Deportations, firings and immigration: Legal clashes mount at US Supreme Court over Trump's post-return executive orders

Malay Mail

6 hours ago

WASHINGTON, June 29 — The US Supreme Court has acted in a series of cases involving challenges to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump and actions by his administration since he returned to office in January. Cases at the court have involved his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, deportations, protected status for certain migrants, Trump's transgender military ban, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, cuts to teacher training grants, payments to foreign aid organisations and access to Social Security data.
Here is a look at these cases.
Birthright citizenship
The justices on June 27 curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies in a ruling in the legal fight over Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The ruling did not let Trump's birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the order's legality. The decision granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out.
Demonstrators hold a banner reading 'MAGA Justices are taking away out hard-won freedoms. Fight Back.' after the US Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, outside the court in Washington, D.C. June 27, 2025. — Reuters pic
'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,' conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the decision.
Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder.
'Third country' deportations
The court on June 23 cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. The court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called 'third countries' get a 'meaningful opportunity' to tell US officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18, finding that the administration's policy likely violates due process requirements under the US Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the policy.
A person stands with a US flag attached to them, after the US Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, outside the court in Washington, D.C.June 27, 2025. — Reuters pic
Revoking immigration 'parole'
The court on May 30 let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration 'parole' granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out in lower courts.
Immigration parole is 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. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal.'
Protected status for Venezuelan migrants
The court on May 19 allowed the administration to end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States by Biden. It granted a Justice Department request to lift US District Judge Edward Chen's order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to terminate deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the temporary protected status, or TPS, programme while the administration pursues an appeal. The programme is a humanitarian designation under US law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work permits.
Chen had ruled that Noem violated a federal law that governs the actions of federal agencies. The judge also said the administration's portrayal of the whole Venezuelan TPS population as criminals was 'baseless and smacks of racism.'
Venezuelan migrants flown from Guantanamo Bay via Honduras, walk up a ladder after arriving on a deportation flight at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, La Guaira State, Venezuela, February 20, 2025. — Reuters pic
Deportation of Venezuelans
The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now. The action came after the court ordered on April 19 a temporary stop to the administration's deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention centre in Texas. The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law's use for this purpose is being contested. The justices required that detainees receive notice 'within a reasonable time and in such a manner' to challenge the legality of their removal. 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 organisation. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this allegation.
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 US 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 US District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to 'facilitate and effectuate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are US citizens, had challenged 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.' US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego Garcia had been flown back to the United States and that he would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego Garcia's lawyer called the criminal charges 'fantastical.'
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, wife of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant who lived in the US legally with a work permit and was erroneously deported to El Salvador, looks on during a press conference with other family members, supporters and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in Washington, D.C. April 9, 2025. — Reuters pic
Abrego Garcia was stopped and detained by US 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 organisation. 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.
Transgender military ban
The court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the US 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 US District Judge Benjamin Settle's nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump's policy.
A demonstrator holds up an anti-Trump sign outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court is to issue its final rulings on Friday ahead of its summer break, including cases involving birthright citizenship, porn site age verification, students and LGBTQ-themed content, and voting rights. — AFP pic
Settle had found that Trump's order likely violates the 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.
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, US 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.
Labour board officials
The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labour boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate Washington-based federal judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire. Their legal challenges are ongoing in lower courts. Both were appointed to their posts by Biden.
The legal fight over these firings 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 May 22 opinion also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardise the independence of the Federal Reserve. 'We disagree,' the court stated, calling the Fed 'a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.'
Teacher training grants
The justices on April 4 let Trump's administration 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 US 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 programmes while a legal challenge by the states continues.
The states sued after the Department of Education announced that it had cut US$600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called 'divisive ideologies' including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. The grant programmes 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 organisations 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 US District Judge Amir Ali's order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the US Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past work.
Aid organisations accused Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the US Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorised by Congress.
Recently fired US Agency for International Development (USAID) staff carry boxes with a message as they leave work and are applauded by former USAID staffers and supporters during a sendoff outside USAID offices in Washington, D.C. February 21, 2025. — Reuters pic
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 US 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 US Departments of Defence, 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.
Mass federal layoffs
The administration on June 2 asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. US District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale federal layoffs, known as 'reductions in force,' in a May 22 ruling siding with a group of unions, non-profit groups and local governments that challenged the administration. The case involves the US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, among others. Controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in a filing.
Social security data
The court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems. At the request of the Justice Department, the justices put on hold US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' in data such as medical and financial records while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE had been spearheaded by Elon Musk before the billionaire left the government and had a falling out with Trump. Two labour unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data systems.
A special police member monitors a protest, while inside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) building, the day after members of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) moved into the CFPB, in Washington February 8, 2025. — Reuters pic
DOGE transparency
The justices on June 6 extended their block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog advocacy group that sought details on its operations. The court on May 23 had issued a temporary pause. The justices put on hold US District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information. The judge had concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The administration contends DOGE is an advisory entity not subject to FOIA. The watchdog group said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations.
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 US 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 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Trump's action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers. — Reuters