Supreme Court Being Sued?
Segment # 433
The Trump Administration must and will do everything in their power to oppose the lawfare imposed by the Dems and their left leaning judges to limit the power of the Executive Branch and to obstruct Trump’s agenda. This is a multi front war being waged at a very high level. I have described the battlefield below. It is constantly shifting and evolving with many wondering whether we are heading towards a constitutional crisis.
America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal group founded by Stephen Miller, has filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in his capacity as head of the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Here’s a concise overview based on the latest information:
Key Details
Plaintiff: America First Legal, not Stephen Miller personally.
Defendant: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., representing the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office.
Claims:
AFL argues that these judicial bodies engage in non-judicial activities, like communicating with Democratic lawmakers about ethics concerns involving Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.
They demand these entities be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for transparency.
The lawsuit suggests these bodies should face greater executive branch oversight, claiming they act like a political entity.
Goal: The suit appears to challenge judicial independence, potentially aiming to influence court operations or gather information to support the Trump administration’s agenda, such as countering judicial blocks on policies like mass deportations.
Filing Date: Reports indicate the lawsuit was filed recently, with coverage emerging around January 2025.
Context
Legal Viability: Experts, like UCLA’s Blake Emerson, call the claims “outlandish,” warning that success could undermine judicial independence by giving the executive branch control over court operations. Most analysts view it as unlikely to succeed.
Broader Strategy: The lawsuit aligns with tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, especially after court rulings against certain executive actions.
Clarifications
Not Suing the Supreme Court Directly: The lawsuit targets administrative judicial bodies under Roberts’ oversight, not the Supreme Court’s judicial functions or its justices as a whole.
No Supreme Court Case Yet: This is a federal lawsuit, not a case currently before the Supreme Court. It’s likely filed in a lower court (specific court not specified in sources).
Current Status Summary Congressional Legislation
House: The No Rogue Rulings Act passed but awaits Senate action, with low chances of passage due to Democratic opposition.
Senate: Hawley’s and Grassley’s bills are introduced or planned but have not advanced. Hearings occurred, but no votes are scheduled.
Likelihood of Enactment: Slim, given the Senate’s filibuster and partisan divide. Democrats’ proposal to delay limits until 2029 (post-Trump) further complicates bipartisan agreement.
Alternative: Congressional inaction may shift focus to the Supreme Court, which could rule injunctions unconstitutional or limit their scope, potentially mooting legislative efforts.
National Injunctions Imposed by District Judges During Trump’s Second Term
Exact figures for nationwide injunctions against the Trump Administration during the second term (January 20, 2025–present) vary across sources due to differences in counting methods, terminology (e.g., including temporary restraining orders or administrative stays), and the ongoing nature of litigation. Below is a synthesis of the most reliable data from legal studies and recent media reports, focusing specifically on nationwide (or universal) injunctions issued by federal district judges as of May 11, 2025.
Nationwide Injunctions in Trump’s Second Term
Harvard Law Review (2024) Context: A 2024 study reported 79 total nationwide injunctions against both Trump terms, with 64 from the first term (2017–2021), implying at least 15 in the second term by April 2025. This is supported by a Fox News report citing the same figure.
Politico (March 2025): Reported 15 nationwide injunctions in February 2025 alone, suggesting a high rate early in the term.
CBS News (March 2025): Noted at least 12 nationwide injunctions among over 100 lawsuits by March 2025, though this may exclude some temporary orders.
AEI (March 2025): Estimated injunctions in about 40 cases, including some non-universal injunctions and TROs, with at least 8 by Republican-appointed judges. This suggests 15–20 nationwide injunctions when excluding non-universal orders.
The New York Times (May 2025): Referenced specific cases (e.g., birthright citizenship, DEI programs) but didn’t provide a total count, implying ongoing judicial activity.
Axios (March 2025): Confirmed at least 15 universal injunctions by March 27, 2025, aligning with other sources.
Congress.gov (March 2025): Referenced injunctions through March 27, 2025, but didn’t specify a count, supporting the timeline of judicial activity.
Best Estimate
Total Nationwide Injunctions: Approximately 15–20 nationwide injunctions have been issued by federal district judges against Trump’s second-term policies as of May 11, 2025.
The lower bound (15) is consistently reported by multiple sources (Politico, Axios, Harvard Law Review) for February–March 2025.
The upper bound (20) accounts for additional injunctions in April–May 2025, as implied by ongoing litigation (e.g., The New York Times cases) and AEI’s broader estimate.
District Judges Involved: At least 7–15 judges, based on named judges (e.g., Deborah Boardman, John Coughenour, James Boasberg, John D. Bates) and estimates of overlap (some judges issued multiple injunctions).
Key Cases: Injunctions targeted policies like ending birthright citizenship (blocked by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington), banning transgender military service, firing federal workers, and restricting DEI programs.
Partisan Breakdown: At least 8 injunctions were issued by Republican-appointed judges (including one Trump appointee), with the rest likely by Democratic-appointed judges, though exact numbers are unclear.
Critical Notes
Counting Challenges: Sources differ on whether TROs or administrative stays count as “nationwide injunctions.” The Harvard Law Review excludes TROs, which may lower its count compared to AEI’s broader estimate.
Context: The high number reflects Trump’s unprecedented 107+ executive orders in 2025, many legally contentious (e.g., birthright citizenship, Alien Enemies Act deportations). This contrasts with 162 for Biden’s full term.
Partisanship: While 92.2% of first-term injunctions were by Democratic-appointed judges, the second term shows more bipartisan rulings, with Republican judges also blocking policies.
Legal Debate: Nationwide injunctions are controversial, with critics citing judge shopping and judicial overreach, and supporters arguing they prevent unconstitutional harm. The Supreme Court is reviewing their legality, with arguments scheduled for May 15, 2025.
Data Limitations: No source provides a definitive judge-by-judge list or an exact count past March 27, 2025. The 15–20 range is a reasoned estimate based on consistent reporting and ongoing trends.
Sources
Harvard Law Review, April 2024
Fox News, March 17, 2025
AEI, March 21, 2025
Politico, March 13 & April 21, 2025
CBS News, March 22, 2025
Axios, March 23, 2025
The New York Times, May 9, 2025
Congress.gov, March 27, 2025
Trump Cases Before the Supreme Court
TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN
The court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, letting the armed forces discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. The court granted the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle's nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump's policy.
Settle had found that Trump's order likely violates the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Justice Department had said Settle usurped the authority of the government's branch of government - headed by Trump - to determine who may serve in the military.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
In the case before Settle, seven active-duty transgender troops, a transgender man seeking to enlist and a civil rights advocacy group sued over the ban. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes also issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's ban while that litigation proceeds, though that order was later put on hold.
The Supreme Court did not resolve the legal merits of the dispute. The litigation will continue in lower courts and could return to the justices in the future.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
The justices decided to hear arguments on May 15 over Trump's bid to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, a key pillar of his hardline approach toward immigration. The court did not immediately act on a request by Trump's administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges that halted his executive order while the matter is litigated.
00:10AI-generated man addresses his killer in court
The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard
Trump's order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. In a series of lawsuits, plaintiffs including Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates and some expectant mothers argued that Trump's order violates a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS
The court on April 19 temporarily barred Trump's administration from deporting Venezuelan men in immigration custody after their lawyers said they were at imminent risk of removal without the judicial review previously mandated by the justices. The administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department as designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this allegation.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union had filed urgent requests in multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, urging immediate action after reporting that some of the men were loaded onto buses and told they would be deported. The ACLU said the rapid developments meant the administration was poised to deport the men using a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act that historically has been employed only in wartime without affording them a realistic opportunity to contest their removal - as the Supreme Court had previously required.
The Supreme Court on April 7 issued a decision allowing the administration to remove Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act but specified that "notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs." Habeas corpus relief refers to the right of detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. It is considered a bedrock right under U.S. law.
REVOKING IMMIGRATION 'PAROLE'
Trump's administration asked the court on May 8 to intervene in its bid to revoke the temporary legal status granted by his predecessor Joe Biden to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The dispute involves immigration "parole," a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. After Trump called for ending these programs in an executive order, the Department of Homeland Security moved to terminate the programs including cutting short the two-year parole grants for about 400,000 people. The administration asked the justices to put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting its move to terminate the immigration parole.
PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS
Trump's administration on May 1 asked the court to allow it to strip temporary protected status from more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants, a move that would clear the way for their deportation. The Justice Department asked the justices to put on hold U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's order that halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to terminate the temporary legal status previously was granted to some Venezuelans by former President Joe Biden's administration.
Chen said Noem's actions appear to have been predicated on "negative stereotypes" by insinuating the migrants were criminals. "Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan TPS population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes," Chen wrote, adding that Venezuelan TPS holders were more likely to hold bachelor's degrees than American citizens and less likely to commit crimes than the general U.S. population.
WRONGLY DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN
The court on April 10 directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the U.S. government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador. The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Xinis had issued the order in response to a lawsuit by Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and has had a work permit since 2019, and his family challenging the legality of his deportation.
The court said that the judge's order "properly requires the government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." While siding with Abrego Garcia, the court told Xinis to clarify the order's requirement to "effectuate" his return "with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
Abrego Garcia was stopped and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and questioned about alleged affiliation with the criminal gang MS-13, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. His lawyers have denied the alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on March 15 on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador that also included Venezuelan migrants. El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, said during a meeting with Trump on April 14 that he had no plans to return Abrego Garcia to the United States.
LABOR BOARD OFFICIALS
The court on April 9 cleared the way for Trump to remove Democratic members of two federal labor boards for the time being, putting on hold a pair of judicial orders that had shielded them from dismissal. The court halted the orders by two federal judges that blocked Trump's firing of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire. The court's action, called an administrative stay, gave it additional time to consider the administration's formal request to block the judges' orders while litigation over the firings continues.
The legal fight over these firings has emerged as an important test of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from the president's direct control. It could also prompt the justices to rein in or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency officials. The dispute, for instance, has potential implications for the independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
TEACHER TRAINING GRANTS
The justices on April 4 allowed Trump's administration to proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants - part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's March 10 order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate in eight Democratic-led states funding for grants under two teacher training programs while a legal challenge by the states continues. The court said that the administration is "likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money," as occurred in this case.
The states sued after the Department of Education announced that it had cut $600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called "divisive ideologies" including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI.
The Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator grant programs were established to help support institutions that recruit and train educators in a bid to address critical teacher shortages, especially in rural and underserved communities.
PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS
The court on March 5 declined to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world. The court upheld U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past work.
Aid organizations accused Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorized by Congress.
FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, acting in one dispute over his efforts to slash the federal workforce and dismantle parts of the government. The court put on hold U.S. Judge William Alsup's March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues. Alsup's ruling applied to probationary employees at the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury. Probationary workers typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees in serving new roles.
SOCIAL SECURITY DATA
The Trump administration asked the court on May 2 to allow the entity called the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Trump's billionaire ally Elon Musk, unfettered access to Social Security Administration data of millions of Americans. The Justice Department asked the justices to put on hold U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that halted the agency from giving DOGE access after she found that the data-sharing arrangement likely violated a federal privacy law. DOGE has been instrumental in Trump's actions to downsize and reshape the federal government. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data systems.
FIRED WATCHDOG AGENCY HEAD
The court on February 21 declined to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge's order had temporarily blocked the president from ousting the official. The court postponed action on the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 12 order that had temporarily blocked Trump's removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel while litigation continued in the dispute. Dellinger on March 6 ended his legal challenge to his firing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Trump's action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers.