Supreme Court interim orders involving the Trump administration, 2025-2026

Supreme Court interim orders involving the Trump administration, 2025-2026 - Ballotpedia
×
Sign up to receive Ballotpedia's daily newsletter
Email *
First Name
Please complete the Captcha above
×
Ballotpedia on Facebook
Share this page
Follow Ballotpedia
×
Ballotpedia on Twitter
Share this page
Follow Ballotpedia
Subscribe
-->
Donate
Subscribe -->
Subscribe -->
Donate -->
-->
-->
-->
Donate
Supreme Court interim orders involving the Trump administration, 2025-2026
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation , search
Second Trump Administration Trump's first term
Opinion polling during the first Trump administration
Trump transition tracker
Days from nomination to confirmation for Trump administration officials, 2017-2019
Trump's vetoes
Donald Trump's first foreign trip as president, May 2017
Donald Trump’s trip to Asia, November 2017
Trump's 2018 State of the Union
Trump's 2019 State of the Union
Trump's 2020 State of the Union Trump's second term
Opinion polling during the second Trump administration
Transition
Confirmation process for Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, 2025-2026
How senators voted on Trump Cabinet nominees, 2025
Cabinet
White House staff
Ambassadors
Special envoys by administration
Executive order and actions
Key legislation
Vetoed legislation
Multistate lawsuits
SCOTUS interim orders
Donald Trump's State of the Union Address, 2026 Executive branch
Executive departments
Dept. of State
Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Justice
Dept. of the Treasury
Dept. of Homeland Security
Dept. of Education
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Dept. of Labor
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Energy
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Commerce
Cabinet-level offices
White House Chief of Staff
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Management and Budget
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
U.S. Small Business Administration
Appointed officials
Appointed officials Presidential elections
Presidential election, 2024
Presidential candidates, 2024
Presidential election, 2020
Presidential candidates, 2020
Presidential election, 2016
Presidential candidates, 2016
Trump Administration (second term) Donald Trump •  J.D. Vance
Administration Cabinet • Confirmation process for Cabinet nominees • Confirmation votes by senator • Executive orders and actions • Key legislation • Vetoes • White House staff • Ambassadors • Special envoys • Multistate lawsuits • Supreme Court interim orders
Transition Transition • Transition FAQ • Certification of electoral votes • 2024 presidential election
First term Transition • Confirmation process for Cabinet nominees • Cabinet • Administration
This page provides information on U.S. Supreme Court interim orders involving the second Donald Trump (R) presidential administration . As of August 25, 2026, there have been 40 emergency applications to the court in cases related to the second Trump administration, with two pending and three withdrawn. The Trump administration filed 36 of the emergency applications, and another litigant in the case filed four of the applications. Cases related to habeas petitions are not included unless the application was filed by an official in the Trump administration. This page is updated weekly.
A Supreme Court interim order is an order the Supreme Court issues in cases that have not fully progressed through the ordinary procedures required for the Supreme Court to issue a regular opinion in a case. The court usually does not hear oral argument in these cases and often resolves them in summary orders, without written opinions. [1] [2] The court issues these orders in response to applications for immediate intervention in the court's interim docket , also referred to as the emergency docket , shadow docket , or non-merits docket . [1] [3] [4] [2]
The Supreme Court's Public Information Office described the typical subject matter of these applications as follows: "Although most applications involve routine matters such as requests for extensions of the time limit for filing papers, some—such as applications for a stay of execution or injunctive relief in a dramatic case—draw the attention of reporters. These newsworthy applications usually concern an effort to buy time, to maintain the status quo—to stay the implementation of a lower court order—pending final action by this Court (or under certain circumstances, a lower court)." [5]
For information about cases on the Supreme Court's merits docket, click here .
This page contains the following sections:
Recent updates
Pending applications
Decisions
Withdrawn applications
Contents
1 Recent updates
2 Pending applications
3 Decisions
3.1 Trump v. California
3.2 Blanche v. Perlmutter
3.3 Trump v. Cook
3.4 Mullin v. Doe
3.5 Lopez v. U.S.
3.6 Trump v. Illinois
3.7 Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges
3.8 Trump v. Orr
3.9 Trump v. Slaughter
3.10 Noem v. Perdomo
3.11 National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association
3.12 Trump v. Boyle
3.13 McMahon v. New York
3.14 Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al.
3.15 Trump v. CASA
3.16 Noem v. Doe
3.17 Trump v. Wilcox
3.18 Noem v. National TPS Alliance
3.19 A.A.R.P. v. Trump
3.20 United States v. Shilling
3.21 Noem v. Abrego Garcia
3.22 Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees
3.23 Trump v. J.G.G.
3.24 Department of Education v. California
3.25 Bessent v. Dellinger
3.26 Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition
4 Withdrawn applications
5 Historical data
6 See also
7 Footnotes
Recent updates
August 24, 2026 : The Supreme Court granted the application for a stay in the case Trump v. California , with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson , Justice Elena Kagan , and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. [6]
August 21, 2026 : Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay in the case National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States . [7]
August 13, 2026 : The Trump administration filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States . [7]
Pending applications
The table below displays a list of emergency docket applications related to the second Trump administration that have not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. It does not include applications related to deadline extensions.
Pending emergency docket applications involving the second Trump administration Name Lower court Applicant Application date Docket number National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit National Park Service et al. August 13, 2026 26A203 CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC July 23, 2026 and July 27, 2026 26A118
Decisions
The table below displays a list of emergency docket applications related to the second Trump administration that the Supreme Court has decided. It does not include applications related to deadline extensions. Click the name of a case to read a summary of the case leading up to the emergency application, and a summary of the Supreme Court's decision on the application. Applications made by someone other than the Trump administration are shaded in grey.
Decided emergency docket applications involving the second Trump administration Name Lower court Applicant Application date Docket number Any procedural differences Decision date Outcome Dissent(s)? Opinion Trump v. California United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Donald Trump et al. July 27, 2026 26A124 N/A 8/24/2026 Granted Jackson filed a dissent and Sotomayor also filed a dissent joined by Kagan Opinion and dissents Blanche v. Perlmutter United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Todd Blanche et al. 10/27/2025 25A478 Case was deferred pending Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook 6/30/2026 Denied, not on the merits - N/A Trump v. Cook United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Donald Trump et al. 09/18/2025 25a312 Argued before the court 6/29/2026 Denied Kavanaugh and Jackson filed concurring opinions, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissenting Opinion Mullin v. Doe [8] consolidated with Trump v. Miot United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Kristi Noem et al. 2/26/2026 25-1083 Accepted for certiorari before judgment and argued before the court 6/25/2026 Lower court rulings reversed and remanded Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Opinion Lopez v. U.S. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Gouyen Brown Lopez, et al. 3/14/2026 25A1008 N/A 3/19/2026 Denied [9] - N/A Trump v. Illinois United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Donald Trump et al. 10/17/2025 25A443 N/A 12/23/2025 Denied Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissenting Opinion Mangolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Darin Margolin 12/05/2025 25A662 N/A 12/19/2025 Denied - N/A Trump v. Orr United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Donald Trump et al. 09/19/2025 25a319 N/A 11/06/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Opinion Noem v. National TPS Alliance United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kristi Noem et al. 09/19/2025 25a326 N/A 10/03/2025 Granted Kagan and Sotomayor would deny, and Jackson dissenting Jackson dissent Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Department of State et al. 09/08/2025 25A269 N/A 09/26/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Kagan dissent Trump v. Slaughter United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Donald Trump et al. 09/04/2025 25A264 N/A 09/22/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Kagan dissent Noem v. Perdomo United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kristi Noem et al. 08/07/2025 25A169 N/A 09/08/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Kavanaugh concurrence and Sotomayor dissent National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit National Institutes of Health et al. 07/24/2025 25a103 N/A 08/21/2025 Granted in part, denied in part Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny in full; Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would grant in full Opinion Trump v. Boyle United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Donald Trump et al. 07/02/2025 25a11 N/A 07/23/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Kavanaugh concurrence and Kagan dissent Gomez v. United States United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Mario Lalama Gomez 06/11/2025 24A1218 N/A 07/15/2025 Denied - N/A McMahon v. New York United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Linda McMahon et al. 06/06/2025 24A1203 N/A 07/14/2025 Granted Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting Sotomayor dissent Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Donald Trump et al. 06/02/2025 24A1174 N/A 07/08/2025 Granted Jackson dissenting Sotomayor concurrence and Jackson dissent Trump v. CASA consolidated with: Trump v. New Jersey and Trump v. Washington . United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Donald J. Trump , et al. 03/13/2025 24A885 Argued before the court 06/27/2025 Granted Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting Opinion Department of Homeland Security, Applicants v. D.V.D., et al. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Department of Homeland Security , et al. 05/27/2025 24A1153 Motion to clarify granted following grant of stay 06/23/2025 Granted Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting Sotomayor dissent Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Social Security Administration , et al. 05/02/2025 24A1063 N/A 06/06/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Jackson dissent U.S. Doge Service, et al., Applicants v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington United States District Court for the District of Columbia Department of Government Efficiency , et al. 05/21/2025 24A1122 N/A 06/06/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting N/A Noem v. Doe United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Kristi Noem , et al. 05/08/2025 24A1079 N/A 05/30/2025 Granted Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting Jackson dissent Trump v. Wilcox United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Donald J. Trump , et al. 04/09/2025 24A966 N/A 05/22/2025 Granted Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting Kagan dissent Noem v. National TPS Alliance United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kristi Noem , et al. 05/01/2025 24A1059 N/A 05/19/2025 Granted Jackson dissenting N/A A.A.R.P. v. Trump United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas A.A.R.P., et al. 04/18/2025 24A1007 N/A 05/16/2025 Granted Thomas and Alito dissenting Opinion United States v. Shilling United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit United States, et al. 04/24/2025 24A1007 N/A 05/06/2025 Granted Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting N/A Noem v. Abrego Garcia United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Kristi Noem , et al. 04/07/2025 24A949 N/A 04/10/2025 Granted in part, denied in part - Sotomayor statement Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Office of Personnel Management , et al. 03/28/2025 24A904 N/A 04/08/2025 Granted Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting N/A Trump v. J.G.G. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Donald J. Trump , et al. 03/28/2025 24A931 N/A 04/07/2025 Granted Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson dissenting Opinion Department of Education v. California United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Department of Education , et al. 03/26/2025 24A910 N/A 04/04/2025 Granted Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson dissenting Opinion Bessent v. Dellinger United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Scott Bessent , et al. 02/16/2025 24A790 Application held in abeyance 03/06/2025 Denied as moot - N/A Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Department of State , et al. 02/26/2025 24A831 N/A 03/05/2025 Denied Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh dissenting Alito dissent
Trump v. California
See also: Executive Order: Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections (Donald Trump, 2026) , Multistate lawsuits against the federal government during the Trump administration, 2025-2026
On March 21, 2026, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections which created restrictions on mail-in voting. The order directed the secretary of homeland security and the Social Security Administration to create lists of eligible voters for each state, directed the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigation and prosecution of election officials and others involved in issuing federal ballot to ineligible voters, and directed the postmaster general to create new rules for mail-in ballots. Those rules include requiring certain barcodes on ballot envelopes, allowing states to notify the United States Postal Service (USPS) if the state wishes to use mail-in voting and to submit a list of eligible voters who would receive mail-in ballots, and directed the USPS to only transmit ballots of voters on state specific mail-in voter lists.
On April 3, 2026, a group of 23 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta , filed a lawsuit challenging the order's enforcement in those jurisdictions in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts , arguing that the order violated the separation of powers in ordering the creation of the voter lists. [10] The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani . On June 18, 2026, Judge Talwani ruled that she could not review the plaintiff's claims as they related to federal elections after November 3, 2026, because those claims were not yet ripe. [11] On June 25, 2026, Judge Talwani granted the states' motion for summary judgment regarding federal elections before November 3, 2026, holding that the challenged sections of the executive order violated the separation of powers. [10]
The Trump administration then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which denied the motion for a stay pending appeal on July 25, 2026. [10] The Trump administration then filed an emergency application for a stay pending appeal to the Supreme Court on July 27, 2026. [10] On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request for a stay, pausing Judge Talwani's injunction on the grounds that the order had not yet been carried out, therefore the states had not suffered the injury necessary to proceed with their lawsuit. [12] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, as well as Justice Sonia Sotomayor , whose dissent was joined by Justice Elena Kagan . [12]
Blanche v. Perlmutter
On May 10, 2025, Shira Perlmutter received an email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office firing her from her position as registrar of copyrights in the U.S. Copyright Office. [13] Perlmutter challenged her removal in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia . On July 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly denied her request to be temporarily reinstated to her position while her lawsuit continued, finding that Perlmutter had "not shown that she will be irreparably harmed without this relief." [14]
Perlmutter appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and on September 10, 2025, the court reversed the lower court decision by a vote of 2-1 and instructed the Trump administration to reinstate Perlmutter while her lawsuit conintued. [15] The full court of appeals declined to reconsider that decision. [13] On October 27, 2025, the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court with an application for a stay in the case. [16] [13]
On November 26, 2025, the Supreme Court deferred the application for a stay pending two cases before the court, Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook , and Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he would grant the application. [17] On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's application for a stay in the case, leaving Perlmutter in her position while her lawsuit plays out in lower courts. The Supreme Court docket for the case states, "The denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation." [18]
Trump v. Cook
On August 25, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) released a letter he sent to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook firing her from her position on the Board of Governors. [19] The letter alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud in 2021 — allegations which Cook denied — prior to her nomination to the board by President Joe Biden (D) in 2023. [20]
Cook sued to stop her firing in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia . U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued an order on September 9, 2025, requiring the Federal Reserve Board to allow Cook to remain in her position while litigation proceeded. Cobb concluded that Cook was "substantially likely to succeed on the merits of her due process claim," as federal law stipulates that Federal Reserve Board members may only be fired for cause, and not for conduct before taking office. [21] Additionally, Cobb wrote that the firing violated Cook's constitutional right to fair treatment because she did not receive notice and an opportunity to contest the firing before it proceeded. [20] Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , which denied his appeal in a split opinion on September 15, 2025, allowing Cobb's order to remain in place. [22]
On September 18, 2025, Trump filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court. [23] The Supreme Court released an unsigned order on October 1, 2025, opting to hear oral arguments in the case in January. [20] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Cook on January 21, 2026. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court denied Trump's emergency application, holding that Cook could remain in her position while the case was adjudicated in the lower courts. [24] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that Trump's arguments, "would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference." [20] Justices Thomas and Barrett filed dissenting opinions, as well as Justice Alito, whose dissenting opinion was joined by Justice Gorsuch. [20]
Mullin v. Doe
In September 2025, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced plans to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program which allows the Department of Homeland Security to grant citizens of foreign countries the ability to work and live in the United States should they be unable to return to their country due to "extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state," for Syrian nationals. [25] [26] Mullin v. Doe arose after seven Syrian nationals filed a lawsuit to block the Department of Homeland Security's revocation of TPS for Syrian nationals. The case was consolidated with Trump v. Miot , which arose after a lawsuit was filed to block the Department of Homeland Security's revocation of TPS for Haitian nationals. [27]
On November 19, 2025, U.S. District Judge Katherine Failla for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York blocked the termination of TPS for Syrian nationals while the legal challenge proceeded, concluding that the move by the administration was likely illegal. [28] Subsequently, a stay pending appeal was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit . On February 17, 2026, the Second Circuit denied Noem's application for a stay pending appeal. [29]
On February 26, 2026, Noem filed an application for a stay pending appeal to the Supreme Court. The court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case, consolidated with Trump v. Miot , on March 16, 2026. The court heard oral arguments on April 29, 2026. [30] On June 25, 2026, the court issued a ruling reversing the lower courts' rulings, allowing the government to end TPS for Syrian and Haitian nationals. Justice Alito wrote for the majority that the law creating TPS, "allows ‘no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination’ of a TPS designation." Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented. [31]
Lopez v. U.S.
Beginning in 2021, a series of legal challenges began over whether a piece of land in Eastern Arizona, which was being transferred to the company Resolution Copper, should not be mined due to its significance to Native American tribes, who view the area as a sacred site of worship. [32] [33] On July 24, 2025, a group of Apache women, with the lead woman being Gouyen Brown Lopez, filed a lawsuit saying that under the Supreme Court decision, Mahmoud v. Taylor , the government's decision to let the land be mined was religious interference. [34] [33] [35]
On August 19, 2025 Judge Dominic Lanza of the District of Arizona denied motions to stop the government from carrying out the transfer, saying that it was a congressional decision and could not be overruled. [36] Subsequently, an appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . [37] On January 9, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, saying they had not established a liklihood of success. [35]
On March 14, 2026, an injunction was submitted to the Supreme Court. The application was denied by Justice Elena Kagan on March 19, 2026. [38]
Trump v. Illinois
In October 2025, the Donald Trump (R) administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard and sent them to Chicago, Illinois , to assist federal law enforcement with immigration enforcement actions being conducted in the city. [39] The state of Illinois filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the federal government days later, challenging the legality of the tactics that federal law enforcement were using in immigration enforcement and in response to protests, and challenging the legality of the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. [40]
On October 9, 2025, Judge April Perry issued a temporary order barring the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying the National Guard in Illinois. [41] The federal government appealed Perry's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on October 10. The Seventh Circuit granted in part and denied in part the appeal, saying that Trump could federalize the National Guard but could not deploy such forces in Illinois. [40]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on October 17, 2025, asking the court to fully stay the district court's order. [42] On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Neil Gorsuch dissented. [43]
Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges
In September 2023, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) brought a case against the federal government, arguing that a rule barring immigration judges "from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration and about the agency that employs them" should be overturned. Judge Leonie Brinkema dismissed the case, saying the complaint should be handled through administrative processes established by the Civil Service Reform Act. [44]
The NAIJ appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . In June 2025, the court issued an order remanding this case back to the trial court, saying that "The structure of the CSRA relies fundamentally, however, on a strong and independent MSPB and Special Counsel." The court went on to reference recent changes during the second Trump administration in the extent to which the president exercises direct authority over those agencies, saying, "Serious questions have recently arisen regarding the functioning of both the MSPB and the Special Counsel. We cannot allow our black robes to insulate us from taking notice of items in the public record, including, relevant here, circumstances that may have undermined the functioning of the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme." [45]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on December 5, 2025, asking the court to stay the appeals court's order. On December 19, the Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay with no justices dissenting. [46]
Trump v. Orr
In January 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government , which said "It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality." The order instructed the Department of State to "require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex, as defined under section 2 of this order." [47] [48] In February 2025, a group of transgender and nonbinary individuals filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Trump administration challenging the application of the policy to the gender markers on their passports. [49]
Judge Julia Kobick issued an order on June 17 blocking the Trump administration from implementing its passport gender marker policy nationwide. [50] The federal government appealed Kobick's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which declined to stay the lower court's order. [51]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on September 19, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's order. On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [52]
Trump v. Slaughter
In March 2025, two commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission received an email saying their employment was terminated. That month, the commissioners filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging their firings. [53] [54]
Judge Loren AliKhan issued an opinion on July 18 saying one of the commissioners who resigned did not have standing, but that the other commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, did. AliKhan wrote that Slaughter's firing was illegal and that she should be reinstated. [55] The federal government appealed AliKhan's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , which declined to stay the lower court order. [54]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on September 4, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's order. On September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [56]
Noem v. Perdomo
In June 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted immigration raids in Los Angeles, California . [57] [58] On July 2, several individuals detained during these immigration enforcement actions filed a lawsuit challenging the raids before the United States District Court for the Central District of California . In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the federal government's immigration raids were unlawful and that the federal agents conducted suspicionless stops. [57]
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued an order on July 11, saying the plaintiffs were likely to succed on the merits and ordering the federal government to stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion. [59] The federal government appealed Frimpong's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which stayed one clause of the district court order, but left the rest of the order in place. [60]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on August 7, 2025, saying the immigration enforcement actions were conducted with reasonable suspicion and requesting a stay of the lower court's order. [58] On September 8, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Elena Kagan , Sonia Sotomayor , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [61]
National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association
Beginning in February 2025, the National Institutes of Health began terminating certain federal grants to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other research institutions. In April, several researchers, the American Public Health Association, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and Ibis Reproductive Health, filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the grant terminations. [62] [63]
Judge William G. Young issued a ruling on June 23, 2025, saying several directives and memoranda related to NIH grant guidance were void and ordering the restoration of resulting grant terminations. [64] [65] The federal government apealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which declined to stay the district court order. [62]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on July 24, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's order. [62] On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the federal government's request for a stay. The court granted the stay to pause the restoration of NIH grants, but declined to stay the part of the order that said several directives and memoranda related to NIH grant guidance were void. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the decision in full. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan , Sonia Sotomayor , and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application in full, while Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh would have denied the application in full. [66]
Trump v. Boyle
On May 8-9, 2025, the Trump administration terminated the employment of three commissioners on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission . The commissioners filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland challenging their firings on May 21, 2025. [67]
Judge Matthew Maddox issued an order on June 13, saying that the commissioners were wrongly fired and should be allowed to resume their duties as commissioners. The federal government appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit , which declined to stay the lower court's ruling. [68]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on July 2, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's order. [69] On July 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [70]
McMahon v. New York
On March 11, 2025, the Department of Education announced it would "initiate a reduction in force (RIF) impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s workforce," which was about 1,378 employees. [71] Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 13 challenging the reduction in force. [72]
Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025, temporarily preventing the federal government from enacting the Department of Education reduction in force. [73] The federal government appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which declined to stay the injunction. [74]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on June 6, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's preliminary injunction. [74] On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [74]
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al.
On February 11, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order titled Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative . The order sought to enact a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. [75] Several labor organizations, nonprofit groups, and local governments filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 28 challenging the executive order and associated firings. [76]
Judge Susan Illston issued a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025, temporarily preventing the federal government from taking actions to carry out Trump's executive order. [77] The federal government appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which declined to stay the injunction. [78]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on June 2, 2025, asking the court to stay the preliminary injunction. [79] On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in an 8-1 decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [80]
Trump v. CASA
See also: Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. is a case that centers on the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160 , which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. It raises federalism questions about the scope of federal executive power and the role of states in recognizing and protecting individual rights. By challenging the federal government’s authority to redefine citizenship standards, the case highlights a direct conflict between federal immigration policy and state responsibilities related to vital records, public services, and legal recognition of residents.
The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 27, 2025. [81] The case was argued on May 15, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term . It was consolidated with Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey .
In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland . The Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 by issuing universal injunctions —blocking enforcement of the Executive Order nationwide, not just for the plaintiffs. Because such sweeping relief wasn’t available in traditional equity, the Court limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions and reaffirms that federal courts must tailor relief to the parties before them. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship. [81]
Noem v. Doe
At the start of the second Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security sought to end several special parole programs, including one that allowed about 500,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to stay in the United States legally. [82] Several affected individuals filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the policy changes on February 28, 2025. [83]
On April 14, Judge Indira Talwani issued an order pausing the Trump administration's parole program terminations. [84] The federal government appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which declined to stay Talwani's order. [85]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on May 8, 2025, asking the court to stay Talwani's order. [86] On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 7-2 decision. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. [87]
Trump v. Wilcox
In January and February 2025, respectively, President Donald Trump (R) removed Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and removed Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). [88] [89] Both Wilcox and Harris filed separate lawsuits challenging their removals, which were later consolidated. Wilcox and Harris argued that their firings were unlawful based on the statutes authorizing the creation of the NLRB and MSPB, and that their firings went against previously established Supreme Court precedent regarding the president's power to remove individuals from independent federal agencies. [90] [91]
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on March 6 that Wilcox should be reinstated, and on March 4, 2025, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Harris should be reinstated. [92] [93] The federal government appealed both decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . An en banc panel of judges on the court upheld the lower court rulings. [94]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on April 9, 2025, saying that the Constitution did grant Trump the authority to fire Wilcox and Harris and that Supreme Court precedent preventing the president from removing certain members of independent agencies did not apply to the MSPB or the NLRB. [94] On May 22, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in a 6-3 decision and stayed Howell and Contreras' orders. Justices Elena Kagan , Sonia Sotomayor , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [95]
Noem v. National TPS Alliance
On January 28, 2025, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem vacated a decision from the Joe Biden (D) administration extending the 2023 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for individuals from Venezuela and Haiti. [96] Noem went on to officially end the designation on February 1. [97] On February 19, the National TPS Alliance, along with several Venezuelans with TPS under the 2023 designation, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the rule change. In the lawsuit, they said Noem's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and violated the Fifth Amendment 's equal protection clause. [98]
Judge Edward Chen issued an order on March 31 temporarily pausing the implementation of Noem's decisions. [99] The federal government appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which declined to overturn Chen's order. [100]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on May 1, saying Chen's order was judicial overreach and that TPS decisions are not subject to judicial review, and that Noem's actions were within her authority as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. [101] On May 19, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in an 8-1 decision and stayed Chen's order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [102]
On September 5, 2025, Chen issued a decision in the case, ruling that Noem's termination of TPS was illegal. [103] The federal government appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which declined to stay the decision. [104] The federal government then filed another emergency application with the Supreme Court on September 19. On October 3, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request, staying Chen's order pending appeal. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the application, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [105] [106]
A.A.R.P. v. Trump
On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued a presidential proclamation titled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua." The proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against members of Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in Venezuela. [107] The proclamation said, "I find and declare that [Tren de Aragua] is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. [...] All Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies." [108]
On April 16, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of two Venezuelan nationals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas, and other similarly situated individuals as a class. The petition said the executive order violated the law and asked the court for a temporary restraining order preventing the deportations. [109] Judge James Wesley Hendrix issued a ruling on April 17 denying the request for a temporary restraining order, saying the named petitioners and class members did not face an imminent threat of deportation. [110] The ACLU appealed Hendrix's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 18, which denied the appeal the same day. [111]
The ACLU filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on April 18, saying the lower court's assessment that the plaintiffs were not at risk of deportation was incorrect. The ACLU asked the court to grant an injunction pending appeal. [112] On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 opinion granting the ACLU's request for an injunction. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. [113]
United States v. Shilling
On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence And Readiness , which said, "Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service." In February 2025, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum banning "individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria" from military service. [114]
Seven transgender military members, a transgender person who wished to join the military, and the Gender Justice League filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the policy. In the lawsuit, they said the federal government was banning individuals from military service based on sex and transgender status, and that this action violated "the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment." [115] On March 27, 2025, Judge Ben Settle granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction on the federal government's policy. [116]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the policy "draws classifications based on a medical condition (gender dysphoria) and related medical interventions," and did not ban individuals from serving on the basis of their transgender or sex status. The federal government said it met the rational-basis review required for drawing classifications based on a medical condition. [117] On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in a 6-3 decision and stayed Settle's order. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. [118]
Noem v. Abrego Garcia
On March 15, 2025, the federal government deported three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan individuals to be held at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador. One of these individuals was a man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who illegally entered the United States in 2011. In 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal status, which barred the U.S. from deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador due to the likelihood that he would be targeted by gangs there. [119]
Abrego Garcia's family filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 24, 2025, saying he was illegally deported to El Salvador due to his withholding of removal status and that he was not affiliated with any criminal gang, and seeking his return to the United States. [119] [120] On April 4, 2025, Paula Xinis ruled that the federal government needed to "facilitate and effectuate the return" of Abrego Garcia. [121] The federal government subsequently appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . On April 7, 2025, a three-judge panel upheld Xinis' order. [122]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying that Abrego Garcia was a member of a criminal gang, and that the lower court did not have the authority or jurisdiction to order his release from a foreign prison. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to vacate Xinis' April 4 order. [123] The court issued an order partially granting and partially denying the federal government's application, with no justices writing dissents. In its April 10 opinion, the court wrote that, "The 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. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." [124]
To read more about events in this case, click here .
Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees
On February 13, 2025, the federal government began firing thousands of probationary employees across many agencies. Several unions representing federal employees, along with other organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California saying the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) ordered these firings, that they infringed on Congress' authority, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs asked the court to place an injunction on the OPM's order, and order the federal government to rehire fired probationary employees and cease such terminations. [125] [126]
Judge William Alsup issued an order on March 13, 2025, saying the federal government had to stop firing probationary employees en masse and re-hire all fired probationary employees in the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs departments. [127] The federal government appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which denied the federal government's request for an administrative stay on March 17, 2025. [128]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the OPM did not direct the agencies to fire probationary employees en masse, that some of the organizations joining the federal employee unions did not have standing, that the district court did not have jurisdiction, and that ordering the federal government to rehire probationary employees was unlawful. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to place an administrative stay on Alsup's order. [126] On April 8, 2025, the Supreme court granted the federal government's application and placed an administrative stay on Alsup's order pending further litigation in the case, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. [129]
Trump v. J.G.G.
On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued a presidential proclamation titled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua." The proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in Venezuela. [130] The proclamation said, "I find and declare that [Tren de Aragua] is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. [...] All Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies." [131]
Later that day, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several Venezuelan men in immigration custody, saying they were not members of a criminal gang, that the deportations were illegal under several statutes, violated the Fifth Amendment, and violated the men's habeas corpus rights. The ACLU asked the court to place an injunction on the deportations under the proclamation. [132] Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the proclamation and preventing the Trump administration from deporting anyone as a result of the proclamation for 14 days, treating all possibly affected individuals as a class for the purpose of the lawsuit. [133] After Boasberg's verbal order was issued, the federal government deported three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan individuals to be held at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador. [119] The federal government appealed Boasberg's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , which declined to place a stay pending appeal on Boasberg's order. [134]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying it was incorrect for the court to allow for a class action challenge to the proclamation in D.C. and that challenges to the proclamation should be through habeas petitions in the place of an individual's confinement instead, and that the deportations were lawful under the Alien Enemies Act. The federal government asked the court to vacate Boasberg's order. [135] The court issued a 5-4 opinion on April 7, 2025, granting the federal government's application vacating Boasberg's orders in this case. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Amy Coney Barrett , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The court said the case should be litigated individually through habeas petitions in Texas, where some of the plaintiffs were being held by federal authorities, rather than as a class action lawsuit in D.C.. The opinion did not address the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport the Venezuelan citizens. The court also said that non-citizens have due process rights. [136]
To read more about events in this case, click here .
Department of Education v. California
On February 7, 2025, the Department of Education began terminating grants related to the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program, a program seeking to "support high-quality teacher preparation and professional development for prospective teachers and school leaders," and the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, a program seeking to "increase the number of highly effective educators by supporting the implementation of Evidence-Based practices that prepare, develop, or enhance the skills of educators." [137] [138] In a press release, the Department of Education said it terminated "grants to institutions and nonprofits that were using taxpayer funds to train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies." [139]
Eight states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the terminations, arguing that the directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the federal government from further grant terminations and to restore previously-awarded funds. [140] Judge Myong Joun issued an order on March 10, 2025, temporarily ordering the federal government to restore terminated TQP and SEED grants to the plaintiff states and preventing the federal government from terminating any further TQP and SEED grants in the plaintiff states. [141] The federal government appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which denied its request for a stay pending appeal on March 21, 2025. [142]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the lower court did not have jurisdiction to compel grant payments and that the government's action did not violate the APA. The federal government asked the court to vacate the lower court's order. [143] On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the lower court order pending appeal, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan , Sonia Sotomayor , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. [144]
Bessent v. Dellinger
On February 7, 2025, the federal government fired Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger from his position leading the United States Office of Special Counsel one year into his five year term. Dellinger filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on February 10, 2025, saying the firing was illegal since the Office of the Special Counsel was an independent agency whose leader could only be removed by the president for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" according to the statute establishing the office, which Dellinger said he had not committed. Dellinger asked the court to find his firing unlawful and restore him to his position. [145]
Judge Amy B. Jackson ruled that day to grant a temporary administrative stay in the case, preventing Dellinger's firing, and extended the stay a couple of days later. [146] The federal government appealed the orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , which dismissed the appeals. [147] [148]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying Article II of the United States Constitution empowered Trump to fire Dellinger. The federal government asked the court to vacate the lower court's order. [149] On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court said it would determine whether to grant or deny the application on February 26, when the lower court's order reinstating Dellinger was set to expire. The lower court's order expired and was not renewed, so the Supreme Court denied the federal government's application as moot. [150]
Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued Executive Order 14169: Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid , which sought to implement a 90-day pause on foreign aid, pending a review of programs receiving funds. [151] On February 10, 2025, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, two nonprofit organizations that received foreign aid federal grants, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the federal government over the executive order. In the lawsuit they said it was outside the president's authority to freeze congressionally appropriated funds and violated the Administrative Procedure Act . The plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the federal government from enforcing the executive order and reinstate the foreign aid funds that were suspended. [152]
Judge Amir Ali temporarily paused part of the executive order on February 13, 2025, saying the government could not suspend foreign aid funding that existed before January 20, 2025. [153] The federal government appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , which dismissed the appeal on February 26. [154]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to resume payments and the order was overbroad. [155] On March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the application, with Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting. [156]
On September 3, 2025, Ali issued another preliminary injunction in this case ordering the federal government to pay out foreign aid funding in categories relevant to the plaintiff organizations. The federal government appealed Ali's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , which declined to stay Ali's order. The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on September 8. On September 26, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in a 6-3 decision and stayed the order. Justices Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Withdrawn applications
The table below displays a list of emergency docket applications related to the second Trump administration that were withdrawn before the Supreme Court responded.
Withdrawn emergency docket applications involving the second Trump administration Name Lower court Applicant Application date Docket number Withdrawal date Rollins v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Brooke Rollins et al. 11/07/2025 25A478 11/13/2025 Trump v. Global Health Council United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Donald J. Trump , et al. 08/27/2025 25A227 08/29/25 Trump v. AFGE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Donald J. Trump , et al. 05/16/2025 24A1106 05/27/25
Historical data
The chart below displays the number of Supreme Court emergency applications each presidential administration filed from 2001 to present.
See also
Donald Trump presidential administration, 2025-2026
Donald Trump's executive orders and actions, 2025-2026
Donald Trump's Cabinet, 2025-2026
Multistate lawsuits against the federal government during the Trump administration, 2025
Footnotes
↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog , "Interim Docket," accessed July 8, 2026
↑ 2.0 2.1 Congress.gov , "The 'Interim Docket' or 'Shadow Docket': Non-Merits Matters at the Supreme Court," February 2, 2026
↑ SCOTUSblog , "Interim Docket Blog: 'Our interim docket,'" June 30, 2026
↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Trump v. Cook," June 29, 2026 (See Chief Justice John Roberts ' reference to "our interim docket" on page 23.)
↑ Supreme Court , "A Reporter's Guide to Applications," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Docket for 26A124," accessed August 25, 2026
↑ 7.0 7.1 Supreme Court , "Docket for 26A203," accessed August 25, 2026
↑ Note: The name of Noem v. Doe , the case consolidated with Trump v. Miot , was changed in March 2026 once Markwayne Mullin took office as secretary of Homeland Security.
↑ By Justice Kagan
↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse , "Case: State of California v. Trump," accessed August 25, 2026
↑ SCOTUSblog , "Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting," August 24, 2026
↑ 12.0 12.1 Supreme Court , "26A124 Trump v. California (08/24/2026)," August 24, 2026
↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 SCOTUSblog , "Supreme Court defers decision on whether Trump can fire head of U.S. Copyright Office," November 26, 2025
↑ Justia , "Perlmutter v. Blanche Memorandum Opinion," July 30, 2025
↑ U.S. Courts , "Order No. 25-5285," September 10, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Blanche v. Perlmutter Application and appendix," accessed July 1, 2026
↑ SCOTUSblog , "Blanche v. Perlmutter," accessed July 1, 2026
↑ Supreme Court , "Docket for No. 25A478," accessed July 1, 2026
↑ The American Presidency Project , "Letter to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook Notifying Her of Her Dismissal from Office," August 25, 2025
↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 SCOTUS Blog , "Court prevents Trump from firing Fed governor," June 29, 2026
↑ U.S. Courts , "Case No. 25-cv-2903 (JMC) MEMORANDUM OPINION," September 9, 2025
↑ U.S. Courts , "No. 25-5326 September Term, 2025 Order," September 15, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "20250918113300065_Trump v Cook app," September 18, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "25A312 Trump v. Cook (06/29/2026)," June 29, 2026
↑ Congress.gov, "S.358 - Immigration Act of 1990", accessed June 25, 2026
↑ Department of Homeland Security, "Secretary Noem Announces the Termination of Temporary Protected Status for Syria", September 19, 2025
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear argument on Trump administration’s removal of protected status for Syrian and Haitian nationals", May 14, 2026
↑ Reuters , "US judge blocks termination of temporary legal status for Syrians," November 19, 2025
↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , "Case: 25-2995, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.1," February 17, 2026
↑ Supreme Court of the United States , "Docket for No. 25-1083," accessed June 25, 2026
↑ SCOTUSblog , "Court allows Trump administration to end removal protections for Syrian and Haitian nationals," June 25, 2026
↑ Tucson Sentinel, "Western Apaches return to 9th Circuit to defend holy land," January 8, 2026
↑ 33.0 33.1 Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House, "2:25-cv-02758 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona," accessed March 31, 2026
↑ Clearinghouse, "Lopez v. United States, "July 25, 2025
↑ 35.0 35.1 Courthouse News Service, "Ninth Circuit thwarts attempt to halt copper mine on Apache land," March 13, 2026
↑ Courthouse News Service, "Destruction of sacred Apache land now imminent ," August 15, 2025
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named LopezCear
↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A1008," accessed March 31, 2026
↑ USA Today , "Trump sending 300 National Guardsmen to Chicago, Pritzker says," October 5, 2025
↑ 40.0 40.1 Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse , "Case: State of Illinois v. Trump," accessed January 7, 2026
↑ CourtListener , "temporary restraining order," October 9, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Emergency Application," accessed January 7, 2026
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25A443," accessed January 7, 2026
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Supreme Court rejects Trump administration’s request in dispute over immigration judges," December 19, 2025
↑ U.S. Courts , "Appeal from the Uninted States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria," accessed December 23, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25A662," accessed December 23, 2025
↑ White House , "DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," January 20, 2025
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Trump administration urges Supreme Court to prevent transgender people from choosing sex markers on passports," September 19, 2025
↑ Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse , "Case: Orr v. Trump," accessed November 11, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Orr v. Trump," accessed November 11, 2025
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on sex designations on passports," November 6, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25a319," accessed November 11, 2025
↑ Courtlistener , "SLAUGHTER v. TRUMP," March 27, 2025
↑ 54.0 54.1 Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse , "Case: Slaughter v. Trump," March 27, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Memorandum & Opinion — Document #51," July 17, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25a264," accessed September 23, 2025
↑ 57.0 57.1 ACLU , "FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF," accessed September 9, 2025
↑ 58.0 58.1 Supreme Court , "APPLICATION TO STAY THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY," accessed September 9, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order — Document #87," accessed September 9, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Vasquez Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al. (25-4312)," accessed September 9, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25A169," accessed September 9, 2025
↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 Supreme Court , "Emergency Application NIH vs. APHA," accessed August 26, 2025
↑ ACLU , "APHA v. NIH," accessed August 26, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order — Document #138," accessed August 26, 2025
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Supreme Court allows Trump administration to terminate $783 million in NIH grants linked to DEI initiatives," August 21, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25A103," accessed August 26, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Complaint — Document #1," May 21, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Boyle Appendix," accessed July 29, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Boyle Stay Application," accessed July 29, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25A11," accessed July 29, 2025
↑ Department of Education , "U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force," July 15, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Complaint — Document #1," March 13, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Document #128," May 22, 2025
↑ 74.0 74.1 74.2 Supreme Court , "Application," accessed July 15, 2025
↑ White House , "Implementing The President’s 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative," February 11, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Complaint — Document #1," April 28, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Document #124," May 22, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, et al. (25-3293)," accessed July 9, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Application for Stay," accessed July 9, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A1174," accessed July 9, 2025
↑ 81.0 81.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Opinion
↑ name=noemvdoecrlc Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse , "Case: Doe v. Noem," accessed July 8, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Doe v. Noem," February 28, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Document #97," April 14, 2025
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named noemvdoecrlc
↑ Supreme Court , "Noem v. Doe application," accessed July 8, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A1079," accessed July 8, 2025
↑ Associated Press , "Federal judge reinstates labor board member fired by President Donald Trump," March 6, 2025
↑ The Washington Post , "Federal judge rules Trump’s firing of merit board chair was illegal," March 4, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "WILCOX v. TRUMP," accessed June 20, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "HARRIS v. BESSENT," accessed June 20, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Motion for Declaratory Judgment," March 4, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment," March 6, 2025
↑ 94.0 94.1 Supreme Court , "Wilcox-Harris Application," accessed June 20, 2025
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Trump v. Wilcox," accessed June 20, 2025
↑ Federal Register , "Vacatur of 2025 Temporary Protected Status Decision for Venezuela," February 3, 2025
↑ Federal Register , "Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status," February 5, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "National TPS Alliance v. Noem," February 19, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "National TPS Alliance v. Noem," March 31, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "National TPS Alliance, et al. v. Noem, et al.," April 18, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Kristi Noem application," May 1, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A1059," accessed May 20, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11 AND Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion to Dismiss," September 5, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Noem v. NTPSA II Stay Application," accessed October 7, 2025
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Supreme Court allows Trump to remove protected status from Venezuelan nationals," October 3, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 25A326," accessed October 6, 2025
↑ BBC , "What is Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang targeted by Trump?" March 17, 2025
↑ White House , "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua," March 14, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "W.M.M. v. Donald J. Trump," April 16, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "W.M.M. v. Donald J. Trump," accessed May 20, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "A.A.R.P. v. Trump (25-10534)," accessed May 20, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "AARP Application," April 18, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A1007," accessed May 20, 2025
↑ Department of Defense , "Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Memorandum," February 26, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Shilling v. United States of America," April 7, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Shilling v. United States of America," March 27, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON," accessed May 13, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A1030," accessed May 13, 2025
↑ 119.0 119.1 119.2 The Atlantic , "An ‘Administrative Error’ Sends a Maryland Father to a Salvadoran Prison," March 31, 2025
↑ Court Listener , "Complaint," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order Granting Preliminary Injunction," April 4, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order," April 7, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Docket," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND," April 10, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Complaint," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ 126.0 126.1 Supreme Court , "Application," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ Politico , "Thousands of fired federal workers must be rehired immediately, judge rules," March 13, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. (25-1677)," April 23, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A904 Docket," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ BBC , "What is Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang targeted by Trump?" March 17, 2025
↑ White House , "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua," March 14, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "J.G.G. v. TRUMP Complaint," accessed April 23, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "J.G.G. v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00766)," accessed March 20, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (25-5067)," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Trump v. J.G.G. emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ SCOTUSBlog , "Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas," April 7, 2025
↑ Department of Education , "Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program," accessed April 7, 2025
↑ Department of Education , "Teacher Quality Partnership Program," accessed April 7, 2025
↑ Department of Education , "U.S. Department of Education Cuts Over $600 Million in Divisive Teacher Training Grants," February 17, 2025
↑ Court Listener , "California v. Department of Education," accessed April 7, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Memorandum and Order," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "State of California v. US Department of Education (25-1244)," April 23, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Department of Education v. California emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A910 docket," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Complaint," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "DELLINGER v. BESSENT (1:25-cv-00385)," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent (25-5025)," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent (25-5028)," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Bessent v. Dellinger emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A790," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Federal Register , "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Complaint," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Order," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ CourtListener , "Per Curiam Order," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "Emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
↑ Supreme Court , "No. 24A831 docket," accessed April 24, 2025
v   •   e Trump Administration (second term) Overviews Donald Trump presidential transition, 2024-2025 • Donald Trump's Cabinet, 2025-2026 • Confirmation process for Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, 2025-2026 • Donald Trump's executive orders and actions, 2025-2026 • Tie-breaking votes cast by J.D. Vance in the U.S. Senate • Multistate lawsuits against the federal government during the Trump administration, 2025-2026 • How senators voted on Trump Cabinet nominees, 2025 • Donald Trump: Vetoed legislation, 2025-2026 • Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump, 2025-2026 • Special envoys by administration • Supreme Court interim orders related to the Trump administration, 2025-2026 • Trump White House staff, 2025-2026
Cabinet Members not requiring Senate confirmation
J.D. Vance , vice president
Susie Wiles , White House chief of staff
Members confirmed by the Senate
Marco Rubio , secretary of state
Scott Bessent , secretary of the Treasury
Pete Hegseth , secretary of defense
Todd Blanche , attorney general
Howard Lutnick , secretary of commerce
Doug Burgum , secretary of the Interior
Brooke Rollins , secretary of agriculture
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , secretary of health and human services
Scott Turner , secretary of housing and urban development
Linda McMahon , secretary of education
Sean Duffy , secretary of transportation
Chris Wright , secretary of energy
Doug Collins , secretary of veterans affairs
Markwayne Mullin , secretary of homeland security
Jamieson Greer , U.S. trade representative
Jay Clayton , director of national intelligence
Michael Waltz , U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
Lee Zeldin , administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Kelly Loeffler , administrator of the Small Business Administration
Russell Vought , director of the Office of Management and Budget
John Ratcliffe , director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer
Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Faythann Fallon • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha
Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Content Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Lara Bonatesta • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Nick Katers • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Glorie Martinez • Stefan Martinez-Ruiz • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Kate Mcquarrie • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Savannah Susen • Collin Sutrick • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates
Retrieved from " https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_interim_orders_involving_the_Trump_administration,_2025-2026&oldid=11668401 "
Categories : Donald Trump presidential administration One-off pages, active Hidden category: Pages with reference errors
Ballotpedia features 710,024 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion.
Information about voting
What's on my ballot?
Where do I vote?
How do I register to vote?
How do I request a ballot?
When do I vote?
When are polls open?
Who Represents Me?
2026 Elections
2026 Election results
Congress
State executives
State legislatures
State judges
State ballot measures
Municipal officials
School boards
Other local officials
Local ballot measures
2027 Elections
2027 Elections
Congress special elections
State executives
State legislatures
State judges
State ballot measures
Municipal officials
School boards
Local ballot measures
Election analysis
2026 Elections analysis hub
2026 Mid-year recall report
2026 Primary election competitiveness in state and federal government
2026 State legislative competitiveness report
2026 Ballot measures Tuesday count
2026 Uncontested elections
Trending
Elections calendar
Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections
Donald Trump's Cabinet
Education policy on Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia News
Public Policy
Policy in the states
Administrative state
Criminal justice policy
Education policy
Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
Federalism
Unemployment insurance
Work requirements
Information for candidates
Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
How do I run for office?
How do I update a page?
Election results
Send us candidate contact info
Get Engaged
Donate to Ballotpedia
Contact us
Report an error
Events
Newsletters
Ballotpedia Podcast
Careers
Volunteer
Ad Policy
Ballotpedia Boutique
Services
Media inquiries
Data sales
Additional analysis
Election legislation tracking
Redistricting
Pivot Counties
State Supreme Court Partisanship
Polling indexes
Privacy Manager
SITE NAVIGATION
Read today's Daily Brew
2026 Elections
2026 Election results
2026 Congressional elections
2026 State executive elections
2026 State legislative elections
2026 State judge elections
2026 State ballot measures
2026 Municipal elections
2026 School board elections
2026 Other local elections
2026 Local ballot measures
Primary election types by state
Redistricting
Ballotpedia's in-depth analysis
Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2026
Ballotpedia's mid-year recall report, 2026
Uncontested elections in 2026
Trifecta vulnerability in 2026
2026 Ballot measures Tuesday count
2026 Primary election competitiveness in state and federal government
2026 Stage legislative competitiveness report
2027 Elections
2027 Congressional special elections
2027 State executive elections
2027 State legislative elections
2027 State judge elections
2027 State ballot measures
2027 Mayoral elections
2027 Municipal elections
2027 School board elections
2027 Local ballot measures
Primary election types by state
The Trump administration
Donald Trump's Cabinet
Judicial nominations
Executive orders and actions
Key legislation
Vetoes
Government
U.S. President
U.S. Congress
U.S. Supreme Court
Federal courts
State government
Ballot measures
Municipal government
School boards
Recalls
Education policy on Ballotpedia
Public policy
Administrative state
Criminal justice policy
Education policy
Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
Federalism
Unemployment insurance
Work requirements
Policy in the states
More...
Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot
Ballotpedia’s Voter Toolkit
Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
Redistricting
Trifectas
Election policy
Running for office
Election legislation tracking
Ballotpedia's weekly podcast
About us
About Ballotpedia
Donate
Buy Political Data
Editorial independence
Index
Job opportunities
News and events
Staff
Volunteer
Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login