Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact Check: Were there court rulings or ongoing investigations pr
Executive summary
Coverage in the provided reporting shows multiple high‑profile court rulings, pending petitions, and active investigations or requests for investigations related to judges and administration actions — notably Supreme Court docket activity including major cases (tariffs, SNAP, death‑penalty issues), congressional inquiries about judges’ public comments, and litigation challenging Trump administration policies (passport rule, tariffs) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single, sweeping answer to “were there court rulings or ongoing investigations” without naming which persons or cases; instead they document many discrete rulings, pending appeals, and probes across different forums [1] [4] [2] [3].
1. What the Supreme Court docket shows right now: a term crowded with consequential cases
The Supreme Court’s 2025–26 term has taken up a string of high‑stakes matters: the court agreed to hear challenges to President Trump’s broad tariffs after lower courts concluded he overstepped authority, as well as appeals involving capital punishment and other major disputes scheduled for November argument dates [1] [5]. Reporting says the justices are considering dozens more petitions and are expected to add roughly 30 cases to the oral‑argument docket in coming months, underscoring active adjudication rather than a single isolated ruling [6].
2. Specific recent rulings and emergency orders in circulation
Recent emergency activity includes the Supreme Court issuing an administrative stay affecting SNAP funding after a district judge ordered full payments; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s narrow stay gave the 1st Circuit time to act while litigation continues [4]. Reuters and AP reporting highlight that lower courts had already ruled against some administration actions (e.g., on tariffs and other policies), and those rulings are traveling up the appellate ladder to the Supreme Court [1] [7].
3. Lower courts have ruled against some Trump administration measures and those rulings are under review
Multiple lower federal courts found President Trump lacked authority under IEEPA for sweeping reciprocal tariffs; those rulings were appealed and the Supreme Court accepted review, signaling an active path of litigation rather than a final resolution [8] [5]. Reuters and CNBC note that courts below have found overreach and that the high court’s oral arguments in November will test those judgments [1] [8].
4. Investigations and oversight: Congress asks the Chief Justice about judges’ public comments
Republican leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees asked Chief Justice John Roberts whether he ordered investigations or cautions after dozens of federal judges anonymously criticized the Supreme Court in a New York Times questionnaire; the lawmakers suggested such comments might violate judicial conduct rules and requested a report back to Congress [2]. This is a congressional oversight request about potential ethics enforcement, not a criminal investigation, and the letter frames those anonymous judicial comments as undermining public confidence [2].
5. Parallel litigation tracks challenging administration policies
Public trackers and legal observers document numerous ongoing suits against Trump administration actions — for example, litigation over passport policies relating to gender identity and a Justice Department request that the Supreme Court stay a district court injunction; trackers also note suits by organizations like Media Matters alleging retaliatory investigatory actions by the FTC [3]. These items illustrate that investigations or counter‑actions are piecemeal across agencies and courts rather than centralized in one proceeding [3].
6. How to interpret “court rulings or ongoing investigations” in current reporting
Available reporting shows many separate rulings (district and appeals courts) and multiple pending appeals and emergency applications before the Supreme Court, plus congressional oversight requests regarding judges’ conduct — so the accurate framing is plural: courts have issued notable rulings and various investigations, reviews, and appeals are actively underway [1] [4] [2]. The sources do not converge on a single investigation or a single blockbuster ruling that resolves all disputes; instead they document overlapping legal and oversight proceedings [6] [5] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and political framing to watch for
Reporting includes differing emphases: some outlets highlight conservative justices’ skepticism about executive overreach on tariffs and other policies (noting lower‑court findings) while others emphasize administrative concerns about operational chaos if lower court rulings stand (Treasury warning about refunds if tariffs are struck down) [8] [1]. Congress’s Republican leaders frame judges’ anonymous statements as ethics breaches warranting scrutiny, while the anonymous judges and The New York Times framed those comments as substantive complaints about the Supreme Court’s emergency docket practices [2].
Limitations: these conclusions rely only on the supplied items; specific names, dates, or outcomes for every case or alleged investigation are not present in every source, and available sources do not mention a single comprehensive list tying all rulings and probes together (not found in current reporting).