The Trump administration is requesting the Supreme Court’s intervention in three major legal cases after facing setbacks in lower courts. These cases involve significant challenges to President Donald Trump’s broad interpretation of presidential power.
Legal Disputes Reach the High Court
The Justice Department has recently filed multiple petitions to the Supreme Court, accusing federal judges of overstepping their constitutional authority. These petitions focus on cases where lower courts have criticized or blocked actions taken by the Trump administration. One key case involves the rehire of thousands of federal employees who were dismissed during Trump’s tenure, with a court ordering their reinstatement.
Another filing concerns a ruling halting deportations under Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to the 18th century. The administration has argued that the judge exceeded his authority by temporarily stopping deportations, adding that temporary restraining orders by federal judges are disrupting Trump’s plans.
The third case involves the cancellation of millions of dollars in education grants by Trump’s officials. A federal judge in Massachusetts had ordered the Education Department to continue making these payments while the legal challenges proceeded. The administration petitioned the Supreme Court, requesting that lower courts stop interfering with the executive branch’s authority over funding decisions.
Appeals Courts Continue to Reject Trump’s Arguments
Despite the administration’s aggressive push for Supreme Court intervention, it has faced repeated losses in appeals courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently rejected Trump’s claim that judges could not review his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants alleged to be part of a gang. The court upheld the judge’s temporary ban on the deportations.
Additionally, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a ruling requiring the reinstatement of thousands of probationary workers fired by the Trump administration. In both cases, two of the three judges in each panel were not Trump appointees.
Meanwhile, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to uphold an order preventing Trump’s partial funding freeze. The ruling came despite the administration’s request to block the freeze during its appeal.
In a rare victory, however, the D.C. appeals court temporarily paused two lower court rulings that had reinstated two fired officials to important government boards. Trump had ordered their dismissals earlier.
Ongoing Legal Battles Over Military Policy and Messaging
In a separate legal matter, federal judges have blocked new guidance from the Defense Department that sought to ban transgender service members from the military. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes rejected the administration’s argument that the policy targeting those with "gender dysphoria" was not discriminatory. Judge Reyes emphasized that transgender people, not medical conditions, have served the country in various capacities, including in combat zones.
Reyes’ ruling was echoed in another case in Washington state, where a judge also issued a temporary block on the policy. The administration is currently appealing both decisions.
In another controversial case, Judge James Boasberg is overseeing the administration’s use of the Signal messaging app to discuss a U.S. military strike in Yemen. The group chat, which inadvertently included an editor from The Atlantic, involved high-ranking officials, including Vice President JD Vance and national security adviser Mike Waltz. The lawsuit filed by American Oversight calls for the preservation of all communications related to the military strike, which Boasberg has ordered the government to comply with.
As legal challenges continue to mount, the Trump administration is increasingly turning to the Supreme Court to resolve disputes that threaten to limit its powers.
Tags
US News