Struck Down: Trump actions blocked by courts

Many Trump Administration actions have been successfully challenged in court, but appeals to higher courts and the Supreme Court are pending in many of the cases.

JustSecurity is tracking over 700 cases filed against the Trump Administration. They count 240 total wins so far. Here are a few of the most prominent cases blocking government actions, including several executive orders. Many are being appealed, and since we expect some relevant Supreme Court rulings soon we’ll touch back on some additional actions in the future.

IEEPA Tariffs

In February, the Supreme Court struck down some of President Trump’s tariff policies, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not provide the president with the authority to impose sweeping tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “no president has read IEEPA to confer such power.” He went on to describe a violation of the “major questions” doctrine, which states that if Congress intended to delegate significant decisions it would have written so clearly. (We predicted this in an article we published last July.)

After the decision, President Trump signed a new Executive Order, ending the affected tariff actions described in nine previous orders which had cited IEEPA. Refunds of more than $166 billion may be issued to companies that paid the tariffs. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has said that a refund process could be ready by mid-to-late April.

(The rest of Trump’s tariff policies remain in place, as well as a new 10% tariff questionably under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which can only remain in place for 150 days, expiring on July 24 without Congressional approval. Several states have sued the federal government, asking the U.S. Court of International Trade to block the implementation of the new tariffs, arguing that the statute is out of date and was written to overcome currency exchange rate challenges that no longer exist. They also allege that the tariffs are not being applied per the statute’s requirements, with no facts to justify the 80 pages of product exceptions. According to the statute, the tariffs must be applied broadly and uniformly, but it does allow for exceptions to meet the needs of the U.S. economy.)

The National Guard

Trump attempted to deploy National Guard troops in three states against the governors’ wishes, with a stated goal of curtailing violent crime. The National Guard is generally under state control, and can only be federalized in certain situations: an invasion from a foreign nation, rebellion against the U.S. government, or when federal laws can’t be enforced using regular forces. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents military troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement.

In Illinois v. Trump, the plaintiffs alleged that the move to federalize the National Guard (both Illinois and Texas troops were called up) was politically motivated and unconstitutional. They cited the Posse Comitatus Act, as well as the Tenth Amendment which protects state sovereignty, and the APA. A District Court blocked the federalization of troops. The ruling was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court. The Administration tried to argue in front of the Supreme Court that only the president can determine if conditions have been met to federalize the troops, but SCOTUS held that the government had not shown sufficient authority to deploy the National Guard in Illinois. Cases in Oregon and California were affected by the Supreme Court ruling, and the cases were dismissed and stayed respectively.

Birthright Citizenship

Trump’s day-one Executive Order calling for the end of birthright citizenship was immediately challenged. Several judges issued preliminary injunctions, halting its implementation. They ruled that the order was unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Defense of the Executive Order hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which the Administration argues does not apply to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. The phrase has historically been interpreted as an exception for the children of foreign diplomats. Last Summer, the Supreme Court responded to a request to stay a preliminary injunction, ruling that lower courts couldn’t issue nationwide rulings. The decision notably did not rule on whether the order was unconstitutional, but it also didn’t rule out other types of court orders with national implications such as class-action suits or suits brought by states. The First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals both upheld the lower courts’ rulings. In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Barbara v Trump and determine whether the Executive Order violates the U.S. Constitution. Oral arguments were heard on April 1 with a ruling expected this summer. A ruling in favor of the Administration would upend a centuries-long understanding of citizenship in the U.S., but judicial experts think the Administration will lose.