Has the supreme court struck doen any of President Trump’s proclamations?

1. What “struck down” means and what the Court has actually done

To say the Supreme Court “struck down” a proclamation would mean the justices issued a final ruling holding the proclamation unconstitutional or otherwise invalid on the merits; that clear-cut outcome has not appeared in the sources provided—what the Court has done repeatedly is grant emergency relief, curtail broad nationwide injunctions, and resolve procedural issues that affect whether proclamations can be enforced while litigation proceeds ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

2. The Court’s major procedural intervention: limits on nationwide injunctions

In a high‑profile ruling this term the Court constrained the power of district courts to issue so‑called universal or nationwide injunctions that block administration policies across the country, a decision that benefits the administration by narrowing the reach of many lower‑court orders that previously halted policies en masse ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Emergency docket actions that altered enforcement without striking proclamations

The Court has used its emergency docket to change enforcement in real time—issuing temporary stays or rulings on procedural motions that allowed certain policies to move forward or prevented immediate removals—without resolving the legal validity of proclamations on the merits; for example, the litigation over the Alien Enemies Act proclamation tied to removals of Venezuelan nationals produced temporary restraining orders in district court and emergency litigation up to the Supreme Court, but the record shows the Court’s actions addressed TROs and class certification questions rather than issuing a merits decree invalidating the proclamation itself ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Lower courts continuing to block proclamations on substantive grounds

While the Supreme Court has pulled back on nationwide injunctions, district judges have nevertheless continued to rule against administration proclamations on substantive grounds—such as a federal judge finding the administration’s asylum proclamation exceeded presidential authority—and those rulings have been litigated upward, sometimes prompting emergency appeals to the Supreme Court ^{[5] [3]}.

5. Pending high‑stakes proclamation challenges the Court has agreed to hear

Several proclamation challenges remain unresolved on the merits: the Court has agreed to review the administration’s order attempting to curtail birthright citizenship, a case that stems from lower courts blocking that order as likely unconstitutional and which the Court has set for plenary review rather than deciding only on the emergency docket ^{[6] [7]}.

6. Bigger picture: institutional tilt, critics, and defenders

Legal observers and advocacy groups see a pattern: conservative majorities on the Supreme Court have often granted the administration immediate wins on emergency motions and reduced the scope of nationwide injunctions—moves critics say insulate presidential actions from full judicial review—while defenders argue the Court is restoring traditional equitable limits and reducing forum‑shopping; both perspectives are reflected in contemporaneous commentary and litigation outcomes ^{[1] [8] [9]}.

7. Bottom line — has the Court struck down any Trump proclamations?

Based on the materials reviewed, the Supreme Court has not authored a final merits opinion that expressly struck down a President Trump proclamation; instead it has reshaped the litigation landscape by narrowing nationwide injunctions and deciding emergency procedural questions that affect enforcement, while substantive rulings against proclamations have continued at the district‑court level and remain subject to further appellate and Supreme Court review ^{[1] [2] [5]}.