Trump's Legal Battles Return to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court faces renewed litigation over presidential authority regarding Fed appointments, citizenship, and tariffs.
1Supreme Court Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court previously ruled against President Donald Trump on birthright citizenship, sweeping tariffs, and the dismissal of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. Despite these setbacks, the administration continues to pursue these initiatives. This ongoing friction between executive actions and judicial oversight ensures that these contentious issues will likely return to court.
2The Lisa Cook Dispute
In June 2025, the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. The administration alleged mortgage fraud regarding her primary residence declarations in 2021. Trump has since formed a three-person committee to investigate these claims, potentially leading to a new dismissal attempt and further inevitable legal battles.
3Procedural Requirements for Removal
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Trump acted improperly by firing Cook without prior notification or an opportunity to respond. Consequently, the White House issued a formal notice in July 2025, granting Cook 21 days to address the allegations. Her legal team maintains that these accusations are unfounded and threaten the Federal Reserve's independence.
4Congressional Role and Vetoes
Congress could theoretically amend laws to define 'cause' for removing Fed governors or establish specific procedural steps. However, any such legislation would require a veto-proof majority of 67 Senate votes and 290 House votes. Given the current political landscape, achieving this threshold remains a significant hurdle for the Democratic-controlled legislative branch.
5Birthright Citizenship Ruling
The Supreme Court struck down Trump’s first executive order ending birthright citizenship, citing the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts affirmed that children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S. are citizens at birth. This ruling established a broad constitutional protection that limits the president's ability to restrict citizenship through executive orders.
6Second Citizenship Executive Order
In August 2026, Trump signed a second executive order targeting birthright citizenship for children of foreign embassy employees and international organization staff. The Department of Homeland Security implemented this via an interim final rule. Multiple legal challenges have emerged, arguing that this order similarly violates the 14th Amendment's established meaning of jurisdictional authority.
7Judicial Injunctions and Standing
Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction against the second order in the CASA v. Trump case, labeling it almost certainly unconstitutional. The government argues that plaintiffs lack standing because the order is prospective. Meanwhile, the ACLU filed a new case, Nathan v. Trump, to represent families affected by these specific citizenship restrictions.
8Tariff Authority Under IEEPA
In February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act exceeded his authority. The court found that the 1977 law did not grant the president power to impose such sweeping measures. This decision left unresolved questions regarding the refunding of over $200 billion in collected tariffs.
9Ongoing Tariff Refund Litigation
Litigation persists over how the government should refund importers who paid the invalidated tariffs. Judge Richard Eaton certified a class of importers seeking refunds, while the government argues that individual court orders are required for each claim. This dispute over universal injunctions remains a central point of contention in the trade-related legal proceedings.
10Section 122 Trade Tariffs
Following the IEEPA ruling, Trump imposed new tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, citing international payment problems. Courts initially blocked these, but the government appealed. These tariffs eventually expired in July 2026, yet the legal arguments regarding the president's authority to impose such surcharges continue to influence ongoing trade policy debates.
11Future Judicial Trajectory
The Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term established significant precedents regarding the limits of executive power. As the administration continues to test these boundaries through new rules and investigations, the judiciary will be forced to clarify the scope of presidential authority. These cases represent a fundamental struggle over the separation of powers in the U.S.
12Broader Institutional Implications
The persistence of these legal battles highlights the tension between executive ambition and constitutional constraints. Whether through the Federal Reserve, citizenship laws, or trade policy, the administration’s strategy involves repeated attempts to bypass judicial rulings. The ultimate resolution of these cases will define the extent of presidential influence for future administrations and institutions.
Original article: SCOTUSblog — Trump's Legal Battles Return to the Supreme Court