What appellate court decisions declared specific Trump policies or conduct unconstitutional and why?

1. Federal appeals courts and district courts stopped aspects of the birthright‑citizenship order

Multiple lower courts — including district courts whose rulings were later appealed — enjoined the January 20, 2025 executive order that sought to bar citizenship to certain children born in the United States, finding the policy likely unconstitutional as conflicting with the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship guarantee; those injunctions were central to ongoing appeals and attracted Supreme Court attention ^{[4] [1] [6]}. Reporting notes that several lower courts “struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so,” and that the administration sought review before the Supreme Court ^{[6] [1]}.

2. Appeals courts have questioned the president’s unilateral tariff authority under emergency statutes

Two lower courts — including at least one federal appeals court — concluded the president lacked statutory authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or similar emergency powers, a legal conclusion that was then pressed up toward the Supreme Court in consolidated cases about Trump’s China tariffs ^{[2] [3] [7] [8]}. Coverage emphasizes that these courts found the statutory grant did not authorize the scale of tariffs imposed, framing the dispute as one about statutory interpretation and separation of powers ^{[3] [9]}.

3. Passport and sex‑designation policies drew appellate and Supreme Court emergency activity

A First Circuit stay denial and subsequent emergency moves reached the Supreme Court over a State Department policy delaying or denying passport applications tied to sex‑designation rules; the litigation included lower‑court injunctions and fast‑moving appeals that produced stays and emergency requests at the high court ^[5]. Reporting shows a pattern: district courts enjoin novel administrative policies as likely unlawful, and the administration seeks emergency relief from higher courts ^[5].

4. How courts framed the constitutional problems — statutory gap vs. constitutional text

The appellate reasoning reported in these sources divides into two themes: ^[10] statutory authority limits — courts found the text of statutes (like IEEPA or tariff statutes) did not grant the scope of power the president asserted, leading to invalidation on statutory grounds ^{[9] [3]}; and ^[11] constitutional text and precedent — for the birthright cases courts relied on longstanding Fourteenth Amendment interpretation and past Supreme Court precedent to conclude the executive’s move was inconsistent with constitutional guarantees ^{[4] [1]}. Sources also highlight that lower courts sometimes used traditional equitable remedies (injunctions), a practice the Supreme Court later scrutinized in relation to nationwide injunctions ^[12].

5. The Supreme Court’s role and the “shadow docket” dynamic

Several pieces emphasize that the Supreme Court has frequently been asked to intervene on an emergency basis, sometimes allowing Trump policies to take effect temporarily while litigation proceeds; the Court also issued doctrinal rulings (e.g., limiting universal injunctions) that affect how appeals courts can craft remedies ^{[3] [12]}. Observers differ: some critique the high court for enabling executive actions via interim stays, while others note the Court has at times curtailed lower‑court remedies ^{[3] [12]}.

6. Competing perspectives and political context

Legal commentators and state litigants frame these rulings differently: challengers say courts protect constitutional rights and statutory limits; the administration and some conservative commentators argue courts are preventing necessary executive action or misreading statutes ^{[8] [2]}. Sources also flag an implicit institutional agenda: the administration strategically litigates high‑stakes policies, while opponents use the courts to constrain new assertions of executive power ^{[13] [4] [2]}.

7. What reporting does not show (limitations)

The provided materials do not produce a comprehensive list of every appellate decision that declared specific Trump policies unconstitutional; rather, they highlight key litigation threads (birthright citizenship, tariffs, passport rules, removal of agency officials) and the legal rationales courts used in those prominent cases ^{[1] [3] [5] [4]}. For a full catalog of appellate rulings with exact holdings and opinions, specialized litigation trackers or primary court opinions would be required ^[5].

If you want, I can compile the specific appellate opinions and exact holdings cited in these articles (district and circuit‑court case names, dates, and quotes) using the sources above — or search for primary court opinions to produce a case‑by‑case list.