Major cases involving Trump before the US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court has acted in a series of cases involving challenges to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump and actions by his administration since he returned to office in January. Cases at the court have involved deportations, protected status for certain migrants, Trump's transgender military ban, his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, cuts to teacher training grants, payments to foreign aid organisations and access to Social Security data.

Here is a look at these cases.

TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN

The court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, letting the armed forces discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. The court granted the Justice Department's request to lift US District Judge Benjamin Settle's nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump's policy.

Settle had found that Trump's order likely violates the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Justice Department had said Settle usurped the authority of the government's branch of government - headed by Trump - to determine who may serve in the military.

In the case before Settle, seven active-duty transgender troops, a transgender man seeking to enlist and a civil rights advocacy group sued over the ban. In a separate case, US District Judge Ana Reyes also issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's ban while that litigation proceeds, though that order was later put on hold.

The Supreme Court did not resolve the legal merits of the dispute. The litigation will continue in lower courts and could return to the justices in the future.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

The justices on May 15 heard arguments in Trump's attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as he seeks a major shift in how the Constitution has long been understood. The court's conservative justices seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump's directive. Those three judges found that Trump's order likely violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment citizenship language.

None of the justices signaled an endorsement of Trump's order and some of the liberals said it violates the Constitution and the court's own precedents. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.

DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS

The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now. The action came after the court ordered on April 19 a temporary stop to the administration's deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention centre in Texas.

The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law's use for this purpose is being contested. The justices required that detainees receive notice "within a reasonable time and in such a manner" to challenge the legality of their removal. The administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department as designated as a foreign terrorist organisation. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this allegation.

PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS

The court on May 19 let Trump's administration end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States by his predecessor Joe Biden. It granted a Justice Department request to lift US District Judge Edward Chen's order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to terminate deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the temporary protected status, or TPS, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The programme is a humanitarian designation under US law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work permits.

Chen had ruled that Noem violated a federal law that governs the actions of federal agencies. The judge also said the administration's portrayal of the whole Venezuelan TPS population as criminals was "baseless and smacks of racism."

REVOKING IMMIGRATION 'PAROLE'

Trump's administration asked the court on May 8 to intervene in its bid to revoke the temporary legal status granted by Biden to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The dispute involves immigration "parole," a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. After Trump called for ending these programs in an executive order, the Department of Homeland Security moved to terminate the programmes including cutting short the two-year parole grants for about 400,000 people. The administration asked the justices to put on hold US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting its move to terminate the immigration parole.

WRONGLY DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN

The court on April 10 directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the US government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador. The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by US District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Xinis had issued the order in response to a lawsuit by Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and has had a work permit since 2019, and his family challenging the legality of his deportation.

The court said that the judge's order "properly requires the government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." While siding with Abrego Garcia, the court told Xinis to clarify the order's requirement to "effectuate" his return "with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

Abrego Garcia was stopped and detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and questioned about alleged affiliation with the criminal gang MS-13, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. His lawyers have denied the alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on March 15 on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador that also included Venezuelan migrants. El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, said during a meeting with Trump on April 14 that he had no plans to return Abrego Garcia to the United States.

LABOR BOARD OFFICIALS

The court on April 9 cleared the way for Trump to remove Democratic members of two federal labour boards for the time being, putting on hold a pair of judicial orders that had shielded them from dismissal. The court halted the orders by two federal judges that blocked Trump's firing of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labour Relations Board before their terms expire. The court's action, called an administrative stay, gave it additional time to consider the administration's formal request to block the judges' orders while litigation over the firings continues.

The legal fight over these firings has emerged as an important test of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from the president's direct control. It could also prompt the justices to rein in or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency officials. The dispute, for instance, has potential implications for the independence of the US Federal Reserve.

TEACHER TRAINING GRANTS

The justices on April 4 allowed Trump's administration to proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants - part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The court put on hold US District Judge Myong Joun's March 10 order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate in eight Democratic-led states funding for grants under two teacher training programs while a legal challenge by the states continues.

The states sued after the Department of Education announced that it had cut $600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called "divisive ideologies" including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. The grant programs were established to help support institutions that recruit and train educators in a bid to address critical teacher shortages, especially in rural and underserved communities.

PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS

The court on March 5 declined to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid organisations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world. The court upheld US District Judge Amir Ali's order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the US Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past work.

Aid organisations accused Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the US Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorised by Congress.

'REDUCTIONS IN FORCE'

The administration on May 16 asked the court to lift a judicial order that halted mass staffing cuts and the restructuring of agencies, part of Trump's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. US District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale federal layoffs known as "reductions in force" for 14 days in a May 9 ruling siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. Trump in February directed government agencies in February to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force."

FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, acting in one dispute over his efforts to slash the federal workforce and dismantle parts of the government. The court put on hold US Judge William Alsup's March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues. Alsup's ruling applied to probationary employees at the US Departments of Defence, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury. Probationary workers typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees in serving new roles.

SOCIAL SECURITY DATA

The administration asked the court on May 2 to allow the entity called the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk, unfettered access to Social Security Administration data of millions of Americans. The Justice Department asked the justices to put on hold US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that halted the agency from giving DOGE access after she found that the data-sharing arrangement likely violated a federal privacy law. DOGE has been instrumental in Trump's actions to downsize and reshape the federal government. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data systems.

DOGE TRANSPARENCY

The administration on May 21 asked the court to set aside a judge's order requiring DOGE to answer questions and disclose documents about its operations. US District Judge Christopher Cooper directed DOGE to turn over some records to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after finding that the entity established by Trump was likely a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act. Cooper also said the watchdog group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition.

FIRED WATCHDOG AGENCY HEAD

The court on February 21 declined to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge's order had temporarily blocked the president from ousting the official. The court postponed action on the Justice Department's request to lift US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 12 order that had temporarily blocked Trump's removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel while litigation continued in the dispute. Dellinger on March 6 ended his legal challenge to his firing after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Trump's action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers.