Which Trump-era executive orders were struck down as unconstitutional and what constitutional provisions were cited?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several Trump-era executive orders were blocked or struck down by courts for violating specific constitutional provisions including the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the First Amendment’s free‑speech protections, the Fifth Amendment’s due‑process guarantees, the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states, and separation‑of‑powers principles; courts have also found some orders unlawful under statutory administrative law even where the constitutional theory varied [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. The birthright‑citizenship executive order — violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
The most prominent example is the January 20, 2025 order seeking to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to non‑citizen parents, which federal judges in multiple districts and at least one appellate panel found likely or actually unconstitutional because it conflicts with Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Citizenship Clause [7] [1] [8] [6]; courts enjoined enforcement nationwide and appeals have pushed the dispute toward the Supreme Court [1] [9].
2. The sanctuary‑jurisdictions funding order (EO 13768) — separation of powers, Fifth and Tenth Amendment concerns
Courts held that the 2017 sanctuary‑city order — which attempted to condition federal funds on local cooperation with immigration enforcement — exceeded the President’s authority and violated separation‑of‑powers and spending‑clause limits, with district and appellate courts finding conflicts with the Tenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment due‑process principles in specific implementations and issuing injunctions against enforcement [2] [10].
3. Anti‑DEI executive orders — First Amendment viewpoint discrimination and vagueness (also Fifth Amendment due process)
Federal judges temporarily blocked provisions of the administration’s orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on the ground that they impermissibly conditioned federal funding on viewpoint and speech, amounting to First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, and were unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due‑process requirements [3].
4. Anti‑worker executive orders — First Amendment and overreach
Judges have invalidated key provisions from a set of executive actions aimed at labor policy, with rulings that parts of those orders either violated the First Amendment, exceeded presidential authority, or contradicted congressional intent — a trio of legal defects identified in courtroom opinions [4].
5. Regulatory “one‑in, two‑out” order — unlawful delegation and conflict with administrative law
Legal scholars and litigants challenged the executive order requiring agencies to repeal two rules for every new rule as inconsistent with statutory administrative procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act; commentators and lawsuits described the order as unlawful because it directed agencies to violate statutory rulemaking requirements, an argument rooted in statutory—not strictly constitutional—claims but reflecting limits on executive control of agencies [5].
6. Election‑related executive actions — federal overreach and state sovereignty
A high‑profile executive order attempting to reshape aspects of federal election administration prompted suits from a coalition of state attorneys general on grounds that the President attempted to usurp state authority over elections and exceeded constitutional limits on the President’s role in elections, a charge grounded in the Constitution’s allocation of election administration to the states and Congress [11].
Assessment, competing claims, and hidden agendas
Legal outcomes reflect both textual constitutional claims (e.g., Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the citizenship order) and structural checks (separation of powers, federalism, First and Fifth Amendment protections), but adjudication has been shaped by rapid litigation, varied remedies (preliminary injunctions versus final judgments), and political framing; advocates argue the orders were needed for policy or security, while challengers and many courts viewed them as attempts to rewrite statutes or the Constitution by executive fiat, with some plaintiffs and legal groups motivated by broader political and institutional aims such as preserving civil‑rights protections or state autonomy [7] [12] [11].
Reporting limits
Sources document several concrete court rulings and injunctions against these orders and identify the constitutional provisions cited, but available reporting here does not catalogue every Trump‑era executive action that faced litigation nor provide the full text of each judicial opinion; where an asserted constitutional basis is not specified in these sources, that limitation is noted rather than presumed [7] [2] [3] [4] [5] [8].