Key Points
- The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a cautious approach to the Trump administration’s wide-ranging actions.
- In several cases, it has halted relief granted by lower courts without addressing the merits of the executive actions.
- But a recent 7-2 stay of deportation confirms that the Court may soon have to make significant decisions on the legality of the administration’s actions and the Court’s role in checking executive power, as important issues reach it.
In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has taken wide-ranging actions, and many have been met with legal challenges, including requests for emergency relief. But despite the breadth and sweeping nature of the administration’s actions, the U.S. Supreme Court has so far taken a cautious approach to the challenges and on several occasions has halted relief granted by lower courts, with one late-breaking exception.
That minimalist approach could change soon: Emergency applications have reached the Court challenging the administration’s executive order purporting to restrict birthright citizenship and its asserted authority to remove heads of independent agencies at will. And the administration continues to test whether it must comply with a district court order — which the Supreme Court called proper — to facilitate the return of a wrongly deported Maryland man.
As of April 21, 2025, the Court had addressed six significant emergency applications. With the first three, it granted the administration’s request for a stay on narrow grounds that didn’t reach the merits of the underlying executive action, thus putting off any confrontation with the executive branch. But the Court’s actions on the next three applications teed up the possibility of legal limits for the executive branch, depending on what the Court does next.
The Court granted the administration emergency relief in the following cases:
- Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees. The Court granted a stay of a district court order requiring federal agencies to reinstate probationary employees who had been terminated, reasoning that the nonprofit plaintiff organizations that had brought suit lacked standing. (Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application.)
- Trump v. J.G.G. In a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Court granted a stay of a district court order blocking the federal government from summarily removing noncitizens under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs filed their action in the wrong judicial district but held that the noncitizens at issue were entitled to some due process before removal. (Justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Jackson dissented from the former holding but agreed with the latter.)
- Department of Education v. California. The Court granted a stay of a district court order requiring the government to reinstate federal grant money to grantees, reasoning that the plaintiffs should have brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims, not a federal district court. (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would have denied the application.)
In another immigration-related case, however, the Court determined that the administration had gone too far. The Court also set arguments for May 2025 (when it would not ordinarily sit) in the birthright citizenship cases and issued a rare stay ordering the government not to deport certain immigrants.
- Noem v. Abrego Garcia. The Court denied a stay of a district court order requiring the government to “facilitate” the release of an immigrant from custody in El Salvador whom the government admitted it unlawfully removed. The Court remanded to the district court to clarify what it meant by requiring the government to “effectuate” the plaintiff’s release.
- Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey. Three district courts entered nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship executive order. The administration moved for a partial stay of each injunction not on the merits but on the ground that the injunctions should be limited to the three judicial districts rather than nationwide — itself a hot-button topic. The Court did not act on the United States’ motion for a partial stay but set the applications for oral argument on May 15, 2025.
- A.A.R.P. v. Trump. After remand in Trump v. J.G.G., the ACLU moved for an emergency stay in A.A.R.P. v. Trump on the grounds that the government failed to provide the due process the Court had held in J.G.G. was required. The Court granted that stay in a rare 1 a.m. order on a Saturday, blocking the government from removing those immigrants until lower courts resolved the merits of the due process arguments. (Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.)
An Emerging Trajectory
The Court began with a minimalist approach, wary of moving too fast to address the important questions coming before it. But the pace and urgency of those questions is increasing as the administration finds additional and more aggressive ways to test legal boundaries.
The Court’s more recent decisions — to approve of an order requiring the government to facilitate the return of a wrongly deported Maryland man, to set oral argument in May and to order the administration not to deport certain immigrants — suggests that the Court is aware that it must soon rule, as the nation watches closely, on the legality of a number of the administration’s actions.
See The Trump Administration’s First 100 Days publication
This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.