Republican appointee, initially refused to intervene in the Missouri redistricting dispute, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. This abdication of responsibility left the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately blocked the lower federal court's pro-gerrymandering ruling.

Supporting reports

• Missouri Supreme Court rejected Secretary of State's attempt to block ballot measure on primary election day — The Missouri Supreme Court rejected Secretary of State Hoskins' argument for blocking a ballot measure on redistricting on the day of the primary election. Hoskins had delayed his decision for months, apparently betting that if he waited until primary day, the court would not disrupt the election process. The seven justices, five of whom are GOP appointees, stood firm and allowed the ballot measure to proceed.

Supporting reports

• U.S. Supreme Court blocked federal judge's ruling reviving gerrymandered districts — The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark (a Trump appointee) that had revived a gerrymandered congressional map in Missouri. The Supreme Court's intervention prevented the federal courts from overriding state law and a state supreme court decision protecting voter-approved redistricting protections. The Court referred the matter back to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• US appeals court rejects Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting — The Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay a lower court injunction that blocked the USPS from implementing Trump's March executive order restricting mail-in voting. The three-judge panel, all Biden appointees, ruled that Trump lacks authority to regulate states' election policy and that the lower court did not err in finding the rule likely unlawful. The decision prevents the administration from tightening postal voting rules before November's midterm elections.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court denies stay and certiorari in Conahan v. Florida death penalty case — The Supreme Court denied Daniel O. Conahan's application for a stay of execution and his petition for a writ of certiorari in a capital case. Justice Thomas received the stay application and referred it to the full Court, which rejected both the emergency relief request and the petition for review. The execution may proceed absent further legal intervention.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Became Law: Hershel 'Woody' Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act — Congress enacted Public Law 119-104, authorizing the establishment of a national monument dedicated to Medal of Honor recipient Hershel 'Woody' Williams. The legislation designates a location for the monument and provides statutory authority for its construction and maintenance, honoring a decorated military veteran's service and legacy.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court grants expedited consideration in Iowa and Montana v. Arizona original jurisdiction case — The Supreme Court, in its original jurisdiction docket, granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited consideration in the interstate dispute Iowa and Montana v. Arizona. The Court ordered defendants until September 25, 2026, to file responses to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, accelerating the procedural timeline for this case.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Former House Freedom Caucus Chair Good questions Trump's constitutional authority for dividend scheme — Former House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good posted that most conservatives do not know or care that the president lacks constitutional authority to spend money or send dividend checks without Congress. He criticized Trump's statement that "only I can do it" and called the $5,000 dividend scheme a "socialist vote-buying scheme" that would cost $1 trillion.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Chip Roy questions financing of dividend scheme — Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) was asked if he supported Trump's $5,000 dividend scheme and responded by asking how it would be financed, noting the cost would be "well over $1 trillion," implying skepticism about the proposal's feasibility.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court denies emergency injunction in Doe v. McDonald — Jane Doe sought emergency injunctive relief pending appeal in a case against McDonald, Commissioner, et al. (Docket 26A239). The full Court denied the application for injunction pending appeal. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have granted the relief. The case remains on the docket for further proceedings.

Supporting reports

• Representative Pingree called for Congress to exercise constitutional powers regarding Trump's fitness — Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) posted on social media calling out Republicans for refusing to exercise their constitutional powers to protect the country, stating that Congress, the Cabinet, and those around Trump have a responsibility to stop enabling his behavior and to question whether he is fit to hold office. Her statement was made in response to Trump's social media posts.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Federal judge declines to block Pentagon from firing Stars and Stripes journalists — US District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the Pentagon may proceed with firing Stars and Stripes journalists Max Lederer, Erik Slavin, and Lara Korte without legal impediment. The journalists had sued to challenge their terminations, arguing the Pentagon violated their First Amendment rights after they spoke about the publication's need for editorial independence. McFadden concluded the firings were lawful because the journalists gave pre-approved interviews in their official capacity, not as private citizens, and found no clear First Amendment violation.