After encountering multiple setbacks in lower courts, the Trump administration has secured a significant win in the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term.
The standout triumph was a ruling that limits the use of national injunctions stemming from the Trump vs. Casa case. Additionally, it obtained a positive decision regarding how emergency dockets may be utilized by supporting other parties.
The Supreme Court determined that lower courts had exceeded their authority by universally halting President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship. In response, the administration described this as a “monetary victory over the constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law.”
Trump emphasized in a statement that he was chosen for a historic role, asserting that several left-leaning judges have attempted to undermine the legitimate authority of the president. He claimed this poses a significant threat to democracy.
Emergency Docket Wins
During the past four years, the Biden administration filed 19 emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, while Trump filed 19 applications in just the first 20 weeks of his second term, as noted by Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck.
Decisions from the Emergency Docket often come as unsigned orders without detailed reasoning and aren’t final judgments on substantive issues. However, these decisions have been crucial in allowing Trump to advance policies despite district court judges blocking much of his agenda.
The Supreme Court also permitted the Trump administration to resume deportations from third countries and to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans. This ruling effectively halted Biden’s parole grants affecting over half a million immigrants from countries like Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Immigrant encounters at the southern border surged under Biden, hitting 3.2 million in 2023 and continuing at 2.9 million in 2024. Trump labeled the situation “Aggression” on his first day in office.
Further, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to proceed with dismissing certain enforcement officials, cutting thousands of federal jobs, and enforcing a ban on transgender individuals in the military.
The majority also granted the Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security records, overruling lower court decisions tied to compliance with FOIA requests.
Two notable cases drew considerable scrutiny. In a controversial late-night ruling in April, the Supreme Court suspended deportations under the Alien Enemy Act despite dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. In the case involving Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, identified as an MS-13 gang member facing human smuggling accusations, the Court mandated the Trump administration to facilitate his release from El Salvador.
Right Side
The Trump administration’s positions gained traction in various cases where it intervened.
It urged the Supreme Court to declare Wisconsin’s religious exemption, which limited Catholic charities, a violation of the First Amendment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court previously ruled that the Catholic Charity Office did not qualify on the grounds that it “is not operated primarily for religious purposes.”
In a ruling by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Catholic charities.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court also supported South Carolina in its efforts to establish a parent-child relationship policy, initiated seven years prior by excluding abortion providers from Medicaid. The US had submitted Amicus briefs backing South Carolina on this matter.
This Supreme Court decision could potentially pave the way for other states to cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
In the case of US v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on child gender transition procedures. The government’s position had shifted by February, indicating it no longer aligned with the Biden administration’s stance that the ban violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The Biden administration previously backed transgender activists through lawsuits, statements, and private discussions. The former Deputy Secretary for Health and Human Services had advocated for reducing age limits for gender transition surgeries, aligning with administration policies.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas warned against assuming that “self-described experts” are always correct, noting that the supposed medical consensus on treating gender dysphoria was increasingly questionable.
