Trump’s lawyers anxiously await Supreme Court decision on judicial power

By Paula Reid and Casey Gannon, CNN

(CNN) — Over the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will release its final opinions of the term, including a decision that could help define the extent of President Donald Trump’s executive authority.

Justices traditionally release their most significant opinions in late June, and Trump lawyers are watching closely to see what they say about how much power lower court judges have to block the president’s policies for the entire country.

“That is going to be huge for us,” a senior administration official told CNN.

In May the court heard arguments about nationwide injunctions that allow a single judge to block a policy for the entire country. The issue arises from an appeal challenging rulings that have blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, the long-standing practice based in the 14th Amendment of granting citizenship to any child born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, but the decision will have enormous implications for Trump’s entire agenda.

“This impacts what we can do for hiring, budgets, everything,” the official said.

Trump has issued more than 200 executive actions since returning to the White House — more than any other president — but judges have blocked dozens of them, including his policies on mass layoffs, deportations and funding priorities.

At oral arguments last month, the justices appeared open to lifting the nationwide orders blocking Trump from enforcing his birthright citizenship policy, but they appeared to be still working through the practical implications of allowing the government to deny citizenship to people born in the US.

While recent presidents of both parties have dealt with nationwide injunctions, Trump is facing a record number, which is why this issue has become a priority for him and his Republican allies in Congress.

“He was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the United States citizens to be our commander in chief and that’s what he’s been doing,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Fox News in April. “Just since January 20, we’ve had over 170 lawsuits filed against us. That should be the constitutional crisis right there.”

But supporters of the injunctions say preventing judges from blocking policies while litigation plays out means that actions of questionable legality or constitutionality could be in effect for years before the Supreme Court ever considers them.

Nationwide injunctions started being implemented around 1963 and were used sparingly until the modern era, when judges began using them to block presidents of both parties, the Justice Department says.

During the Supreme Court arguments on injunctions, Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave Solicitor General D. John Sauer pushback when questioning him on why injunctions should not be used to block a policy.

“The president is violating not just one, but in my count, four established Supreme Court precedents,” Sotomayor said when addressing Sauer. “And you are claiming that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive, universally, from violating those holdings.”

The case originated from three separate challenges to Trump’ executive order ending birthright citizenship, which he issued on his first day in office. The lawsuits were brought by Democratic-led states, immigrant advocacy groups and pregnant individuals whose children could be denied citizenship under Trump’s new policy. They argue the policy is blatantly unconstitutional, which is why an injunction was necessary.

Another case at the top of the Supreme Court’s docket this term is gender-affirming care for minors. The case was brought to the high court by parents and advocates after Tennessee banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Challengers to the Tennessee ban were previously backed by the Biden administration when arguments in the case were heard in December 2024, but the Trump administration withdrew from the case in February.

The court has already taken up several emergency appeals from the administration in the first few months of Trump’s second term. The Supreme Court has sided with the administration on several items on its agenda, including allowing the Pentagon to enforce a ban on transgender service members and allowing Trump to continue rapid deportations under the Alien Enemies Act for now.

Another closely watched case deals with mass layoffs, which is one of the most significant cases on Trump’s agenda, according to a senior administration official. The case originated from an executive order Trump signed in February that would allow him to drastically reduce the size of over a dozen federal agencies. A lawsuit in opposition to the order was filed by over a dozen unions, non-profits and local governments. A federal judge in California blocked the executive order and an appeals court declined to intervene. The Supreme Court has yet to rule.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.