The Trump administration has been frequently turning to the Supreme Court as lower court judges continue to block various aspects of its agenda.
On average, the administration has filed emergency appeals with the nation’s highest court approximately once a week since President Trump began his second term.
These appeals do not seek final rulings but rather request immediate orders that set interim rules while cases progress through the judicial system.
So far, the justices have issued orders in eleven cases, with the administration achieving a greater number of victories than losses.
For example, one significant victory allowed the enforcement of a ban on military service by transgender individuals, while a notable loss involved the prohibition of deportations under the Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelans accused of gang activities.
The administration’s most recent emergency filing, submitted on May 27, is tied to a deportation case concerning a flight bound for South Sudan.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Boston found that the Trump administration had violated a previous order by executing deportations of individuals who were not native to South Sudan, raising concerns about their safety upon arrival.
Judge Murphy emphasized the need for these individuals to be given an opportunity to express any fears regarding potential danger in being sent to South Sudan.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, has requested a high court order to allow deportations to proceed while this legal matter is debated.
The administration argues that the judge’s ruling is obstructing an already complex diplomatic process necessary to deport individuals who cannot be returned to their home countries.
As the legal battle continues, attorneys for the deported individuals have until Wednesday to file their responses.
Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was previously overseen by Elon Musk—an adviser to President Trump—faces a lawsuit that calls for greater transparency regarding its operations.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) contends that DOGE qualifies as a federal agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and must disclose information about its activities.
CREW emphasizes the considerable power DOGE holds without adequate transparency concerning its decisions and actions.
The Trump administration, however, maintains that DOGE functions merely as a presidential advisory body, thereby exempt from FOIA requirements.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper has indicated that DOGE’s role may extend beyond mere advisory, particularly in facilitating significant government changes, including the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development and notable reductions in government contracts.
Following the judge’s ruling, the administration has appealed decisions that mandate the release of documents and require acting Administrator Amy Gleason to respond to inquiries under oath.
Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts granted a temporary pause on these judicial orders while additional considerations from the Supreme Court are pending.
Moreover, the Trump administration faced another setback when a judge limited DOGE’s access to Social Security systems, citing concerns over privacy.
Social Security encompasses sensitive personal information for nearly all U.S. citizens, including educational records, financial details, and medical histories for disability beneficiaries.
The administration argued that access to Social Security data was necessary for DOGE’s mission to identify waste in federal programs.
However, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland ruled against access, stating that DOGE’s inquiries constituted a “fishing expedition” lacking sufficient evidence of fraud.
Sauer has argued that this restriction is impeding DOGE’s work and interfering with executive branch responsibilities.
The Supreme Court may decide to intervene and block the Hollander ruling, allowing DOGE to pursue its objectives without judicial barriers.
Another significant legal challenge involves Trump’s executive order aimed at altering long-standing citizenship rules.
Immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration attempted to implement changes that would deny citizenship to children born to undocumented or temporarily present individuals.
Various judges quickly issued injunctions to block this executive order from taking effect nationwide.
The administration has appealed against three separate court rulings that have halted these changes on a nationwide scale.
In May, the justices heard arguments in an uncommon emergency appeal concerning this matter.
While the outcome remains uncertain, the court appeared reluctant to allow the executive order to take effect while seeking a possible alternative legal approach to the nationwide injunctions.
Numerous judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since the start of Trump’s second term, indicating how these injunctions have become a significant hurdle for the administration’s broader goals of government reform.
As the Supreme Court considers the various legal pleas submitted by the Trump administration, they could issue decisions as early as this summer, influencing the landscape of several contentious issues.
image source from：https://www.pennlive.com/politics/2025/06/what-cases-are-left-on-the-supreme-courts-emergency-docket-heres-a-look.html
