BRICS leaders slam Trump tariffs & unilateral sanctions, US President promises additional tariffs
Subsequently, US President Donald Trump snapped back at the statement, promising additional tariffs of 10 percent on 'any country aligning themselves with the Anti-American' policies of the grouping.
New Delhi: From condemning 'unilateral' sanctions to slamming tariffs, condemning the use of 'starvation' as a method of warfare as well as calling the airstrikes on Iran as a 'violation of international law', the BRICS leaders' statement, which India is a part of, has taken aim at a number of ongoing challenges.
'We call for the elimination of such unlawful measures, which undermine international law and the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. We reaffirm that BRICS member states do not impose or support non-UN Security Council authorized sanctions that are contrary to international law,' said the statement published Sunday.
The Leaders' Statement was published on the first day of the BRICS summit, hosted in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. It is the first summit with Indonesia as a member of the grouping, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran and the UAE.
The statement, which has found support from all 10 member-states, has commented on a number of current international issues, including the ongoing situation in West Asia, conflicts across the world, as well as economic matters.
The condemnation of the use of sanctions comes as both Russia and Iran–members of BRICS–are two of the most sanctioned countries in the world. The Western powers, particularly, the US and the European Union (EU), have imposed a number of sanctions on Moscow, following Russia's full-scale war with Ukraine. While the West has focused on reducing its dependence on Russian crude, India has become one of the largest buyers of energy from Moscow.
In the 2024-2025 financial year, India purchased roughly $56 billion worth of Russian energy, despite the prevailing Western sanctions on Moscow. New Delhi has maintained strong economic links with Russia, despite pressure from the US and the EU to cut off Moscow's economy due to the war with Ukraine.
Similarly China's own trade with Russia has grown since 2022. Iran, which faced a number of UN sanctions, saw the economic curbs lifted after it signed onto the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with the permanent five members of the UN Security Council along with the EU. However, in 2018, the US decided to walk out of the deal and unilaterally imposed a number of sanctions on Iran.
Most recently, the US bombed three Iranian nuclear sites–Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan–joining Israel in the 12-day conflict in West Asia that began 13 June. While India maintained that it was 'deeply concerned' by the situation, it did not outright condemn either Israel or the US for its strikes on Iran. New Delhi distanced itself from a statement made by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) condemning the strikes. However, it signed onto the BRICS statement on the situation in West Asia, and accepted the strong language in the Leaders' Statement.
'We condemn the military strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13 June 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and express grave concern over the subsequent escalation of the security situation in the Middle East,' the statement said.
'We further express serious concern over deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA. Nuclear safeguards, safety, and security must always be upheld, including in armed conflicts, to protect people and the environment from harm.'
Also Read: Trump says Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire on Gaza, urges Hamas to accept the deal
BRICS takes aim at Israel, condemns Pahalgam terrorist attack
Another area where the BRICS Leaders' Statement took strong exception to is the humanitarian situation in the Gaza strip. The roughly 20-month war between Israel and Hamas, has seen India defend Tel Aviv's right to self-defence, while maintaining its support for a two-state solution.
However, it has rarely commented on the humanitarian situation outside of sharing its deep concern. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had highlighted the situation in Gaza during his address to the summit.
'We reiterate our grave concern about the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, with the resumption of continuous Israeli attacks against Gaza and obstruction of the entry of humanitarian aid into the territory. We call for adherence to international law, in particular to international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and condemn all violations of IHL, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare. We also condemn attempts to politicize or militarize humanitarian assistance,' said the Leaders' Statement.
Israel blocked humanitarian aid from entering Gaza for roughly 11 weeks earlier this year, before attempting to set up its own humanitarian assistance programme through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The attempt to reroute aid through the GHF comes after Tel Aviv has asserted that the existing UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was supporting Hamas, the group which carried out the 7 October 2023 attacks.
While Hamas' attacks left over 1,150 Israelis dead and a further 250 captured, Tel Aviv's retaliation has killed roughly 56,000 Palestinians according to latest reports. South Africa, one of the founding members of the BRICS, has taken the issue to the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
The BRICS leaders' have called for an 'unconditional ceasefire' in Gaza, which is a change in India's position, as it has in the past voted against UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire for various reasons, including the lack of language for the release of hostages held by Hamas.
The 10-member grouping also condemned in 'strongest terms' the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which left 26 people dead on 22 April. The attack in India's Jammu and Kashmir, led to an 87-hour conflict between New Delhi and Islamabad. India has taken a number of punitive diplomatic measures against Pakistan, linking the Pahalgam attack to Islamabad. On 7 May, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting terrorist complexes in Pakistan, including Bahawalpur and Muridke.
The grouping also voiced 'serious concerns' over the unilateral tariffs imposed by the US in April, as a part of President Donald Trump's attempt to reduce trade deficits in America. Trump and his administration have taken exception to BRICS, with the US President threatening to impose high tariffs on BRICS member-states if they attempt to 'de-dollarise'. However, the April tariffs, which have since been paused, saw some of the highest duties imposed on BRICS member-states, including China.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Quad foreign ministers condemn Pahalgam attack, call for perpetrators to be brought to justice
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Economic Times
13 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Donald Trump vs U.S. Supreme Court - Full list of cases involving President before top court
Live Events Who is President of USA? President of USA is Donald Trump. When did Donald Trump take over as the US President? Donald Trump took over as the US President in January, 2025 (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The U.S. 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. These cases have involved his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, deportations, protected status for certain migrants, a transgender military ban, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, payments to foreign aid organizations and access to Social Security is a look at these 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."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 signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-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 U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18, finding that the administration's policy likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the SUDAN DEPORTATIONS The court on July 3 lifted limits Murphy had imposed to protect eight men who the administration sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan as part of its policy of deportations to "third countries." The court granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision on the matter also extended to the judge's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South 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 U.S. 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 parole is a form of temporary permission under U.S. 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 U.S. 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, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work 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."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 center 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 administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN The court on April 10 directed the 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, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens. Abrego had challenged the legality of his deportation. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego has pleaded not was 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 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 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 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 FEDERAL LAYOFFS The justices on July 8 cleared the way for the administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies. At the administration's request, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONERS The court on July 23 let Trump remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. It lifted U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka the Supreme Court indicated that the administration was likely to show that the president is empowered by the Constitution to remove members of the commission. In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the decision "all but overturned" a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency BOARD OFFICIALS The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate 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. Both were appointed to their posts by firings were part of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from presidential control. The May 22 decision also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. "We disagree," the court stated, calling the Fed "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity."FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees. 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 had 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 serving in new DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING The court on July 14 cleared the way for the administration to dismantle the Department of Education, part of Trump's bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states. The justices lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 department workers affected by mass layoffs and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out. The department was created by a law passed by Congress in RESEARCH GRANTS The administration asked the court on July 24 to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to U.S. National Institutes of Health grants as part of Trump's crackdown on diversity initiatives. It asked the justices to lift U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. Young acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical 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 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 states sued after the department 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 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 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 Justice Department's request, the justices put on hold U.S. 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 labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data 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 U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information. Cooper 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 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 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 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 ouster. 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. 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.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump vs U.S. Supreme Court - Full list of cases involving President before top court
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Who is President of USA? President of USA is Donald Trump. When did Donald Trump take over as the US President? Donald Trump took over as the US President in January, 2025 The U.S. 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. These cases have involved his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, deportations, protected status for certain migrants, a transgender military ban, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, payments to foreign aid organizations and access to Social Security is a look at these 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."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 signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-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 U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18, finding that the administration's policy likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the SUDAN DEPORTATIONS The court on July 3 lifted limits Murphy had imposed to protect eight men who the administration sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan as part of its policy of deportations to "third countries." The court granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision on the matter also extended to the judge's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South 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 U.S. 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 parole is a form of temporary permission under U.S. 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 U.S. 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, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work 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."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 center 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 administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN The court on April 10 directed the 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, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens. Abrego had challenged the legality of his deportation. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego has pleaded not was 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 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 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 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 FEDERAL LAYOFFS The justices on July 8 cleared the way for the administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies. At the administration's request, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONERS The court on July 23 let Trump remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. It lifted U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka the Supreme Court indicated that the administration was likely to show that the president is empowered by the Constitution to remove members of the commission. In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the decision "all but overturned" a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency BOARD OFFICIALS The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate 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. Both were appointed to their posts by firings were part of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from presidential control. The May 22 decision also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. "We disagree," the court stated, calling the Fed "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity."FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees. 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 had 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 serving in new DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING The court on July 14 cleared the way for the administration to dismantle the Department of Education, part of Trump's bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states. The justices lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 department workers affected by mass layoffs and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out. The department was created by a law passed by Congress in RESEARCH GRANTS The administration asked the court on July 24 to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to U.S. National Institutes of Health grants as part of Trump's crackdown on diversity initiatives. It asked the justices to lift U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. Young acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical 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 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 states sued after the department 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 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 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 Justice Department's request, the justices put on hold U.S. 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 labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data 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 U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information. Cooper 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 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 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 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 ouster. 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. 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.
