Breaking the Constitution

Supreme Court struck down his emergency-powers tariffs, 6-3; billions are being refunded

$166B collected under tariffs ruled unlawful (Customs filing)

On Feb. 20, 2026 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump that the emergency-powers law behind his worldwide “Liberation Day” tariffs and his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China (IEEPA) “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion and Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented; the trade court and the full Federal Circuit had already ruled against him in 2025. Customs told the trade court it had collected about $166 billion from more than 330,000 importers. Treasury budget data showed $81 billion in tariff refunds paid in the fiscal year through June 2026, against $5 billion a year earlier.

Their response: Trump called the three conservative justices in the majority “disloyal, unpatriotic” (NPR, Feb. 21, 2026) and announced replacement tariffs under other laws within hours.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion, Learning Resources v. Trump (Feb. 20, 2026) · CNBC (March 6, 2026) · The Guardian (July 14, 2026) · NPR (Feb. 21, 2026)

Supreme Court voided his order ending birthright citizenship, 6-3

On June 30, 2026 the Supreme Court struck down Executive Order 14160, signed on his first day back, which would have denied citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents here unlawfully or temporarily. Five justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson) held such children “are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause”; Kavanaugh found the order unlawful under federal statute; Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented. Trump won an earlier round in the same fight, when the Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA (2025) that district judges may not issue universal injunctions. On Aug. 6, 2026 he signed a new order creating further exceptions to birthright citizenship, and the winning plaintiffs asked the New Hampshire court to block it on Aug. 11.

Their response: Trump on Truth Social: “The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation.”

Sources: Supreme Court opinion, Trump v. Barbara (June 30, 2026) · CBS News (June 30, 2026) · SCOTUSblog (June 30, 2026) · SCOTUSblog (Aug. 11, 2026)

Judge found probable cause of criminal contempt over deportation flights to a Salvadoran prison

On March 15, 2025 Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and the government flew planeloads of men to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, 137 of them under the act by the White House’s count, despite Judge James Boasberg’s order to turn the planes around. On April 16, 2025 Boasberg found probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt, writing: “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders.” The Supreme Court sided with Trump on venue (April 7, 2025: such challenges must be filed as habeas petitions where detainees are held) but said detainees must get notice and a real chance to contest removal, and on May 16, 2025 blocked further removals from a Texas facility by a 7-2 vote. D.C. Circuit panels twice stopped the contempt inquiry by 2-1 votes (August 2025 and April 2026); the full court vacated the second ruling on June 22, 2026 and set argument for Sept. 29, 2026.

Their response: A Justice Department spokesperson called the contempt finding “a judicial power grab that the Department of Justice will fight by all means necessary” (NPR). The 2026 appeals panel majority said the inquiry was an “unwarranted judicial intrusion into Executive Branch decision making.”

Sources: Supreme Court order, Trump v. J.G.G. (April 7, 2025) · Supreme Court opinion, A.A.R.P. v. Trump (May 16, 2025) · NPR (April 16, 2025) · NBC News (April 14, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia: deported in error, ordered returned, then prosecuted; judge found the case vindictive

The government deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador on March 15, 2025 despite a 2019 immigration judge’s order barring his removal there. On April 10, 2025 the Supreme Court, with no noted dissent, recorded the government’s own admission that “the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal” and required it to “facilitate” his release. He was brought back on June 6, 2025 to face a human-smuggling indictment. A federal judge in Tennessee dismissed that indictment in May 2026, finding it was brought in retaliation for his successful challenge; the Justice Department asked the Sixth Circuit on Aug. 17, 2026 to reinstate it, and the government is still trying to deport him to Liberia.

Their response: Justice Department: “The decision to seek an indictment against Abrego Garcia for human smuggling was made by career prosecutors based on the evidence, the law, and their firm belief that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The government called the deportation an “administrative error” and alleges he is an MS-13 member, which he denies.

Sources: Supreme Court order, Noem v. Abrego Garcia (April 10, 2025) · NPR (June 6, 2025) · CBS News (Aug. 17, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Washington Post count: administration accused of defying courts in a third of cases it lost

A Washington Post analysis published July 21, 2025 examined 337 lawsuits against the administration. Courts had ruled against it in 165, and in 57 of those (almost 35%) the Post found it was accused of defying or frustrating court orders: ignoring rulings, giving false information, withholding evidence or inventing pretexts. The Post reported that judges appointed by presidents of both parties often agreed with the accusations but that none had imposed punishment. The count measures accusations by plaintiffs and judges, not formal contempt findings.

Their response: White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the president’s attorneys “are working tirelessly to comply” with rulings and that “If not for the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch would collapse into a kangaroo court.”

Sources: Washington Post (July 21, 2025)

Judge ruled no-notice deportations to third countries unlawful and said his orders were violated

Homeland Security adopted a policy of deporting people to countries they have no ties to, such as South Sudan, with little or no chance to object. Judge Brian Murphy ruled on Feb. 25, 2026 that the policy is unlawful and violates due process, and wrote that “the Government repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate, this Court’s orders,” including by putting at least six men on a flight to South Sudan. The Supreme Court has sided with the administration at each emergency stage: it lifted Murphy’s first injunction on June 23, 2025 over three dissents, and on Sept. 29, 2026, days after the First Circuit largely upheld his final ruling, it paused that ruling and agreed to hear the case in December 2026.

Their response: In court the government said it had not intended to violate the injunction; an attorney earlier argued Homeland Security had not violated the order because the Defense Department carried out the removals.

Sources: Final ruling, D.V.D. v. DHS, D. Mass. (Feb. 25, 2026) · First Circuit opinion (Sept. 18, 2026) · Supreme Court order, DHS v. D.V.D. (June 23, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Judge found the White House kept freezing federal money after he ordered it released

In late January 2025 the White House budget office ordered agencies to pause federal grants and loans, and 22 states and the District of Columbia sued. Judge John J. McConnell Jr. blocked the freeze on Jan. 31, 2025, and on Feb. 10 found the administration had kept withholding money anyway: “These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.” In April he found FEMA was still out of compliance. On March 17, 2026 the First Circuit upheld the ban on the freeze and his enforcement orders against FEMA, but threw out the part ordering payments on specific grants as likely beyond the court’s power.

Their response: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, after the budget memo was withdrawn: “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.” The government argued FEMA’s manual review of payments was not a freeze.

Sources: Order enforcing TRO, New York v. Trump, D.R.I. (Feb. 10, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

He cancelled $4.9 billion Congress had approved; watchdog called it illegal, Supreme Court let it stand

$4.9B in approved aid withheld (White House figure)

On Aug. 28, 2025 Trump told Congress he would not spend $4.9 billion in foreign aid it had appropriated, timing the request so the money would expire before Congress could act (a “pocket rescission”, last tried in 1977). The Government Accountability Office says flatly: “A pocket rescission is illegal.” A district judge ordered the money spent, but on Sept. 26, 2025 the Supreme Court sided with Trump 6-3 on an emergency basis, letting about $4 billion lapse while saying its order “should not be read as a final determination on the merits.” He did it again on Sept. 25, 2026 for 11 more accounts, and GAO again said he lacks authority to withhold funds past their expiration.

Their response: A White House official told reporters the administration was confident it would prevail in any legal challenge (AP). The Supreme Court majority said “the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.”

Sources: Supreme Court order, Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (Sept. 26, 2025) · GAO: What is a pocket rescission and is it legal? (Aug. 2025) · GAO decision B-338788 (Sept. 29, 2026) · AP (Aug. 29, 2025) · NPR (Sept. 26, 2025)

Congress’s watchdog found illegal withholding of funds in 7 of 11 rulings in 2025

The Government Accountability Office, which reviews compliance with the 1974 Impoundment Control Act for Congress, issued 11 decisions on Trump administration spending holds between May 22 and Sept. 29, 2025. Five found violations outright (electric-vehicle charger money, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Head Start, NIH research grants, FEMA grants), two found violations in part, and four found none. On NIH, GAO found the agency “violated the ICA by withholding funds from obligation and expenditure” after it obligated almost $8 billion less between February and June 2025 than in the same months a year earlier. GAO decisions are not court orders and carry no penalty by themselves.

Their response: The Transportation Department told GAO that “the temporary delay in the ability to obligate new NEVI Formula Program funds resulting from the issuance of new program guidance does not constitute a withholding.” GAO said HHS did not supply information it requested on NIH.

Sources: GAO, Impoundment Control Act decisions list · GAO decision B-337203, NIH (Aug. 5, 2025) · GAO decision B-337137, DOT electric-vehicle chargers (May 22, 2025) · GAO decision B-337204.2, FEMA (Sept. 29, 2025)

Congress voted to end the Iran war under the War Powers Resolution; the war continued

Trump ordered strikes on Iran with Israel on Feb. 28, 2026 without a declaration of war or authorization from Congress, and on the 60-day deadline wrote to Congress that hostilities “have terminated” because of a ceasefire. On June 3 the House (215-208) and on June 23 the Senate (50-48) passed H.Con.Res. 86 directing him to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran, the first time such a measure has cleared both chambers. According to the Just Security case summary, U.S. strikes resumed on July 11 after the ceasefire broke down, and a second resolution failed in the Senate 49-50 on Sept. 24. No court has ruled (a suit was filed Sept. 24, 2026), and whether a concurrent resolution binds a president is legally disputed.

Their response: Trump called the vote “poorly timed and meaningless” and wrote, “I will get it done, one way or the other.” The administration says U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities with Iran, and some officials call the War Powers Resolution itself unconstitutional (CBS). The sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks, said the measure “is binding under the War Powers Resolution.”

Sources: U.S. Senate roll call vote 184, H.Con.Res. 86 (June 23, 2026) · CBS News (June 23, 2026) · Clerk of the House, roll call 199 (June 3, 2026) · Roll Call (May 1, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Military strikes on boats killed more than 225 people with no vote of Congress and no court review

Since Sept. 2, 2025 the military has bombed boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the administration says carry drugs: more than 65 attacks and over 225 dead by September 2026, by The Intercept’s count, in a campaign Congress never authorized. The UN human rights chief said the strikes “violate international human rights law,” and the White House confirmed a second strike on the first boat, which reporting says killed survivors. After U.S. forces seized Venezuela’s president in January 2026, the Senate voted 52-47 to advance a war powers resolution, then killed it on a 50-50 vote. No U.S. court or inspector general has ruled on the strikes’ legality; families of two men killed sued in January 2026.

Their response: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt: “Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”

Sources: UN human rights office statement (Oct. 31, 2025) · NBC News (Dec. 1, 2025) · CBS News (Jan. 8, 2026) · U.S. Senate roll call vote 9 (Jan. 14, 2026) · The Intercept (Sept. 2, 2026)

Judge ruled troops sent to Los Angeles broke the Posse Comitatus Act

In June 2025 Trump federalized about 4,000 California National Guard members and sent 700 Marines to Los Angeles over the governor’s objection. After a trial, Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Sept. 2, 2025 that the troops had been used for law enforcement in violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, writing that “there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond,” and warning that Trump was “creating a national police force with the president as its chief.” The Ninth Circuit put the order on hold two days later and had earlier let the deployment continue; the appeal remains unresolved. Trump announced on Dec. 31, 2025 that he was withdrawing the Guard from Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland.

Their response: Acting U.S. attorney Bill Essayli wrote that “the military will remain in Los Angeles. This is a false narrative and a misleading injunction.” Justice Department lawyers argued the troops’ activities were not law enforcement.

Sources: CalMatters (Sept. 2, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026) · CNN (Dec. 31, 2025)

Supreme Court refused to let him deploy the National Guard in Illinois

Trump federalized 300 Illinois Guard members and sent Texas Guard troops to the Chicago area in October 2025. A district judge and the Seventh Circuit blocked the deployment, and on Dec. 23, 2025 the Supreme Court refused to lift the block, finding “the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois”; Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented. In Oregon, Judge Karin Immergut permanently barred the Portland deployment on Nov. 7, 2025 as a violation of federal law and the Tenth Amendment, and the government dropped its appeal. In Washington, D.C., a judge ruled against the Guard deployment in November 2025, but an appeals court let the troops stay while that case continues.

Their response: Trump on Truth Social, withdrawing the Guard on Dec. 31, 2025: “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time!”

Sources: Supreme Court order, Trump v. Illinois (Dec. 23, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026) · CNN (Dec. 31, 2025)

Trade court ruled his replacement tariffs unlawful too; an appeals court kept them in place

Hours after losing at the Supreme Court, Trump imposed a 10% worldwide tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a 150-day power meant for balance-of-payments emergencies. On May 7, 2026 the Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that the proclamation “is invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law,” but limited relief to Washington state and two companies. The Federal Circuit stayed even that on June 11, 2026, finding the government likely to succeed on appeal. When the tariff expired on July 24 he replaced it with 10% to 12.5% tariffs on 60 economies under a third law, Section 301, which was challenged in court the same day.

Their response: The dissenting judge, Timothy Stanceu, would have upheld the tariff, and the Federal Circuit found the government had shown a likelihood of success.

Sources: Politico (May 7, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026) · CNBC (July 23, 2026) · CNBC (July 24, 2026)

Courts ruled five of his acting U.S. attorneys were serving unlawfully

To keep loyalists as top federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation, the Justice Department used a chain of temporary titles after their 120-day interim terms ran out; judges rejected it in New Jersey (Alina Habba, his former personal lawyer), Nevada (Sigal Chattah), Los Angeles (Bill Essayli), Virginia (Lindsey Halligan) and, on Jan. 8, 2026, northern New York (John Sarcone). On Dec. 1, 2025 a Third Circuit panel held that “Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” and she resigned a week later. A judge wrote that “Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney” but let him stay as first assistant. The Nevada ruling was put on hold pending appeal, and a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed it on Aug. 17, 2026. Judges in the Nevada and Los Angeles cases declined to throw out the indictments involved.

Their response: Habba on resigning: “But do not mistake compliance for surrender.” Attorney General Pam Bondi said the department would seek further review and that Habba would return if the ruling were reversed.

Sources: ABC News (Dec. 1, 2025) · CBS News (Oct. 28, 2025) · The Nevada Independent (Sept. 30, 2025) · CNN (Dec. 8, 2025) · NBC News (Jan. 8, 2026) · Above the Law (Aug. 17, 2026)

Judge: targeting pro-Palestinian students for deportation violated the First Amendment

After a nine-day trial, Judge William Young found on Sept. 30, 2025, “by clear and convincing evidence,” that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their subordinates acted “deliberately and with purposeful aforethought” and in concert “intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble” of noncitizen scholars, through the arrests of campus activists such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk. In January 2026 he ordered remedies; the government has appealed. The individual cases went differently: on Jan. 15, 2026 the Third Circuit ruled for the government in Khalil’s case, holding the district court had no jurisdiction over his challenge and ordering his petition dismissed.

Their response: The government appealed and sought a partial stay, which Judge Young largely denied in March 2026.

Sources: Opinion, AAUP v. Rubio, D. Mass. (Sept. 30, 2025) · Third Circuit opinion, Khalil v. President (Jan. 15, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Dismantling USAID and the Education Department: district judges blocked it; higher courts let it proceed

Trump moved to shut down two bodies Congress created by law. On March 18, 2025 Judge Theodore Chuang found the shutdown of USAID by Elon Musk and DOGE “likely violated the Constitution”; the Fourth Circuit stayed his order ten days later, saying the record “does not support the district court’s finding of a likelihood of constitutional violations,” and the agency was closed. On May 22, 2025 Judge Myong Joun blocked mass layoffs meant to wind down the Education Department; the Supreme Court lifted that order on July 14, 2025 without explanation, over a dissent by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson: “Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.” Both higher-court orders were preliminary, and both cases continue.

Their response: The Fourth Circuit: “While defendants’ role and actions related to USAID are not conventional, unconventional does not necessarily equal unconstitutional.” According to the Brennan Center, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the Supreme Court had “confirmed” the president’s “ultimate authority” over the department’s staffing.

Sources: Fourth Circuit order, Does 1-26 v. Musk (March 28, 2025) · Supreme Court order, McMahon v. New York (July 14, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026) · Brennan Center (March 3, 2026)

He fired officials Congress had protected; lower courts called it illegal, the Supreme Court sided with him

In 2025 Trump fired members of the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and other bodies whose members, by statute, could be removed only for cause; district judges ruled the firings unlawful under a 1935 precedent, Humphrey’s Executor. On June 29, 2026 the Supreme Court ruled for Trump 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter, holding that “the FTC’s for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution” and overruling Humphrey’s. The Court left open whether the same applies to the Federal Reserve. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting with Kagan and Jackson, wrote that the ruling gives the president a power “unknown even to the English Crown.”

Their response: This is a ruling in Trump’s favor. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that “the FTC unquestionably exercises executive power” and so must answer to the president.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion, Trump v. Slaughter (June 29, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Supreme Court declined to let him remove the head of the Copyright Office

Trump fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden on May 8, 2025 and, two days later, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, then named his deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, acting Librarian of an institution that belongs to the legislative branch. On Sept. 10, 2025 a D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that Perlmutter could stay in her job while she sues, with the majority writing that the “alleged violation of the separation of powers is irreparably” harmful. The Supreme Court held the administration’s emergency request for eight months and denied it on June 30, 2026, noting the denial “is not a ruling on the merits.” The underlying case continues.

Their response: The administration argued the president may remove her; Judge Justin Walker dissented in the appeals court and Justice Thomas would have granted the government’s request in November 2025.

Sources: Supreme Court docket 25A478, Blanche v. Perlmutter · D.C. Circuit order, Perlmutter v. Blanche (Sept. 10, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026)

Agencies blamed Democrats for the shutdown on websites and staff email; a judge ruled the emails unlawful

During the October 2025 government shutdown the Housing and Urban Development website carried a red banner and pop-up reading “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government,” and departments circulated out-of-office wording, described at the Labor Department as template language from the White House budget office, saying “Democratic Senators” were blocking a funding bill. At the Education Department, furloughed employees’ automatic replies were changed to that message without their consent. On Nov. 7, 2025 U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled the department had violated their First Amendment rights by “commandeering” their email accounts “to broadcast partisan messages” and permanently barred it from doing so; the ruling covers that department only. Watchdog groups filed Hatch Act complaints over the HUD banner; no finding on those has been reported.

Their response: A HUD spokesperson: “The Far Left is barreling our country toward a shut down, which will hurt all Americans. ... Why is the media more focused on a banner than reporting on the impact of a shutdown on the American people?” A HUD official said the banner named an ideology, not a party or politician, and so did not break the Hatch Act.

Sources: NBC News: administration uses government websites and email to pin shutdown on Democrats (Oct. 2, 2025) · The Independent: judge rules officials illegally used furloughed workers’ emails (Nov. 8, 2025)

He said he was “not joking” about a third term the Constitution forbids; his firm sold “Trump 2028” hats

The 22nd Amendment bars anyone from being elected president more than twice. On March 30, 2025 Trump told NBC News he was “not joking” about a third term and that “there are methods which you could do it”; in April 2025 the Trump Organization began selling $50 “Trump 2028” hats with the line “Rewrite the rules.” In May 2025 he told NBC it is “something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do.” These are statements and merchandise, not official acts, and no court has been asked to rule.

Their response: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referred questions about the hats to the Trump Organization “since it’s their website,” adding, “but it’s a cool hat and I suspect it will be highly popular!”

Sources: NBC News (March 30, 2025) · NBC News (April 24, 2025) · NBC News (May 4, 2025)

The scorecard: 976 lawsuits, and 24 wins in 32 emergency rulings at the Supreme Court

By the Brennan Center’s tracker, updated Sept. 29, 2026, the Supreme Court had issued 32 emergency-docket decisions on Trump administration actions since Jan. 20, 2025: 24 for the administration at least in part and 8 against, with 8 carrying no written explanation. Just Security was tracking 976 lawsuits against administration actions in early October 2026. In full, argued cases the Court has ruled against him on tariffs and birthright citizenship and for him on firing independent agency members. Emergency orders are not final rulings on the merits.

Their response: White House statement to ProPublica: “President Trump has faced a historically unprecedented number of injunctions by liberal lower court judges, the same judges who would rather push their own policy schemes and undermine the Administration’s lawful agenda.”

Sources: Brennan Center, Supreme Court shadow docket tracker (updated Sept. 29, 2026) · Just Security litigation tracker (read Oct. 5, 2026) · ProPublica (July 1, 2026)