Which Trump executive orders were upheld by the Supreme Court and which were blocked or limited?

1. The birthright‑citizenship showdown: narrow decision, large consequences

The most prominent recent action involved Executive Order No. 14160, which attempted to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non‑citizen parents. The Supreme Court granted the government partial stays of preliminary injunctions that had blocked the order, limiting injunctions that were broader than needed and effectively allowing the order to take effect 30 days after the slip opinion while leaving the constitutional challenges unresolved ^[1]. Major outlets summarized the decision as curbing judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions and permitting the administration to move forward with enforcement while litigation continues, a procedural shift that changes how wide court remedies can be against executive actions ^{[2] [3]}. This means EO 14160 was not affirmed on the merits; it was procedurally enabled pending further adjudication.

2. Other courtroom wins the administration claims — what the trackers say

Separate Supreme Court rulings and shadow‑docket actions produced additional favorable outcomes for the administration across a range of issues. Court trackers list victories related to immigration enforcement, government spending, and limits on independent agencies, including cases where the Court allowed deportations to third countries, upheld aspects of agency policymaking, and approved narrow terminations or adjustments to benefits programs such as portions of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan nationals ^{[4] [5]}. These entries reflect a pattern in which the Court has on multiple occasions ruled in the administration’s favor or allowed contested policies to be implemented while disputes proceed, producing practical policy effects even where legal questions remain open ^[4].

3. The mixed picture: wins, losses, and narrow holdings

A broader review shows a mixed record for the administration: some high‑profile actions succeeded, while significant rules and agency moves were blocked or curtailed. The Institute for Policy Integrity’s roundup highlights both successful outcomes—such as favorable rulings for certain agency deregulatory steps—and notable defeats, like losses in environmental or immigration contexts where courts rejected the administration’s legal theories ^[6]. This underscores that the Court’s decisions are not uniformly pro‑administration; many outcomes hinge on statutory interpretation, procedural posture, and the specific remedies judges choose to craft, meaning that wins on process or enforcement often stop short of ultimate victories on legal merits ^[6].

4. Universal injunctions: the procedural shift that mattered more than one order

The June 27 decision’s most consequential element for future litigation was the Court’s restriction of universal injunctions: the justices narrowed lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide blocks, which in turn allowed contested executive actions to remain in force while plaintiffs pursue merits claims ^{[2] [3]}. That doctrinal change operates across cases and administrations; by recalibrating the remedy—who gets nationwide relief and when—the Court altered the litigation leverage available to challengers, producing immediate practical effects such as enabling EO 14160 to be enforced despite unresolved constitutional questions ^{[1] [2]}. The shift is procedural but potent: it preserves the availability of federal executive power pending full adjudication more often than before.

5. Comparing source timing and emphasis: what’s recent and who highlights what

The primary slip opinion and contemporaneous news summaries are dated June 27, 2025, and consistently emphasize the injunction‑limiting ruling and its immediate impact on EO 14160 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Subsequent trackers and roundups dated April 22 and October 21, 2025 compile a wider set of Supreme Court actions and show a spread of outcomes favoring and limiting the administration across distinct legal areas ^{[5] [4]}. The Institute for Policy Integrity synthesis (undated in the provided material) frames the record as mixed and places emphasis on agency litigation outcomes ^[6]. Together, these sources show a timeline where a June procedural ruling had a concrete immediate effect, and later compilations documented additional case‑by‑case advances and setbacks through 2025.

6. Bottom line verdict: upheld, blocked, or limited — a concise map

No single sweeping declaration fits all Trump executive orders: EO 14160 was not upheld on the merits but was allowed to take effect after the Court limited nationwide injunctions ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Other administration actions received favorable rulings or relief in separate cases—terminations or modifications of TPS designations, certain immigration enforcement steps, and wins relating to agency authority—but the record is uneven, with several notable losses and curtailed policies documented in broader trackers ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The practical takeaway is that the Supreme Court has both facilitated and constrained the administration through a mix of procedural rulings and case‑specific holdings, producing a patchwork of outcomes rather than a blanket endorsement.