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.
Which of Donald Trump's executive orders were blocked or struck down by federal courts and why?
Executive summary
Federal courts have put temporary or permanent blocks on multiple Trump administration executive actions in 2025 — including injunctions or stays against a passport sex-entry policy, parts of an elections-focused order, and immigration- and education-related proclamations and funding pauses — typically on separation-of-powers, statutory-authority, or constitutional grounds (e.g., First/Equal Protection or improper executive overreach) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and trackers show litigation is widespread and evolving: some orders were temporarily stayed by higher courts while lower-court injunctions remain under appeal [1] [2].
1. Courts blocking the SNAP/benefits order during the shutdown — a high-profile stay
A district court had ordered SNAP benefits to be paid in full during a 2025 shutdown, the administration appealed, and the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay blocking that district court order until the First Circuit acted — illustrating how emergency appellate relief can pause lower-court remedies even when injunctions have been granted below [1].
2. Passport policy blocked, then stayed by the Supreme Court — sex-entry listing litigation
Legal trackers report that a district court injunction blocking the administration’s new passport policy requiring "sex assigned at birth" on passports was in place, and that the government obtained an emergency stay from the Supreme Court while appeals proceeded — showing competing judicial outcomes at different levels and how emergency relief can reinstate contested policies pending fuller review [2].
3. Election-related executive order partially enjoined for separation-of-powers concerns
A federal judge in D.C. granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Section 2(a) of an executive order that directed the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for mail-in voting applications, finding that Congress never assigned such authority to the President or Executive Branch and framing the dispute as a separation-of-powers issue [2]. That ruling underscores courts policing the boundary between executive action and authority delegated by Congress.
4. Immigration proclamations and campus restrictions met with TROs and injunctions
An administration proclamation restricting entry of foreign nationals for study at Harvard and in certain exchange programs was enjoined by a temporary restraining order shortly after issuance on June 5, 2025; NAFSA and other trackers note that's one example of immigration or education-related proclamations facing immediate judicial pushback [3]. These blocks typically arise from constitutional or statutory challenges and rapid motions for emergency relief by affected institutions or states [3].
5. Funding freezes and agency pauses drew fast litigation that altered implementation
The administration put funding pauses or rescissions into effect for certain foreign-aid and grant programs, but litigation temporarily blocked implementation in at least one case and prompted an Office of Management and Budget notification that a freeze was rescinded — demonstrating how courts and administrative practice together can halt executive fiscal actions during legal challenges [3].
6. Widespread, ongoing litigation tracked by legal groups — many orders targeted
Legal trackers and watchdogs (Just Security, NAFSA, and university research guides) document dozens of cases challenging executive actions across topics — elections, passports, immigration, DEIA policies, and more — with courts issuing TROs, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, or stays depending on claims and posture [2] [3] [4]. These trackers show courts evaluate statutory authority, constitutional rights, and separation-of-powers when ruling.
7. Why courts block or strike down these orders — legal rationales
Available reporting attributes judicial blockage to several recurring legal reasons: (a) separation of powers/statutory-authority — courts found the President acting where Congress had not delegated power (e.g., mail-in voting rule) [2]; (b) constitutional claims — equal protection, due process, or First Amendment concerns were raised in passport, campus, or DEIA challenges [2] [3]; and (c) procedural and administrative law problems — funding freezes or sudden agency directives that bypassed statutory requirements drew emergency relief [3]. Specific holdings vary by case and judge [2] [3].
8. Competing perspectives and political context
Advocates for the administration argue aggressive executive action is needed to implement policy goals and speed governance; critics — from states, universities, advocacy groups, and some bipartisan attorney generals — say many orders exceed presidential authority, harm rights, or undermine state prerogatives [5] [3]. Reuters, policy trackers, and legal analyses each document pushback by states and civil-society groups, and by contrast the administration has sought emergency stays at the Supreme Court in some disputes [5] [2].
9. Limitations and evolving litigation — what reporting doesn’t say
Available sources catalog many challenges but do not provide a single, exhaustive list of every order struck down or the full legal reasoning for each ruling; ongoing appeals and emergency stays mean outcomes can change quickly and some orders are merely paused rather than permanently invalidated [2] [3]. For claims not detailed in these specific sources, available sources do not mention them.
Conclusion: Courts have repeatedly checked several 2025 Trump administration executive actions across elections, immigration, passports, education, and spending by issuing TROs, injunctions, or stays — typically citing separation-of-powers, statutory limits, and constitutional concerns — and litigation remains active and consequential as appeals proceed [2] [3] [1].