President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second term issuing an unprecedented volume of executive orders aimed at rapidly advancing his policy agenda, including sweeping reductions to federal agencies, a hardline immigration crackdown, and the use of emergency authority to impose broad tariffs on U.S. trading partners.
The pace of Trump’s executive actions has exceeded that of recent presidents, allowing the administration to act quickly on campaign promises, Fox News reported.
The aggressive strategy has also triggered a flood of lawsuits, setting up a series of high-stakes legal battles over the scope of presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution and the role of the courts in reviewing executive action.
Legal challenges have targeted some of Trump’s most consequential orders, including efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, bar transgender service members from the military, implement sweeping government cuts overseen by the Department of Government Efficiency, and federalize and deploy National Guard troops.
Many of those legal disputes remain unresolved.
Only a limited number of cases tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a reality legal experts say is significant as the administration continues to push forward.
WINS
Limits on nationwide injunctions
In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the Trump administration in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case addressing whether federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential executive orders.
Although the case arose from Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, the justices narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts to issue universal injunctions and did not rule on the constitutionality of the order itself.
The decision carried sweeping implications, affecting more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s second-term executive actions.
The court agreed with arguments from U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who told the justices that nationwide injunctions exceed the traditional bounds of equitable authority under Article III and create serious practical problems.
Firing independent agency heads
The Supreme Court has also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.
Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower court orders that had reinstated National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, both Democratic appointees removed by the administration.
The move suggested the court may reconsider Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that limits a president’s ability to remove leaders of certain independent federal agencies without cause.
In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case centered on Trump’s effort to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission.
Several justices appeared inclined to allow the firing and further weaken Humphrey’s protections, though the scope of any ruling remains uncertain.
LOSSES
Tariffs
Trump’s use of emergency authority to impose sweeping tariffs has faced significant skepticism from legal experts and members of the Supreme Court.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, challengers argue the administration improperly relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact a 10 percent tariff on most imports.
The statute grants the president broad economic authority during national emergencies tied to foreign threats, but justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether such conditions exist.
Several justices also noted the law does not explicitly authorize tariffs or taxes.
Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court has agreed to review President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.
The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to parents who are in the country illegally or who hold temporary legal status.
Critics argue the move would upend nearly 150 years of constitutional precedent tied to the 14th Amendment.
The order triggered a wave of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of states and immigrant advocacy groups.
To date, no court has accepted the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.