The sequence of events is familiar: A lower court judge blocks a part of President Donald Trump’s agenda, an appellate panel refuses to put the order on hold while the case continues and the Justice Department turns to the Supreme Court.
Trump administration lawyers have filed emergency appeals with the nation's highest court a little less than once a week on average since Trump began his second term.
Stream NBC4 newscasts for free right here, right now.
WATCH HEREThe court is not being asked to render a final decision but rather to set the rules of the road while the case makes it way through the courts.
The justices have issued orders in 11 cases so far, and the Trump administration has won more than it has lost.
We have the news you need to know to start your day. Sign up for the First & 4Most morning newsletter — delivered to your inbox daily.
SIGN UP Among the administration's victories was an order allowing it to enforce the Republican president's ban of on transgender military service members. Among its losses was a prohibition on using an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans alleged to be gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
The most recent emergency filing arrived May 27.
A judge rebuked the administration over deportations to South Sudan
The Trump administration's latest appeal asks the high court to halt an order by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. The White House violated his earlier order, Murphy found, with a deportation flight bound for the African nation carrying people from other countries who had been convicted of crimes in the U.S.
Those immigrants must get a real chance to raise any fears that being sent there could put them in danger, Murphy wrote.
Trump's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asked for an immediate high court order that would allow the third-country deportations to resume.
Murphy has stalled efforts to carry out deportations of migrants who can’t be returned to their home countries, Sauer wrote. Finding countries willing to take them is “a delicate diplomatic endeavor” and the court requirements are a major setback, he said.
Lawyers for the deported men have until Wednesday to respond.
A watchdog group is trying to bring transparency to DOGE
The Department of Government Efficiency, overseen by billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk until his departure on Friday, is resisting a lawsuit calling for it to publicly disclose information about its operations.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues in a lawsuit that DOGE, which has been central to Trump’s push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
CREW claims that DOGE “wields shockingly broad power” with no transparency about its actions. The administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body that is exempt from FOIA disclosures.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper had found that its role is likely more than just advisory, especially in helping to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development and cut billions of dollars in government contracts.
The administration appealed Cooper's orders requiring documents be turned over and acting Administrator Amy Gleason to answer questions under oath.
Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to temporarily pause the orders pending additional word from the Supreme Court.
A judge blocked DOGE's access to Social Security systems over privacy concerns
Social Security has personal data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, bank details, salary information and medical and mental health records for disability recipients, according to court documents.
The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to Social Security's systems as part of its mission to target waste in the federal government.
But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland restricted the team’s access to Social Security under federal privacy laws, saying DOGE's efforts at the agency amounted to a “fishing expedition” based on “little more than suspicion” of fraud.
The judge is disrupting DOGE's work and interfering with decisions that belong to the executive branch, not courts, Sauer wrote in asking the high court to block Hollander's order in the suit filed by labor unions and retirees.
The justices could act anytime.
Trump wants to change citizenship rules in place for more than 125 years
Several judges quickly blocked an executive order Trump signed his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The administration appealed three court orders that prohibit the changes from taking effect anywhere in the country.
Earlier in May, the justices took the rare step of hearing arguments in an emergency appeal. It's unclear how the case will come out, but the court seemed intent on keeping the changes on hold while looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders.
One possibility advanced by some justices was to find a different legal mechanism, perhaps a class action, to accomplish essentially the same thing as the nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's citizenship order.
Nationwide injunctions have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts to remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump began his second term in January, Sauer told the court during the arguments.
The court could act anytime, but almost certainly no later than early summer.
Transgender care for minors and LGBTQ content in elementary schools
On the court's merits docket, the justices are also considering a Tennessee law that blocks minors from accessing gender-affirming care in the state in a significant case about transgender rights. During oral argument in December, the high court's conservative majority appeared ready to uphold Tennessee’s law. Five of the court’s six conservatives seemed skeptical of the argument that the ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discriminatory.
The decision could have direct effects in the 26 states that have passed versions of the bans, and might have ripple effects on other measures that restrict sports participation and bathroom use by transgender people.
Supporters of the health care laws argue the gender-affirming treatments are risky, and the laws protect kids from making decisions before they’re ready.
Challengers say many medical interventions come with some degree of risk, and families should be able to weigh those against the benefits. The arguments in favor of Tennessee’s ban could also be used to back federal restrictions, said Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney who represented three families challenging the law.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said that his state’s arguments would still let each state set its own policy.
Another case involves claims of religious rights of parents in a Maryland county who want to pull their children from elementary school classes that using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.
The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.
The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years.
The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as “Prince and Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” as part of an effort to better reflect the district’s diversity.
Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit.
In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system’s lawyers wrote.
In “Prince and Knight,” two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. “Love, Violet” deals with a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. “Born Ready” is the story of a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. “Intersection Allies” describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid.
Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents’ group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren.
The writers’ group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is “a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.” Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
