Birthright, deportations, transgender ban: The major cases Trump is facing at US Supreme Court

US President Donald Trump speaks to the press during a bilateral meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2025.

Since his return to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has been drawn into a series of high-stakes legal battles that have reached the US Supreme Court. His sweeping executive orders on immigration, the military, the federal workforce, education, and research have sparked lawsuits from states, civil rights groups, and individuals. At the centre of these disputes is a fundamental constitutional question: how far can a president go in reshaping national policy, and how much authority do judges have to block or limit those moves?

Birthright citizenship and immigration

Immigration has been the most contested arena. On June 27, the court backed Trump in a dispute over his order restricting automatic birthright citizenship, ruling that judges cannot issue blanket nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted, “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

Just days earlier, on June 23, the justices allowed the administration to resume deporting migrants to third countries without hearings on potential risks, a move immigrant rights groups condemned as a violation of due process. Other rulings reinforced Trump’s authority: in May, the court permitted the revocation of parole for more than 500,000 migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, while also allowing the end of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans. Separate cases have dealt with raids in California, wrongful deportations such as that of a Salvadoran man later returned, and limits on using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelans.

Transgender military ban

On May 6, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump’s ban on transgender service members. Lower courts had blocked the policy on constitutional grounds, but the justices sided with the administration, reviving a controversial measure that continues to face civil rights challenges from advocacy groups and affected troops.

Federal workforce and agencies

The Supreme Court has also strengthened Trump’s hand over the federal bureaucracy. On July 8, it approved large-scale layoffs across government agencies, a dramatic reorganization move that lower courts had tried to block. In earlier decisions through May and July, the justices also upheld Trump’s power to remove members of independent commissions such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and federal labour boards. Justice Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning that the ruling “all but overturned” precedent protecting agency independence.

Education and research cuts

Trump’s ambition to dismantle the Education Department gained judicial backing on July 14, when the court allowed the administration to redistribute its functions despite pending lawsuits. In April, the justices permitted the elimination of $600 million in teacher training grants, many of which had supported diversity recruitment. Later in August, the court gave the green light to major cuts in National Institutes of Health funding, targeting projects related to racial minorities and LGBT communities.

Data, transparency, and watchdogs

Another area of dispute has been government transparency and data access. On June 6, the court allowed the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to obtain sensitive Social Security data despite privacy concerns raised by unions and advocates. On the same day, the justices temporarily blocked orders requiring DOGE to release records under the Freedom of Information Act, siding with the administration’s argument that it was advisory, not a formal agency. In February, the court declined to immediately let Trump fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, though the case later ended when the official withdrew his challenge.

Foreign aid payments

One of the few setbacks for Trump came on March 5, when the Supreme Court refused his attempt to withhold payments to foreign aid groups for completed work. Lower courts had already ordered the government to release the funds, and the justices agreed, ensuring humanitarian projects went ahead.

Why it matters

Taken together, these rulings show how much of Trump’s second term has been defined in courtrooms. The Supreme Court has largely sided with him on immigration, federal employment, and dismantling diversity-focused programmes, while checking him occasionally on aid and wrongful deportations. More than individual policies, the cases are redrawing the boundaries of presidential power and judicial oversight -- decisions that will shape the balance of US governance long after Trump’s current term.