Which federal court decisions have definitively ruled against Trump on constitutional grounds and what did each hold?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal courts — from trial judges to the Supreme Court — have issued multiple rulings that rejected actions taken by President Trump or his administration on constitutional grounds, most prominently blocking the federalization of the Illinois National Guard, finding First Amendment violations in politically motivated immigration enforcement, and enjoining an executive order on birthright citizenship as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment; reporting tracks dozens more lower-court losses tied to due process and separation-of-powers claims [1] [2] [3] [4]. This account summarizes the principal, well‑reported federal decisions that squarely ruled against Trump on constitutional grounds and explains what each held.
1. Supreme Court blocks federalization of the Illinois National Guard — limits on presidential use of militia and statutory interpretation
In a 6–3 emergency order the Supreme Court refused to allow the federalized National Guard deployment in Illinois, concluding that the government had not shown the statute invoked (§12406) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property, and that the government had not carried its burden in this posture to justify the federalization [1] [5]. The order, while not a full precedential opinion, effectively kept in place lower‑court findings that the protests did not amount to a rebellion or danger of rebellion that would permit the unilateral federal action and thus constrained the President’s domestic military deployment in that instance [6] [7]. Concurring and dissenting comments signaled continued debate over the Insurrection Act and presidential latitude for future deployments [8] [7].
2. Federal district court: First Amendment violation in ideologically‑targeted immigration enforcement
A federal court in litigation led by the Knight First Amendment Institute held that the Trump administration’s attempts to arrest or deport noncitizens for pro‑Palestinian advocacy violated the First Amendment, emphatically ruling that noncitizens lawfully present in the United States enjoy free‑speech protections and that the administration’s policy unlawfully discriminated on the basis of viewpoint [2]. The district judge framed the decision as a clear constitutional answer that “no law” means “no law,” declaring the First Amendment does not permit the government to pick disfavored political speech as a basis for immigration enforcement [2].
3. Lower courts enjoin Trump’s birthright‑citizenship directive — Fourteenth Amendment and statutory conflict
Multiple federal judges issued injunctions blocking President Trump’s executive order to curtail birthright citizenship, with lower courts finding the directive likely violated the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and contradicts longstanding Supreme Court precedent and federal statute; those injunctions were later reviewed by the Supreme Court, but district courts across the country had independently concluded the order was contrary to entrenched constitutional law [3]. Reporting characterizes the lower‑court consensus as “unanimous” in holding the order inconsistent with 150 years of legal tradition and precedents [3].
4. Due‑process rulings against deportation policies and other administrative actions
Federal judges have also found the administration’s immigration and detention policies likely to violate procedural due process, including a notable decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that an administrative policy likely violated migrants’ due‑process rights and led to injunctions blocking removal practices such as sending migrants to unstable third countries [4]. The Supreme Court’s emergency interventions later clarified or narrowed some relief, but the lower-court findings articulate concrete constitutional limits on executive deportation schemes [4].
5. Broader pattern and limits of available reporting
Trackers from Lawfare and Just Security document scores of individual and class‑action rulings challenging Trump administration actions, showing many district‑court losses on constitutional and statutory grounds though not all reached the Supreme Court; Lawfare tallies numerous suits and notes relatively few Supreme Court affirmations for the administration, underscoring that much of the constitutional pushback plays out in trial courts and courts of appeals [9] [10]. Reporting does not provide an exhaustive catalog of every constitutional defeat, and this summary relies on the cited coverage for the most salient, well‑reported rulings [9] [10].