Which Supreme Court cases have ruled actions by Donald Trump unconstitutional and what were their holdings?

1. Major Supreme Court holdings that directly touched on Trump’s actions

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity—frequently cited in coverage of prosecutions and civil suits against Trump—held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for quintessentially presidential acts and at least presumptive immunity for actions within the outer perimeter of official responsibility, while not protecting purely unofficial conduct; news reporting frames that decision as pivotal to litigation over Trump’s post‑2020 conduct ^[2]. Separately, the Court’s June 2025 opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (606 U. S. ^[1]) narrowed the availability of nationwide (universal) injunctions, a remedial rule highly consequential to lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies because it constrains courts’ ability to issue orders that bind non‑parties nationwide ^[3].

2. Birthright‑citizenship orders: lower courts called them unconstitutional; Supreme Court weighing appeal

Multiple lower courts struck down President Trump’s 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, finding it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment; those lower‑court injunctions are on appeal and the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh the question, with the administration arguing otherwise and opponents saying the order flouts long‑standing precedent ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Reporting also emphasizes that the Supreme Court’s June 2025 limits on nationwide injunctions did not fully foreclose broad relief in multi‑state or class‑action contexts, so litigation over nationwide effects continued ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Tariffs, foreign‑affairs powers, and separation of powers challenges

The administration’s 2025 tariffs—imposed under claimed emergency authority—prompted challenges that lower courts characterized as overreach, and the Supreme Court heard arguments weighing whether statutes like IEEPA authorize such tariffs or unconstitutionally delegate Congress’s taxing power; media coverage described justices as skeptical and observers as split on likely outcomes, with betting markets tilting against the administration in some accounts ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Reuters and Newsweek reporting indicate lower courts had found overreach in invoking IEEPA in related contexts, though the Supreme Court’s final ruling was pending coverage at the time of these pieces ^{[10] [9]}.

4. Deployments, prosecutorial actions, and other lower‑court findings of illegality

Reporting and litigation trackers document lower‑court rulings finding other Trump administration actions unlawful: a federal judge found a June 2025 deployment of National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act because troops were used in law‑enforcement roles ^[11]. State and aid‑group challenges also led to orders that the administration comply with appropriations laws in spending decisions, where at least one district judge had required compliance until appealed ^[10]. These are lower‑court holdings cited in reporting rather than Supreme Court rulings ^{[11] [10]}.

5. Remedies and the politics of judicial decisions

The White House itself framed several recent Supreme Court precedents as grounds to unwind regulations, issuing a fact sheet directing agencies to review rules under ten recent Supreme Court decisions—including ones like Students for Fair Admissions and SEC v. Jarkesy—to justify repeal of regulations ^[12]. Coverage from SCOTUSblog and others highlights that the high court’s conservative majority delivered significant wins for the administration in the 2024–25 term, and press accounts emphasize how court rulings on remedies (like limits on universal injunctions) interact with political aims ^{[13] [3]}.

6. What reporting does not establish or that remains unsettled

Available sources do not provide a single, consolidated list that limits “which Supreme Court cases have ruled actions by Donald Trump unconstitutional” strictly to instances where the Court itself invalidated a Trump action; much of the material describes (a) Supreme Court decisions bearing on presidential power and remedies ^{[2] [3]}, and (b) lower‑court rulings striking down Trump administration measures that are now on appeal to the Supreme Court ^{[4] [5] [11]}. Where the Supreme Court has issued definitive holdings directly invalidating specific Trump policies, reporting is limited to decisions on immunity and injunctions cited above; for many policy disputes (tariffs, birthright‑citizenship), the ultimate Supreme Court resolution was either in progress or described as pending in the available coverage ^{[2] [3] [9]}.

Conclusion — competing frames and implications: Reporting shows a split narrative. One set of articles emphasizes judicial checks finding Trump administration actions unlawful in lower courts (birthright citizenship, troop deployments, spending); other coverage stresses Supreme Court rulings that have insulated presidential authority in important respects (immunity for official acts) and curtailed remedies like nationwide injunctions that beneficiaries of lower‑court victories relied upon ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Readers should note that many contested issues remain pending at the Supreme Court and that available reporting does not uniformly catalog every Supreme Court invalidation of a Trump action ^{[4] [10]}.