President Donald Trump has started his second term in the White House by signing numerous executive orders that focus on key policy goals. These include cutting budgets and staffing for federal agencies, enforcing stricter immigration policies, and utilizing emergency powers to impose high tariffs on most of the U.S.’s trading partners.
Trump’s aggressive approach to executive action has outpaced that of his predecessor, which has helped his administration move quickly to fulfill campaign promises. However, this has also led to an influx of lawsuits aimed at blocking or delaying several of these orders. This creates significant tension regarding the limitations of presidential power under Article II and the circumstances when courts should step in.
The legal challenges target some of Trump’s most ambitious executive measures, such as proposals affecting birthright citizenship and rules regarding transgender individuals in the military, as well as the legality of severe budget cuts initiated by the administration. There are also questions about the president’s authority to deploy large numbers of National Guard troops.
Many of these issues remain unresolved. Only a handful of legal disputes concerning Trump’s policies during his second term have reached a conclusion, and experts assert that these decisions are crucial for the wider impact of the administration’s policies.
Supporters of Trump maintain that he is merely asserting his executive powers. In contrast, critics contend that the rapid enforcement of these policies necessitates greater legal examination, as judges race to keep up with the unexpected volume of lawsuits triggered by these actions.
Win:
Nationwide Injunction Limitations
In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with Trump in a 6-3 ruling related to the case Trump v. CASA. This case was primarily focused on whether district courts could issue “universal” or nationwide injunctions that would block the president’s executive actions.
While ostensibly about birthright citizenship, the decision primarily examined the power of lower courts to grant these wide-ranging injunctions rather than addressing the legality of Trump’s order. The ruling has important implications for both the nation and beyond, particularly as it related to over 310 federal lawsuits tied to orders from Trump’s second term.
Ultimately, the justices agreed with U.S. Attorney General John Sauer, who argued that universal injunctions exceeded the lower courts’ constitutional authority, raising practical concerns. The Court determined that plaintiffs looking for nationwide relief must now pursue class action lawsuits. As a result, many plaintiffs were left scrambling to amend and refile their complaints in lower courts.
Authority Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court has also shown a willingness to extend presidential power over independent agencies. In early 2025, judges approved Trump’s request to halt a lower court order reinstating Democratic appointees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. This move has raised questions about a potential reevaluation of nearly a century’s worth of legal precedent concerning the limits on a president’s authority over independent regulatory agencies.
In December, the Supreme Court listened to arguments regarding Trump’s attempt to dismiss a Federal Trade Commission commissioner without just cause. Justices seem inclined to let this dismissal happen, potentially weakening protections for federal employees outlined in a long-established court ruling.
Loss:
Customs Duty Challenge
While it’s tricky to predict how the Supreme Court will rule on any case, legal experts and observers have noted a consensus that President Trump’s implementation of wartime emergency laws for tariff policies could face significant challenges. The crux of the issue is his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose a 10% tariff on most imported goods.
This law grants the president expansive economic authority in cases of national emergencies related to foreign threats. However, it’s unclear if such a threat exists, which both liberal and conservative justices expressed during the case review in early 2025. Some justices highlighted that the statute does not explicitly mention customs duties, which became a pivotal point in discussions.
A ruling against Trump would constitute a blow to his economic strategies. After hearing arguments, some experts believe the administration may find it more difficult to secure a favorable ruling than originally anticipated. Nonetheless, they caution against making any definitive predictions based solely on the brief oral arguments, which represent just a fraction of the court’s deliberation time.
According to law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley, the justices seemed “skeptical and uncomfortable” about the claim of authority, suggesting that the challengers may have the upper hand. Yet, he notes there is still a chance for a ruling that could favor the administration. Legal scholar Brent Skorup remarked that members of the Court seemed hesitant regarding the president’s expanded powers over tariffs, demonstrating a reluctance to allow the executive to “discover” new powers through existing statutes.
Birthright Citizenship Inquiry
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments relating to Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which is considered one of the most impactful aspects of his second presidential term. This order, initiated on his first day, intends to exclude automatic citizenship for many children born to undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status—a dramatic shift that critics argue could upend nearly 150 years of constitutional precedent.
Shortly after its announcement, the order prompted numerous lawsuits from states and immigrant rights groups throughout 2025. Opponents view the initiative as unconstitutional and unprecedented, raising concerns for the approximately 150,000 children born annually in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, as well as the estimated 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 living with undocumented parents, according to research data.
Several district courts have blocked the order, though no ruling has upheld the Trump administration’s viewpoint on the 14th Amendment. While it remains uncertain how the Supreme Court will rule, the outcomes from lower courts suggest that the administration may face significant challenges in defending its position in early 2026. Oral arguments in the case are set to take place from February to April 2026, with a decision expected by late June.
