Which major Supreme Court rulings involved the Trump administration and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court has decided and acted on multiple high‑profile disputes involving the Trump administration in 2025–2025, including rulings that (a) allowed parts of the administration’s immigration and enforcement priorities to proceed (e.g., “metering” and third‑country removals), (b) cleared the way for new passport sex‑marker rules and temporarily allowed expanded immigration raids, and (c) intervened on emergency funding for SNAP during a shutdown — sometimes pausing lower‑court orders and other times deferring full decisions (examples: SNAP administrative stay by Justice Jackson; passport and asylum matters on the Court’s interim docket) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Available sources do not provide a single exhaustive catalog of “all major” Supreme Court rulings involving the administration; reporting and trackers list many discrete shadow‑docket orders and full opinions across issues [6] [7].
1. The shadow docket: quick orders, big consequences
The Brennan Center and other trackers show the Court has frequently used emergency (shadow docket) orders to decide or temporarily allow Trump administration actions without full written opinions; since January 20, 2025, the Court issued dozens of such decisions affecting immigration, spending, and civil‑rights issues, sometimes ruling for the administration “at least partially” and sometimes against it [6]. That pattern matters because many consequential outcomes—like letting an enforcement policy go forward—arrive via short emergency orders rather than detailed precedents [6].
2. Immigration: metering, third‑country removals, and deportation policies
Multiple news outlets and law school commentators highlight immigration cases the Court accepted or granted emergency relief on. The Court agreed to review the administration’s effort to limit asylum processing at the U.S.–Mexico border (metering), a dispute that turns on when a noncitizen “arrives” and whether metering violates federal law; The Guardian and Fox reported the Court would hear the issue and likely rule by mid‑year, noting lower‑court findings that metering was unlawful [8] [3]. On third‑country removals, Columbia Law faculty and the Brennan Center note the Court has issued orders that at least partially favored the administration, allowing quicker removals or limiting legal barriers to deportations [9] [6]. Activist and advocacy groups flagged emergency stays that temporarily permitted more aggressive raids or “roving patrols,” as in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, where a 6–3 emergency order halted a judge’s ban on certain ICE tactics [5].
3. Tariffs and the major‑questions fight
The administration’s sweeping 2025 tariffs under emergency authority have been litigated up to the Supreme Court in consolidated cases (e.g., Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Learning Resources). Newsweek and CNN explained the Court’s review could reshape executive power over trade: a ruling for the administration would expand emergency tariff authority, while a ruling against it would constrain presidents’ use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the major‑questions doctrine may play a pivotal role [10] [11]. Lower courts had already found limits on IEEPA’s reach in this context, and the Supreme Court took the case on an expedited basis [10].
4. SNAP funding during shutdowns: emergency stays and split outcomes
A lower court ordered the administration to fully fund November SNAP benefits by a set deadline; the administration appealed and the Supreme Court’s Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused that lower‑court order while appeals proceeded, giving appellate courts time to act [1] [4]. Reuters and ABC described a back‑and‑forth where the USDA simultaneously told states it was working to comply even as the administration sought stays, producing confusion about benefits distribution [4] [1]. Trackers note the Court has sometimes affirmed lower‑court relief and sometimes granted stays for the government, underscoring inconsistent outcomes [6] [7].
5. Agency removals and the pending copyright official question
The Supreme Court deferred a decision on whether the President could remove the U.S. Copyright Office head until it resolved related cases about firing independent regulators; that order left Shira Perlmutter in place at least temporarily, and Justice Thomas signaled he favored permitting removal while the Court held the matter in abeyance [12]. The deferral fits a broader cluster of cases testing the administration’s power to oust agency officials—matters the Court has on its docket and sometimes addressed through interim orders [12] [6].
6. How commentators and academic experts frame the stakes
Columbia Law faculty and other commentators frame these rulings as enabling key administration goals—rapid deportations, looser environmental review, broader executive leeway on agency action—while warning of uncertainty for agencies, employees, and affected communities [9]. Critics emphasize that many crucial decisions arrive through shadow‑docket moves with limited explanation; supporters argue expedited relief is sometimes necessary to let the executive act in times of perceived crisis [6] [10].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single, complete list of “major” rulings across the entire period; much of the Court’s activity is split between full opinions and shadow‑docket orders tracked separately by news outlets and research centers [6] [7].