Trump policy disagreements may characterize the Supreme Court’s next term

Washington — Over the past few months, more than 300 lawsuits have been navigating the federal courts, contesting numerous aspects of President Trump’s second-term plans and the actions of his administration. However, a few might now be ready for or almost ready for Supreme Court review.

Many of the cases have already been heard by the high court, albeit at a different point in the proceedings. They concern significant policies that Mr. Trump has implemented in the months since he returned to the White House.

In those cases, the Trump administration requested emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which would enable it to either fire officials at independent agencies or enforce its immigration policies.

The merits of the Trump administration’s actions have been the subject of proceedings and rulings by lower courts in the wake of those interim rulings. The Supreme Court will provide the first chances for the justices to discuss whether Mr. Trump’s plans are lawful if they consent to intervene in these cases.

Law professor Dan Epps of Washington University in St. Petersburg said, “I’m expecting this to be the term of Trump.”. “The new Supreme Court term will start in October,” Louis said. 6. .

Redistricting, campaign finance, and state laws that prohibit transgender athletes from playing women’s and girls’ sports are among the high-profile cases that the justices are already scheduled to hear.

Decisions in the numerous cases involving Mr. Trump’s actions could have a significant impact on his immigration and economic policies, as well as how he restructures the executive branch.

To date, the Trump administration has requested emergency intervention from the Supreme Court about two dozen times, and it has had success in its attempts to keep implementing its plans in the face of ongoing legal challenges.

However, it is unclear if the president will win when the Supreme Court considers whether his actions were legal. However, the Supreme Court has hinted that Mr. Trump may have the authority to fire employees of specific independent agencies in certain cases, such as his attempts to fire specific executive officers.

“The nation’s dedication to the rule of law is at risk,” Epps stated. He went on to say that a “huge sweeping victory” for executive power might also result from the new term, especially if the Supreme Court decides that courts should grant the president broad deference on issues like immigration.

tariffs.

Trump’s tariffs on almost all U.S. S. trading partner, the Supreme Court will first rule on whether one of Mr. Trump’s main policies is lawful.

In two cases concerning the global tariffs, the high court announced on Tuesday that it is considering whether Mr. Trump is authorized to impose the sweeping duties under a federal emergency powers law. Early in November, the justices will hear arguments, which is a quick turnaround for the court.

The Justice Department had requested that the Supreme Court intervene in the case following the U. A. Many of the tariffs imposed by President Trump under the emergency powers law were declared unlawful by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit late last month.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, according to the Federal Circuit’s 7-4 ruling, did not permit the president to impose tariffs on other countries. However, the Federal Circuit overturned a permanent injunction issued by a lower court that prevented the Trump administration from enforcing the levies, so the duties are still in effect for the time being.

The Justice Department has cautioned that a decision against the government would jeopardize the frameworks of trade agreements negotiated with six nations, as the dispute tests a key pillar of the president’s economic agenda.

legal protections for Venezuelan migrants that were temporarily terminated.

The Biden administration’s Temporary Protected Status program, which provided legal protections to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants, was terminated shortly after Mr. Trump took office by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

A federal judge granted preliminary relief and delayed the implementation date of Noem’s plan in response to a lawsuit brought by the National TPS Alliance and seven people who were protected from the threat of deportation.

The U. A. The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration emergency relief, enabling Noem to temporarily terminate the legal protections, but the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to halt that decision while the case proceeded.

The Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Venezuela’s TPS designation was the subject of arguments in July at the 9th Circuit, where a three-judge panel decided in favor of the plaintiffs late last month.

The judges concluded that the TPS holders had a good chance of winning their case that Noem lacked the power to revoke a previous extension of the program for migrants from Venezuela.

But because the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to grant interim relief is still in effect, the decision’s impact is limited.

Removal of the Alien Enemies Act.

Mr. In March, Trump issued an executive order citing the Alien Enemies Act to expeditiously deport Venezuelan migrants suspected of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang. Under the wartime law, which grants the president the power to expel citizens of a “hostile nation” if it is involved in a “invasion or predatory incursion” of the United States, the Trump administration has deported hundreds of migrants it alleges are gang members. S. .

According to an investigation by “60 Minutes,” many of the migrants who were sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act had no criminal histories.

Litigation was triggered by the proclamation right away, and the Supreme Court has already been involved in two court battles that were filed on its emergency docket. The first case was filed in Washington, D.D.C., at the federal district court. According to the high court, any challenges to removals made in accordance with the Alien Enemies Act must be filed in the court district where the migrant is being detained.

However, the Supreme Court also ruled that under the 1798 law, migrants who face deportation must be informed that they could be removed and given the chance to contest the decision.

Following that ruling, judges in Texas, Colorado, New York, and California have prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants detained in their states under the Alien Enemies Act.

A lawsuit challenging the removal of Venezuelan migrants detained by immigration officials at a facility in the Northern District of Texas under the Alien Enemies Act was the second case to make it to the Supreme Court.

The high court sent the case back to the United States after temporarily halting the migrants’ deportations in April. S. . The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit requested additional review after concluding that the Trump administration had failed to give the migrants adequate notice of their upcoming deportations, specifically 24 hours.

Regarding the legality of the removals under the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court did not address the matter.

Following further proceedings, the 5th Circuit’s divided three-judge panel denied Mr. Trump’s request to deport Venezuelan migrants from the Northern District of Texas under the Alien Enemies Act. In its 2-1 ruling, the court stated that Tren de Aragua had not engaged in any predatory invasion or incursion, which is a requirement for applying the law.

The first appeals court to consider whether Mr. Trump was correct to invoke the 18th-century law is the Fifth Circuit.

A spokesman for the Trump administration hinted that the Trump administration would file an appeal, stating that the ruling of the 5th Circuit “will not be the final say on the matter.”. “,”.

Members of independent agencies are fired.

Mr. Trump has pushed the limits of executive authority during his months back in the White House, including by dismissing employees from independent agencies that former President Joe Biden had appointed.

Regards, Mr. Several officials have challenged Trump’s actions in court, including the removal of members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The reinstatement of NLRB and MSPB members Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris was mandated by a lower court in their respective cases. Washington, D.C., federal judges. declared that their dismissals were illegal under federal laws that protected them from being fired without reason. They also referenced a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that stated Congress could grant removal protections to members of multi-member boards who satisfied specific requirements.

The Supreme Court granted the president permission to dismiss Wilcox and Harris for the time being after the Trump administration requested emergency relief that would allow it to fire the officials while their cases were pending.

At the same time, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has not yet made a decision despite hearing oral arguments in May regarding Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire Wilcox and Harris.

However, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether the removal protections for FTC members violate the separation of powers in a different case involving Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. Prior to the appeals court’s decision, the administration wants the high court to hear the case regarding Slaughter’s removal.

At least one justice, Brett Kavanaugh, thinks the Supreme Court should consider whether removal restrictions for independent agency members are lawful. Kavanaugh stated in a concurring opinion in a case concerning Mr. Trump’s dismissal of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission that there is “at least a fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will either narrow or overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. The 1935 ruling in the United States that maintained the protections against removal for specific executive officers.

The author wrote that “[W]hen the question is whether to narrow or overrule one of this Court’s precedents rather than how to resolve an open or disputed question of federal law, further percolation in the lower courts is not particularly useful because lower courts cannot alter or overrule this Court’s precedent.”.

citizenship from birth.

The Supreme Court has already considered the president’s proposal to abolish birthright citizenship, but the justices have not addressed whether his executive order is constitutional. Rather, it was a question of whether federal judges could issue nationwide injunctions, which are orders that prevent the enforcement of a policy beyond the plaintiffs in a situation.

According to the high court, judges have limited authority to provide such broad relief, but they have left open other options, such as class-action lawsuits or challenges to an agency rule filed under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that regulates the process of creating agency rules.

In the wake of that June ruling, a number of plaintiff groups filed amended versions of their original lawsuits, requesting that district courts declare that children affected by Mr. Trump’s executive order would not be granted birthright citizenship.

In one of those cases, a panel of judges on the U.S. Supreme Court heard cases from four states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. A. In July, a 2-1 decision by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declared that President Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional.

In reaction to the ruling, the White House stated that it hopes to “be vindicated on appeal.”. “.”.

The 9th Circuit’s decision was the first to address the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s executive order from an appeals court.