On 15 May, media personnel gathered outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Over the next few weeks, the Court will deliver its final rulings of the term, including a key decision that could affect the scope of President Donald Trump’s executive authority.
Traditionally, the justices unveil their most significant rulings in late June, and Trump’s legal team is monitoring this closely to gauge the extent to which lower court judges can impede the president’s policies nationwide.
A senior administration official told CNN how important this impending decision is, emphasising its potential significance. The Court recently heard arguments on nationwide injunctions, which authorise a single judge to halt a policy across the entire country. This issue stems from a challenge to rulings that have obstructed Trump’s efforts to abolish birthright citizenship — a practice enshrined in the 14th Amendment that grants US citizenship to all children born on American soil, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for Trump’s policy agenda.
The official emphasised the wide-ranging impact on various government processes, including hiring procedures and budget allocations, highlighting the importance of the outcome. Although Trump has issued numerous executive orders during his tenure, many have been blocked by judicial rulings, including those relating to mass layoffs, deportations and budgetary priorities.
During recent oral arguments, the justices indicated their potential willingness to lift the nationwide injunctions that are currently impeding Trump’s birthright citizenship policy. However, deliberations are ongoing regarding the practical consequences of allowing the government to deny citizenship to individuals born in the US. Compared to previous presidents, Trump faces an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions, prompting him and his Republican allies in Congress to pay elevated attention to this issue.
The debate over nationwide injunctions has highlighted contrasting viewpoints. Proponents argue that the current system prevents potentially unconstitutional policies from being enforced unchecked for extended periods. Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the use of injunctions, highlighting potential violations of established Supreme Court precedents by the President.
This case originates from multiple challenges to Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, filed by Democratic-led states, immigrant advocacy groups and affected individuals. It has significant implications for the ongoing legal battles surrounding the president’s policies.
The argument is that the policy is clearly unconstitutional, which is why an injunction was deemed necessary. One of the key cases on the Supreme Court’s agenda this term concerns gender-affirming care for minors. Parents and advocates brought the case to the Supreme Court after Tennessee prohibited gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The Biden administration had previously supported those challenging the Tennessee ban during the case’s hearings in December 2024, but the Trump administration withdrew from the case in February.
In the early months of Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court took up several emergency appeals from the administration. The Court has ruled in the administration’s favour on various issues, such as allowing the Pentagon to enforce a ban on transgender service members and permitting Trump to proceed with rapid deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
According to a senior administration official, another significant case on Trump’s agenda concerns mass layoffs. This case stems from an executive order signed by Trump in February which aimed to drastically reduce the size of numerous federal agencies. Over a dozen unions, non-profit organisations, and local governments filed a lawsuit opposing the order. A federal judge in California blocked the executive order, and an appeals court chose not to intervene. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this matter.
