Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump USPS mail-in voting restriction — Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that a US Postal Service plan to deny ballot delivery to voters in states refusing to surrender voter rolls to the federal government violates a 2021 legal settlement. The decision bars USPS from enforcing Trump's March executive order requiring states to grant DHS access to voter lists and adopt new balloting procedures as a condition of mail delivery. This marks the second judicial setback for Trump's mail-in voting restrictions in recent weeks.
• Motion granted — National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Postal Service (D.D.C.) 1:20-cv-02295 — In an order and opinion , Judge Sullivan granted the NAACP's motion to enforce . The court held that the dispute was ripe because it presented a legal question concerning interpretation of the settlement agreement and the proposed rule was already causing confusion and apprehension. Judge Sullivan rejected USPS's argument that paragraph 2 imposed merely an informational posting obligation, holding that USPS could not maintain policies “for prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of Election Mail” while refusing to accept or transmit ballots for voters absent from state-submitted lists or for voters in states that declined to certify such lists. The court declared that the proposed standards and procedures would violate the settlement agreement and enjoined USPS from implementing them.
• Fifth Circuit limited immigrant detention without bond hearing — The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the government cannot hold immigrants longer than 90 days without a bond hearing, giving detainees the opportunity to ask a judge for release. The case was brought by three fathers of U.S.-citizen children, each in the country more than a decade with no criminal record, detained after Texas traffic stops. The ruling could affect thousands held in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Supporting reports

• Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Trump administration suit against Michigan for voter roll access — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit against Michigan seeking access to state voter rolls. This ruling continues a pattern in which courts have struck down Trump's attempts to obtain voter rolls in all nine cases on which there has been a ruling. The administration has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia to compel surrender of voter rolls.
• U.S. District Judge Denise Casper permanently blocks Trump's March 2025 election executive order — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently blocked much of Trump's March 2025 executive order attempting to gain power over elections. The ruling prevents implementation of provisions that would have centralized election authority in the executive branch.
• Federal judge permanently barred proof-of-citizenship registration order — On Wednesday, June 25, Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently barred the proof-of-citizenship registration order, writing that the Constitution gives the president no specific power over elections. The ruling struck down a key element of the administration's effort to federalize election administration.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Trump-appointed Kennedy Center board voted to fight order removing Trump's name — A federal judge previously ruled that Congress named the Kennedy Center and only Congress can rename it, ordered Trump's name removed by June 13, and blocked a planned two-year closure of the building. This week, with the deadline looming, the Trump-appointed board voted to fight the order. The judge refused to pause the order, writing that the public is rarely served by letting the government keep breaking the law.
• Appeals court rejects emergency stay of Trump name removal from Kennedy Center — An appeals court in Washington DC rejected an emergency appeal filed by Justice Department lawyers and Trump's hand-picked Kennedy Center board seeking to pause a federal judge's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had ruled in May that Trump's name was illegally added to the iconic performing arts venue and ordered its removal within two weeks. Workers began removal efforts on June 12, 2026, despite the emergency appeal filed hours before the deadline.
• Federal judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center facade; workers comply after emergency appeal denied — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that Trump's name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center's facade and ordered its removal by Friday, June 13, 2026. Trump's board had renamed the venue in December 2026 after seizing control in February. After Trump's legal team filed emergency appeals on Friday afternoon, both were denied. Workers removed the signage early Saturday morning behind tarps. The judge found that only Congress, which designated the venue as a Kennedy memorial in 1964, could authorize a name change.
• Federal judge permits UFC event at White House despite legal challenge — Attorneys from the Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit to block a UFC fight scheduled for the White House lawn on Trump's 80th birthday (billed as a 250th anniversary celebration). On Friday, a federal judge ruled the event could proceed. The lawsuit challenged the appropriateness and use of taxpayer funds for the mixed martial arts event, which Dana White said was Trump's idea. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the venue but expressed hope the event would be successful.
• Kennedy Center removes Trump signage following court order — Charles M. Floca, Trump-appointed head of the Kennedy Center, certified compliance with a court order requiring removal of all signage renaming the center after Trump. The center removed physical signs from the building and grounds, updated its website, removed Trump references from letterhead and promotional materials, and withdrew trademark applications. Workers installed scaffolding and tarps overnight to conceal the portico wall where Trump's name had been placed, with removal work occurring after 3:00 AM. The facade remained covered throughout the day while the center evaluated further legal options.
• Representative Beatty sued to block Kennedy Center renaming — Representative Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who as an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board had been sidelined, filed suit to stop the renaming. She won the case, and Judge Cooper ordered Trump's name removed from the building, all signage, stationery, merchandise, and related materials before midnight on June 12, 2026.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders Trump administration to restore removed national park historical displays — US District Judge Angel Kelley ruled that the Trump administration must reinstate history and science materials removed from national monuments and parks pursuant to a March 2025 executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." The order had directed removal of exhibits referencing slavery, civil rights, Indigenous history, and climate change, which Kelley found constituted "censorship and sanitization" and told "half-truths." The administration was given 21 days to comply.
• Federal judge struck down Trump administration's removal of slavery and civil rights history from national parks — Federal Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts issued a ruling Friday striking down the Trump administration's effort to remove historical markers from national parks under the March 2025 "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" executive order. The order had directed the Interior Department to remove content deemed to "inappropriately disparage" Americans, resulting in park rangers being ordered to discard educational materials about slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, harm to Indigenous people, and climate change. Targeted items included an 1863 image of enslaved man Peter Gordon at Fort Pulaski National Park, an exhibit about enslaved people at George Washington's home, Indigenous history displays at Golden Gate National Park, and a climate change marker at Fort Sumter. Judge Kelley ruled the government's stewardship of park sites "carries a responsibility to present history in full rather than in favored fragments." The Trump administration announced it will appeal.

Supporting reports

• Judge Brinkema issued preliminary injunction blocking $1.8 billion anti-weaponization payout fund — On June 13, Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking the administration's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, a pool of taxpayer money that emerged from Trump's settlement of his own lawsuit against the IRS and that could compensate his allies, including January 6 defendants, as victims of government "weaponization."

Supporting reports

• Federal judge invalidates Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as unlawful tax — US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued a 42-page ruling invalidating Donald Trump's $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, which Trump had imposed via presidential proclamation in September 2025. Sorokin found the fee constituted an unlawful tax that violated federal administrative law and the Constitution, reasoning that only Congress possesses the power to levy taxes. The ruling vacated the fee, which represented a 20-to-50 fold increase over existing rates. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13829 — Judge Sorokin granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the $100,000 payment requirement imposed on H-1B petitions under Proclamation 10973 is an unlawful tax exceeding the President's authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that the agency actions implementing it violated the APA by bypassing notice-and-comment, exceeding statutory authority, and being arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, Judge Sorokin found the Government's rationale for the payment requirement was “cursory,” lacked “reasoned explanation,” and failed to address the reliance interests of employers. The court vacated the implementing policy in its entirety and entered declaratory judgment that it is unlawful, declining to issue a separate permanent injunction. In the same order, Judge Sorokin denied Defendants' motion to dismiss except as to Plaintiffs' claims against the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor, which Plaintiffs had agreed to voluntarily dismiss and which the court dismissed without prejudice.
• Federal judge strikes down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee — U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee is an unauthorized tax on businesses and must be vacated. The judge found the fee constitutes a tax rather than a penalty, meaning it cannot be imposed without congressional authorization. The precedent cited was the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling in Sebelius.
• U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin struck down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as an illegal tax requiring congressional approval. — In California v. Markwaple Mullin, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that Proclamation 10973, signed by Trump on September 19, 2025, imposing a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on H-1B visa petitions, constitutes an illegal tax that must be enacted by Congress. The court found the fee would impede hiring of educators, harm public college staffing and academic research, and worsen medical worker shortages. The court struck down the policy.

Supporting reports

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Supreme Court rules conviction invalid due to racial bias in jury selection — The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Terry Pitchford, a Black man on death row in Mississippi, finding that his capital murder conviction was tainted by racial discrimination in jury selection. Prosecutors had struck four of five Black jurors, leaving a jury of 11 white and one Black juror. The trial judge failed to adequately apply the Batson challenge (the constitutional standard against race-based jury exclusion). Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion found the trial court did not give sufficient opportunity to rebut the prosecutor's race-neutral justifications for the strikes. The ruling revives a federal judge's earlier invalidation of the conviction and may allow prosecutors to retry Pitchford.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court temporarily blocks re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay blocking the re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a 31-year-old Palestinian-American activist and US green card holder, pending supreme court review. Khalil was detained by ICE in March 2025 for 104 days; the government argued his pro-Palestinian activism constituted a threat to US foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited concerns about antisemitism and Jewish student safety. The temporary block gives Khalil reprieve as his legal team prepares a supreme court petition.

Supporting reports

• Federal judges blocked Alabama's 6R-1D congressional map for 2026 midterms — A panel of three federal judges blocked Alabama from using its 6R-1D congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections and reinstated the 5R-2D map. Two of the three judges were Trump appointees. Alabama is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses criminal indictment against Kilmar Ábrego García, finding presumptive vindictiveness — US District Judge Waverly David Crenshaw Jr. dismissed a criminal indictment against Kilmar Ábrego García on May 23, 2026, finding that the Trump administration would not have prosecuted him had he not challenged his deportation to El Salvador. The judge determined there was sufficient evidence of "presumptive vindictiveness" based on the timing of the indictment, statements by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, and sustained DOJ oversight. Ábrego had been deported to a Salvadoran anti-terrorism prison in March 2025 despite a prior court order, then brought back to the US only after being charged with human smuggling related to a 2022 traffic stop.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court upholds nationwide mail-order mifepristone access in 7-2 decision — The US Supreme Court issued a shadow-docket decision upholding nationwide access to mail-order mifepristone, an abortion medication. Louisiana had sued the FDA to curtail remote prescribing rules, and the Fifth Circuit ruled in Louisiana's favor on May 1, effectively banning mail-order mifepristone nationally. Two manufacturers filed an emergency request; the Supreme Court granted a temporary stay and ultimately sided 7-2 against the Fifth Circuit, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. The case will return to the Fifth Circuit on official appeal.
• Supreme Court blocked lower-court restrictions on mifepristone access in emergency order — The Supreme Court issued an emergency order maintaining access to mifepristone (the abortion pill) under current FDA rules while a Louisiana lawsuit challenging those rules continues. Patients retain the ability to obtain the medication through pharmacies or by mail without requiring an in-person doctor visit. A federal appeals court had previously allowed restrictions that would have mandated in-person visits and prohibited mail delivery. The Supreme Court's action pauses those restrictions pending resolution of the underlying case, which raises the broader question of whether courts and state officials can override federal drug-safety decisions made by the FDA.

Supporting reports

• Virginia Supreme Court strikes down voter-approved congressional redistricting maps — Virginia's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on May 8 that the state cannot use new congressional maps approved by voters in an April referendum. The court found that the Democratic-controlled state legislature violated the state constitution by passing the amendment creating the maps before early voting began in the 2025 general election, rather than following the required two-session approval process. The maps would have helped Democrats gain up to four House seats. The ruling nullifies the referendum result and restores the previous maps, benefiting Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down redistricting referendum — The Virginia Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision invalidating a voter-approved redistricting referendum that had taken place on April 21, 2026. The court ruled that the legislature had not satisfied the constitutional requirement of passing the amendment through two consecutive legislative sessions with an election in between, finding that the first passage occurred while early voting was already underway in the 2025 statewide elections. The decision overturned the will of approximately 3 million Virginians who voted in the referendum.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down new congressional maps — The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state's new congressional maps, which had been narrowly approved by voters in an April referendum, ruling that the constitutional amendment was submitted by the legislature "in an unprecedented manner." The new map would have paved the way for Democrats to win as many as four additional House seats in the midterm elections. The court's decision blocked a voter-approved redistricting reform.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down voter-approved redistricting referendum — The Virginia state supreme court, voting 4–3 along partisan lines, struck down a referendum approved by Virginia voters on April 21, 2026, that would have created a temporary new congressional district map to gain four additional seats for Democrats and counter Republican gerrymandering. Voters had approved the measure in response to gerrymandering imposed by Republican legislators in Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida, which is expected to gain Republicans an additional 14 seats nationally. The court ruled that the process of passing the referendum violated the state constitution. The decision occurred in the context of Trump's low job approval ratings (low 30s), public anger over rising prices, frustration with the Iran war, and dislike of the administration's attacks on immigrants. Trump posted on social media celebrating the decision as a "huge win for the Republican Party."

Supporting reports

• U.S. District Judge Richard Leon halted above-ground construction of White House ballroom — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, issued an order halting above-ground construction of a proposed White House ballroom but permitting construction of the below-ground bunker to continue. The decision prompted President Trump to post four lengthy social media screeds attacking the judge as "Trump Hating" and claiming the ballroom is essential to national security, containing bomb shelters, military installations, and protective infrastructure. Trump characterized the judicial order as "illegal overreach" and "a mockery to our Court System."
• Federal judge limits Trump's White House ballroom project — Federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that construction on Trump's planned White House ballroom project can proceed only on an underground portion deemed necessary for national security, not on the 90,000-square-foot aboveground addition Trump wanted for entertaining VIP guests. Judge Leon wrote that "national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity." Trump had argued the entire project counted as a security project because of bulletproof glass and bomb shelters.
• Trump attacks federal judge blocking White House ballroom construction — Trump attacked a federal judge on Truth Social who blocked the administration's above-ground construction of a White House ballroom, calling the judge "Trump Hating" and "highly political" and baselessly accusing him of "illegal overreach." The judge had authorized below-ground construction, citing protection of national security facilities. Trump claimed the below-ground portion will include bomb shelters and medical facilities.
• President Trump attacked federal judge Richard Leon in social media posts over ballroom ruling — President Trump posted four lengthy social media screeds attacking U.S. District Judge Richard Leon for halting above-ground construction of a proposed White House ballroom. Trump characterized the judge as "Trump Hating," accused him of "illegal overreach," and claimed the judicial order is "a mockery to our Court System." Trump asserted that the ballroom is essential to national security and that no judge can be allowed to stop the project, framing judicial review as an attack on presidential authority and national defense.
• Stay pending appeal decided — National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04316 — The D.C. Circuit granted Defendants' emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Leon's April 16, 2026 order and set an expedited briefing schedule, noting: “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

Supporting reports

• Judge orders restoration of slavery exhibit in Philadelphia — In February 2026, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe ruled that materials about the enslavement of nine Black Americans at the President's House in Philadelphia must be restored after the National Park Service removed them. The judge's order referenced George Orwell's "1984," highlighting the dangers of historical revisionism.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders Florida immigration jail to allow attorney access to detained clients — Federal Judge Sheri Polster Chappell ruled that officials at Florida's state-run immigration detention facility ("Alligator Alcatraz") must provide detained immigrants with confidential, private, free, and unmonitored legal phone calls and allow attorneys unannounced visits, overturning the facility's three-day advance scheduling requirement. The ruling followed a lawsuit by civil rights groups alleging systematic obstruction of legal access and inhumane detention conditions, including monitored calls and immediate transfers before scheduled legal visits.

Supporting reports

• Judge rules RFK Jr overstepped authority in declaring gender-affirming treatments unsafe — Federal Judge Mustafa Kasubhai ruled Thursday that Robert F Kennedy Jr, Trump's health secretary, exceeded his authority when he issued a December 2025 declaration labeling gender-affirming treatments unsafe for minors and threatening to exclude providers from Medicare and Medicaid. The judge found Kennedy failed to follow proper administrative procedures and granted relief to doctors providing such care. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by 21 states and Washington DC challenging the declaration's legality and accuracy.

Supporting reports

• Federal court rulings dismiss pro-Israel lawsuits targeting pro-Palestinian campus speech as First Amendment protected — Multiple federal courts, including a First Circuit appeals panel, have dismissed lawsuits brought by pro-Israel groups and Jewish students against universities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, ruling that common pro-Palestinian slogans ("from the river to the sea," "globalize the intifada," anti-Zionist statements) are constitutionally protected speech. Courts found the speech is not antisemitic and does not violate Jewish students' civil rights. The rulings reject the legal theory that criticism of Israel or Zionism can be equated with discrimination based on national origin or ethnicity. Some judges allowed narrow claims to proceed where speech targeted specific individuals or involved intimidation.

Supporting reports

• House Democrats demand DOJ briefing on removal of antitrust chief Gail Slater — House Democrats Jamie Raskin and Jerry Nadler requested a briefing from Attorney General Pam Bondi regarding the forced resignation of Gail Slater, head of the antitrust division, in February 2026. Slater's removal followed her attempt to block a $14 billion Hewlett Packard Enterprise–Juniper Networks merger and alleged interference by Trump-connected lobbyists. The letter raised concerns about potential corruption, the role of Trump allies including Mike Davis, and questioned DOJ handling of multiple high-profile merger cases and antitrust matters.
• Gail Slater forced to resign as antitrust chief amid Trump administration pressure — Gail Slater, assistant attorney general for the antitrust division, was forced to resign in February 2026 after her relationship with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Vice President JD Vance deteriorated. Her removal followed her effort to block the $14 billion Hewlett Packard Enterprise–Juniper Networks merger and her claims that the intelligence community had not raised national security concerns. Trump-connected lobbyist Mike Davis, retained by Hewlett Packard Enterprise, publicly took credit for her removal. The DOJ subsequently dropped the antitrust suit in favor of a settlement.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rules Trump exceeded authority on tariff imposition — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that President Trump violated the Constitution by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on global imports without congressional approval. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that taxation is a core congressional power. The ruling invalidated most of the administration's tariffs. Democratic lawmakers celebrated the decision as a check on executive overreach, while Trump called it a "disgrace" and indicated he had a backup plan.
• Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs unconstitutional in 6-3 decision — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last Friday that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during peacetime. The court affirmed that Congress alone retains the power to levy taxes under the Constitution and that the IEEPA cannot supersede that authority absent genuine emergency conditions. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court overturned Trump policies in his second term and undercut his claims to sweeping executive trade authority.
• Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs unlawful, striking down invocation of International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump lacked authority to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by two Trump-appointed justices (Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and the three liberal-leaning justices. The court held that taxation powers are reserved exclusively to Congress. Trump responded with a vitriolic public attack on the justices, calling them "FOOLS" and "LAPDOGS," and immediately announced new tariffs under different legislative authority.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump's national emergency tariffs — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision invalidating Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that tariffs constitute taxation and fall under Congress's exclusive constitutional authority. The decision reduces the U.S. average trade-weighted tariff from 15.3% to 8.3%, with significant reductions on Chinese (36.8% to 21.2%), Brazilian (26.3% to 6.8%), and Japanese (14.9% to 9.9%) imports. Trump immediately announced a 10% blanket global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as an alternative.
• US Supreme Court declares Trump's IEEPA tariffs illegal — The US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot impose tariffs in peacetime using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring his tariffs enacted under that authority unlawful. The White House indicated it will replace the levies using alternative statutory tools, such as the 1974 Trade Act. International businesses and governments expressed uncertainty about future tariff regimes, as the ruling does not constrain Trump's other trade policy options. US business groups celebrated the decision as affirming rule of law and separation of powers.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs illegal under IEEPA, Trump announces new 10% global tariff under Section 122 — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday declaring that Donald Trump's tariffs lacked legal justification under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for national emergencies. The court held that tariff authority belongs exclusively to Congress under the Constitution's taxing power. Trump responded by calling the justices "a disgrace to the nation" and immediately announced a new 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits 150-day tariffs, while initiating investigations into unfair trading practices for potential permanent tariffs.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's unilateral tariff authority under IEEPA — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing global tariffs without congressional approval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision affirmed lower court findings that the tariffs—covering dozens of countries and announced on "liberation day" in April 2025—were illegal. Trump immediately vowed to continue tariffs using alternative authority under the Trade Act of 1974, announcing a new 10% global tariff and directing investigations into unfair trading practices.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs under IEEPA unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court found that tariffs Trump levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. The decision was announced on Friday, February 21, 2026. Following the ruling, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports on Friday and escalated to a 15% worldwide tariff on Saturday, claiming the court decision actually granted him broader powers than he previously possessed.
• Supreme Court ruling on tariffs declared unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. Following this decision, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports, which he later raised to 15%. He claimed that the ruling inadvertently granted him more power and threatened higher tariffs on countries he accused of taking advantage of the U.S. This ruling has led to significant uncertainty among U.S. trading partners, prompting the European Parliament to pause trade deal approvals with the U.S.
• Trump claims he has unchecked power after Supreme Court ruling — Trump publicly stated that the Supreme Court's ruling has given him "far more powers and strength" than before, suggesting he could use tariffs in a more aggressive manner. His comments reflect a disregard for the Court's authority and the principles of checks and balances.
• Trump’s tariffs face public disapproval — A poll indicated that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, with 82% believing he must obey Supreme Court rulings. This public sentiment reflects widespread dissatisfaction with his economic policies and governance.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump "liberation day" tariffs — The US Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping "liberation day" tariffs that had been imposed the previous year. The decision represented a judicial check on the executive's tariff authority and prompted the administration to announce the alternative 10% global tariff as a replacement policy.
• Supreme Court struck down Trump's broad tariff authority under IEEPA — Days before the State of the Union address, the Supreme Court struck down the President's claimed authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in what CNBC and CNN reported as one of the most consequential executive power rulings in years. In response, Trump called the ruling "unfortunate" and vowed to pursue "alternative" legal authorities to continue imposing tariffs without congressional approval, signaling his intent to circumvent the Court's decision.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the statute contains no mention of tariffs or duties and that the Constitution assigns taxing power to Congress. The decision invoked the major questions doctrine, holding that powers of vast economic significance require clear statutory language. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined Roberts's lead opinion; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the core holding, with Kagan writing separately on statutory interpretation grounds.
• Media Invitation Announced for United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. Pre-Trial Hearing — The Department of War published an advisory on 2026-02-20 through its advisories channel. The department's own account of it reads: "The War Department invites media to cover pretrial proceedings in the case of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, scheduled for May 4 - 29, 2026."
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs; CBP ordered to process $166bn in refunds — The Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "liberation day" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling he lacked legal authority. A federal judge ordered US Customs and Border Protection to process refunds to approximately 330,000 importers totaling an estimated $166 billion without requiring lawsuits. CBP filed notice it would establish a refund system within 45 days using existing liquidation procedures. The ruling resolved a core constitutional question about executive power but left implementation details to lower courts and agency discretion.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's "liberation day" tariffs as illegal — On 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed in April 2025 were illegal. The decision opened the door to an estimated $175 billion in refund claims from businesses across the country. Major companies including FedEx, L'Oreal, and Dyson have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds. The ruling has triggered a surge in demand for trade lawyers and created opportunities for hedge funds and AI firms to profit from the refund process.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs — The US Supreme Court ruled on 20 February 2026 that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing far-reaching global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs unlawful but did not address whether the Trump administration must repay an estimated $133 billion in collected tariffs, leaving the refund question to lower courts. Trump immediately signaled intent to reintroduce tariffs via alternative legal authority.
• Former South Korean President Sentenced to Life in Prison — The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison for leading an insurrection against the government. Yoon had declared martial law in December 2024, attempting to block the National Assembly and arrest opposition politicians. His actions were deemed unconstitutional, leading to his impeachment and removal from office. The court considered his age and lack of lethal force in its sentencing.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs unconstitutional — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court declared President Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. Following this ruling, Trump claimed the right to impose tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Trump was the first president to invoke this provision, and his use of it has already been challenged in court.
• U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Trump's IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional in 6–3 decision — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed under emergency declarations citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), violated the Constitution. Trump had declared national emergencies regarding drug influx and trade deficits to justify sweeping tariff increases that upended post-World War II free trade principles. The Court found that Congress alone holds constitutional authority to tax Americans, and that Trump's tariff authority under IEEPA did not extend to the broad economic restructuring he imposed. The ruling invalidated tariffs that had cost American households an estimated $1,000–$1,700 in 2025 and slowed economic growth to 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under IEEPA — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. The majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor) rejected the government's tariff authority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation.
• Supreme Court ruled against Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorized tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff authority — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously read IEEPA to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented. The majority included Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff power — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff authority — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority supported the opposite reading.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff power — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority and that IEEPA clearly authorized the power. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariffs — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump cannot use emergency powers to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Solicitor General granted amicus participation and divided argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation and commerce.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287) — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that "until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power." Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts; Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and no President had previously read it to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority; Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the statute grants sufficient authority for tariff imposition. The ruling represents the Court's most significant rebuke of the Trump administration since his return to office.
• — The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and to conduct divided argument in the pending case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. (Docket 24-1238). This procedural grant permits the federal government to present oral argument alongside the parties and allows argument time to be divided among multiple speakers.
• — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Docket number(s): 24-1287.