WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is increasingly turning to the Supreme Court after facing setbacks in lower federal courts, a tactic he successfully used during his initial term.
In the past week, the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court, which now has a conservative majority, to intervene in cases earlier than normal on three occasions. Since Trump assumed office just over two months ago, this has occurred six times.
The administration’s use of these emergency appeals, often referred to as the shadow docket, coincides with over 130 lawsuits challenging the president’s executive orders. These lawsuits are frequently filed in predominantly liberal areas, making the court system a focal point for resistance against his policies.
The Justice Department stated in a Supreme Court filing on Friday that federal judges have ruled against the administration more than 40 times, issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The cases involve issues such as changes to birthright citizenship, federal spending, transgender rights, and deportations based on a seldom-used 18th-century law.
The administration is increasingly requesting intervention from the Supreme Court, which Trump influenced through his three justice nominations, not only to secure favorable rulings but also to send a signal to federal judges who, according to Trump and his allies, are exceeding their authority.
“Only this Court can stop rule-by-TRO from further upending the separation of powers — the sooner, the better,” wrote acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris on Friday in the deportations case, referring to temporary restraining orders.
Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and author of “The Shadow Docket,” a book about the rise of emergency appeals, commented on the Substack platform that “these cases, especially together, reflect the inevitable reckoning — just how much is the Supreme Court going to stand up to Trump?”
During Trump’s first term, the Justice Department made 41 emergency appeals to the Supreme Court and achieved full or partial success in 28 of those cases, according to Vladeck.
In contrast, the Obama and George W. Bush administrations together sought emergency relief from the court in only eight cases over a 16-year period.
Supreme Court cases typically progress over many months. Emergency actions, however, tend to occur over weeks or even days, involving expedited briefings and decisions that often lack the comprehensive legal reasoning found in regular high court rulings.
The justices have so far largely avoided the administration’s requests this year. However, this may become more challenging as the number of appeals rises, especially in prominent deportation cases where the President’s unusual call for a judge’s impeachment led to a rare reprimand from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Here’s a summary of the appeals currently on the court’s emergency docket:
Trump’s deportation order will be a critical test
Immigration and the promise of mass deportations were central to Trump’s successful presidential campaign. Earlier this month, he unusually invoked an 18th-century wartime law to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Lawyers representing the migrants, some of whom deny gang affiliation, filed a lawsuit to block the deportations, arguing they were being carried out without due process.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, the chief judge at the federal courthouse in Washington, agreed, temporarily halting deportation flights and ordering planes en route to a prison in El Salvador to turn back.
Despite this order, two planes landed, leading to a legal dispute over whether the administration defied the judge’s order. Simultaneously, the administration unsuccessfully appealed to the court in the nation’s capital to overturn the ruling.
In a Supreme Court appeal filed Friday, the Justice Department argued that deportations should proceed and that the migrants should present their cases in a federal court in Texas, where they are currently detained.
Mass firings of federal workers have generated lawsuits
The Trump administration’s efforts to significantly reduce the size of the federal government have resulted in the termination of thousands of federal employees.
The dismissal of probationary employees, who generally have less job security and fewer protections, has sparked several lawsuits.
Two judges have ruled that the administration violated federal laws in handling the layoffs and ordered the reinstatement of affected workers. The government appealed to the Supreme Court after a California judge ordered approximately 16,000 workers to be reinstated.
The judge stated that the administration appeared to have provided false reasons for the firings. The administration countered that the judge exceeded his authority by attempting to dictate hiring and firing decisions to the executive branch.
Anti-DEI teacher training cuts have been blocked, at least temporarily
Trump has acted swiftly to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the government and in the education sector.
Eight Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit arguing that this effort was the underlying reason for cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher training funds.
A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked these cuts, determining they were already impacting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. After an appeals court upheld the order, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court.
The administration contends that judges cannot force it to continue funding programs it has decided to discontinue.
Trump wanted to end birthright citizenship. So far, courts have disagreed
On his Inauguration Day, Trump signed an executive order intended to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally.
This order, which restricted a right guaranteed by the Constitution, was quickly blocked nationwide. Three appeals courts also denied requests to allow the order to take effect while lawsuits were ongoing.
Instead of immediately appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn these rulings, the Justice Department asked the justices to limit the scope of the court orders to only those individuals who had filed the lawsuits.
The government argued that individual judges lack the authority to issue rulings with nationwide effect, a legal issue that has previously raised concerns among some justices.
“`
