What actions by Trump were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or appellate courts?

1. What courts have actually ruled unconstitutional or unlawful — and which actions were affected

Federal trial and appeals courts have enjoined or held unlawful discrete Trump actions: multiple district judges preliminarily enjoined his birthright‑citizenship executive order as likely unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment ^{[1] [2]}; several lower courts ruled that the administration overstepped statutory or constitutional authority in imposing sweeping tariffs and in some troop deployments, leading to injunctions or adverse rulings on those fronts ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Appeals courts have also limited parts of the administration’s rapid‑deportation procedures as violating migrants’ due‑process rights ^[8].

2. The Supreme Court’s role: temporary relief vs. final rulings

The Supreme Court in 2025 frequently used emergency (shadow‑docket) orders to allow Trump administration policies to remain in effect while litigation proceeds, for example letting a passport rule and food‑stamp withholding proceed temporarily and taking up high‑profile tariff and birthright‑citizenship questions ^{[9] [10] [3]}. At the same time, the Court’s June decision in the birthright‑citizenship path (Trump v. CASA) curtailed lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions even as it left open other forms of relief — a ruling that both critics and advocates interpret as shifting how courts can check presidential actions ^{[6] [1]}.

3. Major categories of disputed Trump actions and where courts pushed back

• Birthright citizenship: Multiple district courts found the executive order likely unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and issued preliminary injunctions; the Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether to take the case ^{[2] [1]}.
• Tariffs and trade: Lower courts in several jurisdictions ruled that the president overstepped statutory authority when imposing broad import tariffs; those rulings reached the Supreme Court, which expressed skepticism at oral argument and will resolve the scope of executive power on trade ^{[3] [4] [11]}.
• Troop deployments and use of force: Judges have enjoined or criticized deployments that federal plaintiffs argued violated Posse Comitatus and other statutes; appellate panels have produced divided rulings, with rehearing petitions pending in some circuits ^{[5] [12]}.
• Immigration procedures and deportations: A D.C. Circuit panel limited expansions of rapid‑deportation policies on due‑process grounds and left in place aspects of a lower judge’s order protecting migrants’ rights ^[8].

4. Where appellate courts and the Supreme Court have favored the administration

Appellate courts and the Supreme Court have also sided with the administration in emergency applications — staying lower‑court blocks or allowing policies temporarily — and in some panels have reversed or put on hold injunctions ^{[7] [13]}. The shadow‑docket record shows the high court often grants interim relief to the executive, even where lower courts later find problems ^[7].

5. What these rulings mean for separation of powers and remedies

Legal observers and advocacy groups disagree sharply about the practical impact: Constitutional Accountability Center and other critics say recent Supreme Court decisions substantially limit courts’ ability to enjoin unlawful presidential actions, enabling broader executive power ^{[6] [14]}. Defenders of the Court’s approach argue that limiting nationwide injunctions prevents a single judge from imposing policy nationwide — a structural change discussed in multiple outlets ^{[6] [1]}. Available sources do not mention a single comprehensive list of every action found unconstitutional; reporting highlights categories and representative cases instead ^[15].

6. Limitations and where to look next

This account relies on recent reporting and trackers that focus on high‑profile suits and emergency orders; comprehensive catalogs are maintained by litigation trackers (Just Security, Lawfare) and court dockets ^{[5] [15]}. For any specific policy you want named (for example, exact orders or case captions), current reporting can identify the district or circuit decisions cited above — ask which action you want detailed and I will extract the specific court findings and citations from these sources ^{[2] [3]}.