Which second‑term Trump executive orders have been permanently enjoined or struck down by federal courts?
Executive summary
Federal trial courts and a number of appellate panels have repeatedly enjoined or blocked significant parts of President Trump’s second‑term executive orders — including orders on birthright citizenship, election rules, sanctuary jurisdictions and certain funding freezes — although many of these restraints were issued as preliminary or interlocutory injunctions and remain subject to appeal [1] [2] [3]. The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA narrowed the remedy available to challengers by holding that lower courts lack authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, shifting the litigation landscape even as many orders continue to be litigated [4] [5] [6].
1. Birthright citizenship and the universal‑injunction turning point
Multiple district courts enjoined President Trump’s order seeking to curtail birthright citizenship, and at least one appeals court upheld those injunctions pending appeal, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA addressed not the merits of the citizenship question but the authority of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions — a decision that undercuts the ability of a single district judge to nullify an executive order for everyone and materially altered how those birthright challenges proceed [2] [5] [4].
2. Election‑related orders struck down in multiple districts
Federal judges in Washington, D.C., Massachusetts and Seattle enjoined key provisions of the administration’s sweeping election executive order — including efforts to condition federal funds on proof‑of‑citizenship requirements and to forbid counting ballots received after Election Day — finding that these provisions likely exceeded the president’s constitutional and statutory authority and interfered with states’ administration of elections [3] [7].
3. Sanctuary jurisdiction and immigration‑funding blocks
Courts in several jurisdictions blocked elements of executive orders that attempted to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities or condition grants on cooperation with immigration enforcement, with judges finding parts of those orders likely unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful and entering injunctions to prevent their enforcement while litigation proceeds [8] [9] [10].
4. Transgender and DEI‑related executive orders enjoined
Federal judges have blocked Trump orders targeting transgender rights and executive actions that would withdraw federal support for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs in schools and institutions, with rulings finding plausible First Amendment and statutory problems and issuing injunctions against enforcement of those measures in multiple cases [10] [8].
5. Collective bargaining, federal employee actions and other labor orders
A federal judge in D.C. blocked an order that sought to curtail collective bargaining across dozens of agencies, and other judges have enjoined personnel‑related directives — decisions that stopped implementation of those workplace changes at least temporarily and in some instances compelled further appellate review [9] [10].
6. Funding freezes, grant cancellations and the mixed remedial record
Courts have restrained the administration’s attempts to cancel or withhold billions in federal grants and contracts in several suits, and in at least one high‑profile dispute a lower court order requiring the government to pay nearly $2 billion in reimbursements survived an emergency request by the administration to halt it, illustrating that injunctions and monetary relief have both been part of the judicial response [6] [11].
7. The appellate and Supreme Court overlay: temporary stays, wins and limits
Although lower courts issued many injunctions against second‑term orders, the Supreme Court and appellate courts frequently entertained emergency applications, granting stays for the administration in many instances while allowing some injunctions to remain in place in others, and ultimately constrained universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA — a decision that favored the administration procedurally even where the merits remained unresolved [6] [12] [5].
8. What the record does not show: a complete catalogue of “permanently struck down” orders
Public reporting and the litigation trackers document hundreds of suits and many preliminary and permanent injunctions, but the sources assembled for this report do not provide a definitive, consolidated list of which second‑term executive orders have been permanently struck down on the merits as of this reporting; many rulings are interlocutory, stayed, appealed or limited in scope and the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling has complicated the meaning of “nationwide” injunctions [1] [4] [13].