Washington — More than 300 lawsuits challenging many of President Trump’s second-term plans and his administration’s actions have been winding through the federal courts over the past few months. But a handful now may be poised for review by the Supreme Court, or are getting close to it.
The cases involve major policies enacted by Mr. Trump in the months since he returned to the White House, and several of them have already been before the high court, though during earlier stages in the proceedings.
In those instances, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to grant it emergency relief, allowing it to enforce its immigration policies, in some instances, or terminate officials at independent agencies, in others.
In the wake of those interim decisions, lower courts have continued to hold proceedings and issue rulings addressing the merits of the Trump administration’s actions. If the Supreme Court agrees to step into these disputes, they will present the initial opportunities for the justices to address the legality of Mr. Trump’s plans.
“I’m expecting this to be the term of Trump,” Dan Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said of the new Supreme Court term set to begin Oct. 6.
The justices are already set to hear blockbuster cases on redistricting, campaign finance and state laws barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.
Many of the disputes involving Mr. Trump’s actions test the limits of the president’s power, and rulings could have massive implications for his policies on the economy and immigration, as well as his reshaping of the executive branch.
The Trump administration has sought emergency intervention from the Supreme Court roughly two dozen times so far, and it has fared well in its bids to continue enforcing its plans while legal challenges continue.
But whether the president will prevail when the Supreme Court examines the lawfulness of his actions remains to be seen. Still, in some instances — like his efforts to fire certain executive officers — the Supreme Court has signaled that Mr. Trump may have the power to terminate members of certain independent agencies.
“What’s at stake is the country’s commitment to the rule of law,” Epps said. He added that the new term could also bring a “huge sweeping victory” for executive power, particularly if the Supreme Court finds that courts should give broad deference to the president on matters like immigration.
Tariffs
The dispute over Mr. Trump’s tariffs imposed on nearly every U.S. trading partner will be the first in which the Supreme Court will decide the legality of one of Mr. Trump’s key policies.
The high court said Tuesday that it is taking up two cases involving the global tariffs, which question whether Mr. Trump has the power to impose the sweeping duties under a federal emergency powers law. The justices will hear arguments in early November, a rapid timeline for the court.
The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to step into the legal battle after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled late last month that many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs issued under the emergency powers law are illegal.
Termination of temporary legal protections for Venezuelan migrants
Soon after Mr. Trump took office, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took steps to end legal protections that had been granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants by the Biden administration through a program known as Temporary Protected Status.
In response to a lawsuit filed by the National TPS Alliance and seven individuals who were shielded from threat of deportation, a federal judge granted preliminary relief and postponed the date Noem’s plan was set to take effect.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to put that decision on hold while proceedings moved forward, but the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration emergency relief, allowing Noem to end the legal protections for now.
Alien Enemies Act removals
Mr. Trump issued a proclamation in March that invoked the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who are suspected of being members of the gang Tren de Aragua. The Trump administration has deported hundreds of migrants it claims are gang members under the wartime law, which gives the president the authority to remove citizens of a “hostile nation” if it is engaged in an “invasion or predatory incursion” of the U.S.
A “60 Minutes” investigation found that many migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act didn’t have criminal records.
Firings of members of independent agencies
Mr. Trump has spent his months back in the White House pushing the bounds of executive power, including by firing officials at independent agencies appointed by former President Joe Biden.
Mr. Trump’s attempts to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Federal Trade Commission, to name a few, have all led to legal challenges by the ousted officials.
In cases brought by Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris, members of the NLRB and MSPB, respectively, a lower court ordered them to be reinstated to their roles. Federal judges in Washington, D.C., ruled their firings violated federal laws that shielded them from being terminated without cause and cited a 1935 Supreme Court decision that said Congress could enact removal protections for members of multi-member boards that met certain criteria.
