Fact check: How has the US Supreme Court ruled on Trump's executive orders?

1. Why the Supreme Court’s 2025 move on universal injunctions matters — and what it changed

The Supreme Court in mid-2025 signaled that universal injunctions—orders that block government actions nationwide—likely exceed the traditional equitable powers of federal courts, granting the government a partial stay against broad injunctions challenging the birthright citizenship order and remanding aspects for further review ^[1]. This ruling, reached in a 6–3 decision with Justice Barrett writing the opinion and three conservative justices concurring, constrains how district courts can enjoin executive action across the country and elevates the role of the Supreme Court in resolving nationwide disputes ^[2]. The practical effect is that challenges to executive orders may now proceed on a more piecemeal basis, allowing the government to maintain policies in some jurisdictions while litigation continues elsewhere, a shift that litigation strategists and state plaintiffs will have to reckon with ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Travel ban precedent still stands — a major affirmation of presidential immigration authority

In 2018 the Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, a 5–4 decision finding the President has broad authority to restrict entry of non-citizens and that the proclamation did not violate statutory or constitutional limits; the decision remains a cornerstone for executive immigration power ^{[3] [6]}. That ruling created a durable precedent for later administrations seeking to exercise nationality-based entry restrictions or similar immigration proclamations, and it has been cited by courts and advocates when assessing the legality of national-security framed immigration measures ^[7]. The travel-ban decision reflects a judicial deference to the political branches on matters of foreign affairs and border policy, a posture the Court has carried into consideration of subsequent executive actions though not without contention from dissenting justices and civil-rights groups ^[3].

3. Birthright citizenship order: Supreme Court narrowed relief but left questions standing

The Supreme Court’s handling of the birthright citizenship order in 2025 did not finally resolve the substantive constitutional question but limited nationwide relief by holding that universal injunctions likely exceed equitable authority and by issuing a partial stay, effectively allowing the government greater breathing room while litigation proceeds ^{[1] [2]}. The 6–3 alignment on the Court showed a coalition willing to curb broad district court remedies even as justices disagreed on the merits; separate concurrences and dissents underscore deep divisions over the reach of executive power and the proper role of courts in immigration policymaking ^[2]. Practically, the decision means challengers must now pursue relief in multiple fora or hope for a definitive Supreme Court merits ruling later, prolonging uncertainty for affected individuals and state actors while administrative agencies implement or pause policy actions ^[1].

4. DACA, sanctuary policies and other immigration measures remain in flux in lower courts

Several major immigration programs from the Trump era, including DACA and sanctuary jurisdiction enforcement efforts, have not been finally resolved by the Supreme Court and continue to be shaped by appellate rulings and agency guidance; the Fifth Circuit, for example, has found DACA unlawful while preliminary protections and limited processing decisions have followed in 2025 ^{[5] [8]}. The Justice Department’s list of jurisdictions deemed obstructive under an executive order and subsequent litigation show that enforcement-driven policies face mixed results in courts and on the ground; many suits remain pending, and federal agencies have issued implementation caveats that vary by state—particularly Texas—creating a patchwork of protection and authority ^{[9] [10]}. These uneven outcomes illustrate that the Supreme Court’s rulings on procedural tools like universal injunctions interact with lower-court and administrative dynamics to produce litigation-driven policy instability.

5. What to watch next — unresolved legal battlegrounds and institutional fault lines

With the Court clarifying the limits on broad injunctions but stopping short of definitive substantive rulings on many executive measures, future litigation will test the contours of presidential power over immigration, administrative removals, and emergency declarations; cases on tariffs, passport gender markers, and removal protections have been flagged for review and could return to the Court’s docket ^{[4] [11]}. Observers should watch for further Supreme Court opinions that either endorse deference in national-security and immigration contexts or reassert stronger judicial checks; lower-court fragmentation, state-by-state disparities in relief, and administrative policy shifts will continue to create real-world uncertainty for affected populations and for the executive branch’s ability to implement unilateral policies ^{[12] [13]}.