Which 2025 executive orders from the Trump administration have been stayed or overturned by courts?
Executive summary
A substantial subset of President Trump’s 2025 executive orders has faced litigation, and courts have both blocked and allowed different orders to proceed; reporting shows specific judicial stays or refusals to stay in several high‑profile cases but does not provide a single consolidated list of every order stayed or overturned [1] [2]. Examples documented in public reporting include litigation over the birthright‑citizenship order, a frozen small‑business grants policy, multiple emergency motions before the Supreme Court, and several circuit and district court rulings that either stayed injunctions or refused stays—each outcome depends on the specific order and the court handling the challenge [3] [4] [5] [1].
1. The headline examples — birthright citizenship and business‑grant freezes
The birthright‑citizenship executive order was one of the most litigated 2025 actions and reporters note that federal courts have invalidated or blocked enforcement of that order as the litigation proceeded, with national coverage highlighting its centrality to the year’s EO disputes [3] [6]. Separately, federal courts issued orders blocking the administration’s funding freeze on federal small‑business grants —including programs supporting minority‑ and women‑owned businesses—an action Congress and litigants challenged and that remained blocked by federal court orders as of March 2025 reporting [4].
2. What the Supreme Court did on emergency stay requests
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket in 2025 produced mixed outcomes: it declined to stay a district court order requiring the State Department to reimburse nearly $2 billion to foreign‑assistance recipients in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (the court turned down the administration’s stay request) and it stayed a district court injunction that had barred the executive branch from formulating large‑scale federal workforce reductions in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees [5]. These emergency docket decisions illustrate that the high court sometimes allowed administrative actions to proceed and at other times left lower‑court protections in place [5].
3. Circuit court maneuvers and the limits of “stays” reporting
Circuit courts and district courts issued and refused various injunctions and stays: the Supreme Court refused the solicitor general’s request for a stay of the 4th Circuit order in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, sending the matter back for more fact‑finding, whereas other injunctions were stayed or modified on appeal [5]. Tracking efforts by outlets such as the AP and legal trackers show “the courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases,” but those trackers also make clear that dozens of suits were pending, with outcomes dependent on standing, timing, and the precise legal claims [1].
4. Litigation still in progress and contested EOs
Many orders remained subject to ongoing litigation as of the last reporting: for example, the DNC and allied groups filed suit against Executive Order 14215 (Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies), with status reports indicating those challenges were pending and not yet resolved [4]. Legal monitoring firms, law‑firm charts, and government trackers catalog hundreds of orders and note that many cases were active—meaning the list of stayed or overturned orders was still evolving and scattered across districts and circuits [7] [8] [9].
5. How to interpret the patchwork of rulings
The available reporting shows a fragmented legal landscape in which some 2025 EOs were enjoined or blocked, others survived stays and proceeded, and many remained under challenge; reporters and academic commentators emphasize that outcomes hinge on standing, separation‑of‑powers arguments, statutory text, and the speed of appeals—so blanket statements about “many” orders being overturned require careful qualification [6] [1]. Public trackers (AP, Ballotpedia, Federal Register) and legal briefs are essential for a definitive inventory because no single source in the provided reporting offers a comprehensive, court‑verified list of every 2025 EO that was stayed or overturned [1] [10] [9].