Full List as Supreme Court Rules for Donald Trump 15 Times in a Row
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
In a sweeping series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court granted all 15 of President Donald Trump's emergency applications since April, enabling him to reshape the federal government with unprecedented speed.
From firing civil servants to gutting entire departments, the court's quiet assent is fueling a dramatic remaking of American governance.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court's emergency rulings are allowing Trump to rapidly reshape key federal institutions without full judicial review.
By granting stays and lifting injunctions—often without explanation—the court has enabled him to fire civil servants, restructure or eliminate agencies like the Department of Education and enforce controversial immigration policies.
The Supreme Court justices, including three nominated by Trump in a 6-3 conservative majority, have facilitated actions such as revoking legal protections for more than 1 million immigrants, dismissing thousands of federal employees, barring transgender individuals from military service, and replacing leaders of independent government agencies, among other measures, bypassing normal checks and balances, accelerating Trump's agenda while limiting transparency and oversight.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington.
Getty Images/AFP
What To Know
When June Grasso asked professor David Super of Georgetown Law on the July 16 Bloomberg Law podcast if Trump could effectively dismantle the Department of Education, he replied: "What has certainly been done is that given the court's previous rulings for Trump, especially last week's ruling that allowed the administration to begin mass firings at federal agencies, this one came without any explanation at all.
"What the court's done in prior cases upholding the administration is nitpick the challengers to death finding small, often semantic defect in what they've done, construing jurisdiction extraordinarily strictly.
"But in this case, they simply allowed the president to go forward with activities that seem patently illegal without giving any explanation as to why it was acceptable."
Here's a consolidated summary of the 15 emergency rulings granted by the U.S. Supreme Court since April in response to Trump's applications, with vote details where available:
1. Federal Workforce Reductions
Trump v. AFGE
Issue: Nationwide injunction blocked mass federal worker terminations.
Nationwide injunction blocked mass federal worker terminations. Supreme Court Vote: 6-3, Justices Sotomayor, Brown Jackson and Kagan dissented.
Justices Sotomayor, Brown Jackson and Kagan dissented. Result: Injunction stayed; Trump allowed to proceed with cuts.
2. Education Department Reinstatements
McMahon v. New York
Issue: Required rehiring of Education Department officials.
Required rehiring of Education Department officials. Supreme Court Vote: 5-4 .
. Result: Lower court order paused, enabling Trump to proceed with agency overhaul.
3. Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Trump v. CASA
Issue: Trump seeks to end birthright citizenship via executive order.
Trump seeks to end birthright citizenship via executive order. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, emergency stay granted.
emergency stay granted. Result: Injunctions lifted; birthright citizenship restrictions allowed to proceed pending appeal.
4. DHS Deportation Policy
DHS v. D.V.D.
Issue: Blocked deportations without torture risk assessments.
Blocked deportations without torture risk assessments. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified .
. Result: Deportations resumed under revised policy.
5. Labor Board Reinstatements
Trump v. Wilcox
Issue: Removal of NLRB and MSPB members challenged.
Removal of NLRB and MSPB members challenged. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, stay granted.
stay granted. Result: Trump removals upheld for now.
6. DHS Parole Policy Repeal
Noem v. Doe
Issue: End of categorical parole for certain nationalities.
End of categorical parole for certain nationalities. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified .
. Result: Trump policy allowed to proceed.
7. Social Security Access Limits
SSA v. AFSCME
Issue: Restricted union access to SSA systems.
Restricted union access to SSA systems. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified .
. Result: Restriction allowed to take effect.
8. DOGE FOIA Disclosures
U.S. Doge Service v. CREW
Issue: FOIA request for DOGE-related records.
FOIA request for DOGE-related records. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified .
. Result: Disclosure blocked pending further review.
9. Immigration Removals to Third Countries
Trump v. J.G.G.
Issue: Deportation under Alien Enemies Act.
Deportation under Alien Enemies Act. Supreme Court Vote: 5-4 .
. Result: Deportations permitted.
10. Deportation Notice Requirements
W.M.M. v. Trump
Issue: Due process in deportation to unsafe nations.
Due process in deportation to unsafe nations. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, remanded for notice standards.
remanded for notice standards. Result: Some removals delayed pending notice review.
11. Firing of Federal Watchdog
Bessent v. Dellinger
Issue: Independent oversight official terminated.
Independent oversight official terminated. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, stay lifted.
stay lifted. Result: Trump firing allowed.
12. Education Grant Rule Reversal
Education Department v. California
Issue: Funding obligations reinstated by lower court.
Funding obligations reinstated by lower court. Supreme Court Vote: 6-3 .
. Result: Reinstatement order blocked.
13. CDC Parole Program Rollback
Noem v. National TPS Alliance
Issue: Removal of TPS status for Venezuelans.
Removal of TPS status for Venezuelans. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified .
. Result: TPS rollbacks allowed.
14. Judicial Reinstatement for State Representative
Libby v. Fecteau
Issue: State court removed lawmaker over "insurrection" claim.
State court removed lawmaker over "insurrection" claim. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified .
. Result: Reinstatement ordered.
15. Alien Enemies Deportation Procedure
A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Issue: Minimum due-process rights before removal.
Minimum due-process rights before removal. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, emergency stay modified, requiring basic notice.
emergency stay modified, requiring basic notice. Result: Deportations can proceed with notice safeguards.
What People Are Saying
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, was asked on June Grasso's July 16 Bloomberg Law podcast: "Can you hazard a guess as to why they're giving Trump everything he wants? Are they just throwing up their hands and saying he's the president?"
Super: "Well, the chief justice has long been known for wanting to present as united a court as possible. I'm guessing that the chief justice has reached the point of despairing of getting his colleagues to join him and is not eager to override the administration on bare 5-4 or 6-3 votes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
9 minutes ago
- Forbes
Go Back To The Office, But Bring Your Own Snacks. Blame Congress.
I ncreasingly, companies have been asking (or demanding) that employees return to the office, claiming that it fosters a stronger company culture and enhances productivity. To woo employees back, or to make sure they're not angry/hangry when ordered back, companies have been expanding perks such as on-site gyms, childcare facilities, and, of course, free food and beverages. Beginning January 1, the food part will be more expensive for employers, meaning more of them could revert to B.Y.O.S (Bring Your Own Snacks). Congressional Republicans, who extended so many other tax breaks (and added some new ones) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) President Donald Trump signed on July 4th, decided they would allow a current deduction for employers who provide meals and snacks to expire—except that is, for certain employees, such as those working in restaurants and in Alaskan fishing vessels and fish processing facilities. (No, we're not making it up. The fishy part was one of the concessions Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski extracted from her Republican colleagues for her crucial support.) Before Trump's first term tax cuts—the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—employers who provided meals for their employees—and the employees who benefited from them—were entitled to tax breaks under one of two sections of the tax code. Under section 119 of the tax code, employees are not taxed on on-site meals provided by employers for the employer's convenience. For tax purposes, whether meals are for the convenience of the employer depends on all the facts and circumstances, but typically means that there's a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay (the exclusion doesn't apply to cash allowances instead of meals). So feeding employees who would otherwise be gone too long at distant lunch spots would be deductible for the employer and not taxed to the worker. Even if the meals couldn't be considered for the employer's convenience, they might still be tax-favored under Section 132(e) of the tax code as a de minimis fringe benefit—something so small or inconsequential as to not be worthy of attention. For tax purposes, it means something that has so little value that accounting for it would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable. Typically, this includes items such as coffee, doughnuts, or soft drinks, as well as occasional meals provided to allow employees to work overtime (although how coffee could be considered so inconsequential as not to be worthy of attention is a mystery to me). The de minimis exclusion also applied in most cases to restaurants' staff meals—the kind you see in The Bear . (Technically, it's deductible if the facility's annual revenue equals or exceeds its direct operating costs. Direct operating costs include the cost of food, beverages, and labor costs for cooks and waitstaff, and others who provide services primarily on the premises.) Note that the meals that qualified for the convenience of the employer and the food provided under the de minimis fringe benefit weren't (and still won't be) taxable to the employees. That was a win-win, since employees were not taxed on the perk and employers got a deduction. Trump 1.0: TCJA The TCJA made several changes to the tax treatment of meals and entertainment expenses. Entertainment expenses were disallowed. Plus, that 2017 law created section 274(o), which, beginning in 2026, disallows 100% of the deduction for expenses for food or beverages provided to employees, as well as expenses for the operation of certain eating facilities for employees. As part of the Congressional pattern of frontloading tax goodies and backloading tax pain, the TCJA provided that through 2025, 50% of the cost of on-site employee meals would be deductible (provided it was for the employer's convenience). And, although de minimis snacks aren't considered meals, they were also 50% deductible under the TCJA rules. Trump 2.0: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act The new tax law extended many expiring tax provision in TCJA, but did not extend the rules that had temporarily allowed deductions for snacks and employer convenience perks. Both are now set to expire at the end of the year, which means that U.S. companies that provide snacks, coffee, or on-site meals at the office will no longer receive a tax deduction for doing so. You might think that it was just an oops—that Congress forgot that the provision might expire. But that's not the case. OBBBA didn't roll back the provision for all industries—two notable exceptions have been carved out. One exception applies to very specific businesses—those on a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, or fish tender vessel, or at a facility for the processing of fish for commercial use or consumption located in the U.S. north of 50 degrees north latitude, and is not located in a metropolitan statistical area. It might not surprise you to learn that the only state north of 50 degrees north latitude is Alaska. Notably, the lobster industry wasn't similarly spared; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was a no vote on OBBBA. A second exception applies to establishments that sell food and beverages to customers and also provide meals to their employees—in other words, restaurants. The restaurant industry can continue deducting employee meal expenses for kitchen and waitstaff. As for everybody else? Businesses outside of the Alaskan fishing industry and restaurants may be out of luck now, but Congress apparently thinks it's worth it. The Joint Committee on Taxation found that eliminating the deduction will raise $32.5 billion over the next decade. That might not seem like a lot of money in a law that includes tax cuts that will reduce federal revenues by $4.475 trillion between 2025 and 2034. But consider this: The $25,000 tax deduction for tips, which lasts only through 2028, costs just $32 billion. And here's the weird part, the cost of throwing holiday parties for employees will still be 100% deductible. As for business meals—if say, an employee is taking a potential client to dinner—that is now, and will still be, 50% deductible. Will Employers Care About A Deduction Lost? Food at the office can be a big draw for employees. A 2023 survey found that 80% of workers say catered meals encourage them to come into the office. And anyone who is a regular reader knows that the pull of free coffee and a snack can get me in the door. Plus, let's face it: Sometimes the little, consumable things make a big difference, with 98% of employees saying free meals at work made them feel appreciated. Nearly two-thirds of those who receive free meals say it helps them eat healthier food, and over half (55%) of those who don't receive free meals say they would feel less stressed if they did. For employers, the small act of providing food to busy employees goes a long way towards retention. The survey—which we should point out was sponsored by EZCater, which delivers food to workplaces—found that seven out of ten tax professionals said they'd be more likely to stay at their company if they received free meals during the busy season. On the employer side, investing in employees' meals benefits overall well-being, work performance, and, importantly, employee retention. How much difference will the loss of the tax deduction make? That remains to be seen, but no doubt some employers will be putting out the B.Y.O.S. sign. More from Forbes Forbes IRS Issues Guidance On New Deductions For Seniors, Tips, Overtime And Car Interest By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes Questions About The New Tax Bill? Taxgirl Has Answers By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes This Barely Used Child Care Tax Break For Employers Just Got An Overhaul By Danielle Chemtob
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nova Scotia vowed to stop spending in the U.S. Here's how that's going
As U.S. President Donald Trump released his latest threat of a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian goods starting Aug. 1, Premier Tim Houston issued a statement calling the announcement from the White House "childish bullying" and said provincial procurement measures will stay in place. In February the province said it would "limit access" to provincial procurement for American businesses. Last week the province made data available to CBC News showing a breakdown of public tenders since last November by the winning vendor's location. Out of 1,226 tenders awarded between Nov. 1, 2024, and June 19, 2025, 966 of them — or about 79 per cent — went to companies that said they were based in Nova Scotia. Twelve per cent, or 146 tenders, went to Ontario companies. Companies based in the United States were awarded 21 tenders — just under two per cent. One tender was awarded to a company based in Berlin. Contracts include hospital food, pump track Of the 21 contracts that went to suppliers based in the U.S., the largest was for just over $1 million to Sara Lee Frozen Bakery of Illinois, to supply food for health-care facilities starting in April 2025. That contract was procured by a group purchasing body that works for hospitals across Canada. Some other examples of public tenders that went to American companies included $539,000 to a Colorado firm to provide short-term rental compliance and monitoring services to the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and a Halifax contract worth $535,000 for a Missouri company to design and build a pump track for cycling in Bedford. In April, the province told CBC it had backed away from 11 contracts worth about $130,000. However, Premier Tim Houston defended sticking with an American company that was awarded a $70-million contract to work on the Macdonald bridge spanning Halifax harbour, saying there is no local option to do the work. MORE TOP STORIES Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Everyone Hates Alina Habba So Much She's About to Be Out of a Job
Alina Habba, Trump's shamelessly biased personal lawyer, will soon be out of the job he gave her. The president appointed Habba, who defended him in his hush-money and E. Jean Carroll defamation cases, as interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey in March. The role was for 120 days, allowing Habba to bypass Senate confirmation. But those 120 days are up next Tuesday, and all signs currently point to Habba not getting officially confirmed, as New Jersey Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker have sworn to block her nomination. A source close to the situation told The New Jersey Globe that Habba admitted to her staff on Thursday that she's not sure what's next. 'I don't know what's going to happen, and I'm grateful for my time. This is an amazing office, and I hope I can stay,' she reportedly said. The end of Habba's DA tenure prevents one of Trump's most ardent supporters from grasping even more power. Her history indicates that she would have only used her role to blindly carry out the president's agenda. In October, amid the tragedy of Hurricane Helene, Habba falsely claimed that the Biden-Harris administration left 'babies floating in the water.' Fox News of all outlets checked her live on air. When Trump fell fast asleep during his own trial, Habba chalked it up to him having tired eyes. 'President Trump, he reads a lot,' she said. 'He's been sitting there, as he's forced to, at the threat of going to jail if he's not sitting there, for what I assume would be a very mundane day.' She demonstrated a shocking lack of legal expertise at that same trial when she clearly misunderstood what 'due process' entailed. And in March, she said that the thousands of military veterans that DOGE fired were simply unfit. New Jersey seems to be safe from Habba's sheer incompetence for the time being. Only time will tell if she remains in Trump's orbit or fades into MAGA obscurity. Solve the daily Crossword
