After a series of losses in lower courts, the Trump administration has achieved a significant win during the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term.

A key ruling limited the use of national injunctions in the case of Trump vs. Casa, while also favoring the administration regarding emergency docket applications and other support documents.

The Supreme Court determined that the lower courts had overstepped when they blocked President Trump’s attempts to restrict birthright citizenship on a national level. This was termed a “monetary victory over the constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law.”

Trump commented, stating that he was elected for a “historic mission” and noted his concern over certain judges who seemed to challenge his legitimate authority, which he viewed as a serious threat to democracy.

Emergency Docket Wins

Throughout four years, the Biden administration filed 19 emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, yet, strikingly, Trump submitted 19 applications in just the first 20 weeks of his second term, according to Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck.

These emergency docket rulings, typically issued without detailed reasoning, have been crucial for Trump to push through policies, especially when district court judges halted many of his initiatives.

In another significant decision, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s administration to resume deportations from certain countries and to end Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans, while also revoking Biden’s parole grants for over half a million immigrants from various nations.

Border encounters surged during Biden’s term, hitting 3.2 million in 2023 and 2.9 million in 2024. Trump, on his first day in office, described the situation at the southern border as “aggression.”

In other rulings, the Supreme Court has permitted Trump to dismiss specific enforcement officials and enforce a ban on transgender individuals in the military.

The court has also authorized the Government Efficiency office to access Social Security records and has put a hold on lower court decisions compelling compliance with FOIA requests.

Two high-profile cases drew considerable attention from the public and legal commentators.

In late April, the Supreme Court halted deportations under the Alien Enemy Act, despite strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The case involved Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a member of the MS-13 gang facing human smuggling charges. The court instructed the Trump administration to facilitate his return from El Salvador.

Supportive Positions

Various positions backed by the Trump administration succeeded in multiple cases where it intervened.

The administration urged the Supreme Court to evaluate Wisconsin’s religious exemption policy, arguing it unconstitutionally denied Catholic charities their rights. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously ruled that a specific Catholic charity did not qualify because it wasn’t primarily for religious purposes.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with Catholic charities in a decision authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

In a 6-3 decision, the court advanced South Carolina’s plans to alter its relationship with providers of abortion services, an initiative that started seven years ago when the state attempted to exclude such providers from Medicaid funds. The U.S. filed a supportive brief for South Carolina in this matter.

This decision could set a precedent for other states looking to cut off Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding.

In addition, in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Court upheld Tennessee’s prohibition on child sexual transition procedures, signaling a shift in the government’s previously held stance on the matter.

The Biden administration had been supportive of transgender activism through various channels, including lawsuits and public statements. Rachel Levine, former Deputy Secretary for Health and Human Services, was involved in advocating policies that would ease access to transition surgeries for minors.

In his concurring opinion, Judge Clarence Thomas cautioned the court against uncritically accepting so-called “self-explained experts,” noting that there is growing evidence challenging the consensus on gender-related medical treatment.