Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Supreme Court emergency orders related to the Trump administration, 2025
This page provides information on Supreme Court emergency docket orders related to the second Donald Trump (R) presidential administration. As of September 9, 2025, the court had issued 21 emergency orders in cases related to the second Trump administration, with two emergency applications pending and two withdrawn. The Trump administration filed 26 of the emergency applications, and two applications were filed by the other litigant. This page is updated weekly.
A Supreme Court emergency order is an order issued by the Supreme Court in cases that have not fully progressed through the ordinary procedures required for the Supreme Court to issue a regular opinion in a case. These orders are issued in response to applications for immediate intervention in the court's emergency docket, also referred to as the shadow docket or the non-merits docket.[1] The Supreme Court's Public Information Office described the typical subject matter of these applications saying, "Although most applications involve routine matters such as requests for extensions of the time limit for filing papers, some—such as applications for a stay of execution or injunctive relief in a dramatic case—draw the attention of reporters. These newsworthy applications usually concern an effort to buy time, to maintain the status quo—to stay the implementation of a lower court order—pending final action by this Court (or under certain circumstances, a lower court)."[2] The court usually resolves applications in unsigned orders with no oral argument.[3]
For information about regular Supreme Court cases, click here.
This page contains the following sections:
Recent updates
- September 8, 2025: The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.[4]
- September 4, 2025: The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter.[5]
- August 29, 2025: The federal government withdrew its emergency application with the Supreme Court in Trump v. Global Health Council.[6]
- August 26, 2025: The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court in Trump v. Global Health Council.[7]
Pending applications
The table below displays a list of emergency docket applications related to the second Trump administration that have not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. It does not include applications related to deadline extensions.
| Name | Lower court | Applicant | Application date | Docket number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Department of State et al. | 09/08/2025 | 25A269 |
| Trump v. Slaughter | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Donald Trump et al. | 09/04/2025 | 25A264 |
Decisions
The table below displays a list of emergency docket applications related to the second Trump administration that the Supreme Court has decided. It does not include applications related to deadline extensions. Click the name of a case to read a summary of the case leading up to the emergency application, and a summary of the Supreme Court's decision on the application.
Noem v. Perdomo
In June 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted immigration raids in Los Angeles, California.[9][10] On July 2, several individuals detained during these immigration enforcement actions filed a lawsuit challenging the raids before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the federal government's immigration raids were unlawful and that the federal agents conducted suspicionless stops.[9]
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued an order on July 11, saying the plaintiffs were likely to succed on the merits and ordering the federal government to stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion.[11] The federal government appealed Frimpong's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which stayed one clause of the district court order, but left the rest of the order in place.[12]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on August 7, 2025, saying the immigration enforcement actions were conducted with reasonable suspicion and requesting a stay of the lower court's order.[10] On September 8, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[13]
National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association
Beginning in February 2025, the National Institutes of Health began terminating certain federal grants to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other research institutions. In April, several researchers, the American Public Health Association, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and Ibis Reproductive Health, filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the grant terminations.[14][15]
Judge William G. Young issued a ruling on June 23, 2025, saying several directives and memoranda related to NIH grant guidance were void and ordering the restoration of resulting grant terminations.[16][17] The federal government apealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which declined to stay the district court order.[14]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on July 24, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's order.[14] On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the federal government's request for a stay. The court granted the stay to pause the restoration of NIH grants, but declined to stay the part of the order that said several directives and memoranda related to NIH grant guidance were void. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the decision in full. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application in full, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Altio, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would have denied the application in full.[18]
Trump v. Boyle
On May 8-9, 2025, the Trump administration terminated the employment of three commissioners on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The commissioners filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland challenging their firings on May 21, 2025.[19]
Judge Matthew Maddox issued an order on June 13, saying that the commissioners were wrongly fired and should be allowed to resume their duties as commissioners. The federal government appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which declined to stay the lower court's ruling.[20]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on July 2, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's order.[21] On July 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[22]
McMahon v. New York
On March 11, 2025, the Department of Education announced it would "initiate a reduction in force (RIF) impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s workforce," which was about 1,378 employees.[23] Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 13 challenging the reduction in force.[24]
Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025, temporarily preventing the federal government from enacting the Department of Education reduction in force.[25] The federal government appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which declined to stay the injunction.[26]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on June 6, 2025, asking the court to stay the lower court's preliminary injunction.[26] On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 6-3 decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[26]
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al.
On February 11, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order titled Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative. The order sought to enact a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies.[27] Several labor organizations, nonprofit groups, and local governments filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 28 challenging the executive order and associated firings.[28]
Judge Susan Illston issued a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025, temporarily preventing the federal government from taking actions to carry out Trump's executive order.[29] The federal government appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which declined to stay the injunction.[30]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on June 2, 2025, asking the court to stay the preliminary injunction.[31] On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in an 8-1 decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[32]
Trump v. CASA
- See also: Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. is a case that centers on the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160, which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. It raises federalism questions about the scope of federal executive power and the role of states in recognizing and protecting individual rights. By challenging the federal government’s authority to redefine citizenship standards, the case highlights a direct conflict between federal immigration policy and state responsibilities related to vital records, public services, and legal recognition of residents.
The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 27, 2025.[33] The case was argued on May 15, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. It was consolidated with Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey.
In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 by issuing universal injunctions—blocking enforcement of the Executive Order nationwide, not just for the plaintiffs. Because such sweeping relief wasn’t available in traditional equity, the Court limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions and reaffirms that federal courts must tailor relief to the parties before them. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship. [33]
Noem v. Doe
At the start of the second Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security sought to end several special parole programs, including one that allowed about 500,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to stay in the United States legally.[34] Several affected individuals filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the policy changes on February 28, 2025.[35]
On April 14, Judge Indira Talwani issued an order pausing the Trump administration's parole program terminations.[36] The federal government appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which declined to stay Talwani's order.[37]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on May 8, 2025, asking the court to stay Talwani's order.[38] On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in a 7-2 decision. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.[39]
Trump v. Wilcox
In January and February 2025, respectively, President Donald Trump (R) removed Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and removed Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).[40][41] Both Wilcox and Harris filed separate lawsuits challenging their removals, which were later consolidated. Wilcox and Harris argued that their firings were unlawful based on the statutes authorizing the creation of the NLRB and MSPB, and that their firings went against previously established Supreme Court precedent regarding the president's power to remove individuals from independent federal agencies.[42][43]
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on March 6 that Wilcox should be reinstated, and on March 4, 2025, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Harris should be reinstated.[44][45] The federal government appealed both decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. An en banc panel of judges on the court upheld the lower court rulings.[46]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on April 9, 2025, saying that the Constitution did grant Trump the authority to fire Wilcox and Harris and that Supreme Court precedent preventing the president from removing certain members of independent agencies did not apply to the MSPB or the NLRB.[46] On May 22, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in a 6-3 decision and stayed Howell and Contreras' orders. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[47]
Noem v. National TPS Alliance
On January 28, 2025, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem vacated a decision from the Joe Biden (D) administration extending the 2023 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for individuals from Venezuela.[48] Noem went on to officially end the designation on February 1.[49] On February 19, the National TPS Alliance, along with several Venezuelans with TPS under the 2023 designation, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the rule change. In the lawsuit, they said Noem's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause.[50]
Judge Edward Chen issued an order on March 31 temporarily pausing the implementation of Noem's decisions.[51] The federal government appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which declined to overturn Chen's order.[52]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on May 1, saying Chen's order was judicial overreach and that TPS decisions are not subject to judicial review, and that Noem's actions were within her authority as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.[53] On May 19, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in an 8-1 decision and stayed Chen's order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[54]
A.A.R.P. v. Trump
On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued a presidential proclamation titled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua." The proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against members of Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in Venezuela.[55] The proclamation said, "I find and declare that [Tren de Aragua] is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. [...] All Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."[56]
On April 16, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of two Venezuelan nationals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas, and other similarly situated individuals as a class. The petition said the executive order violated the law and asked the court for a temporary restraining order preventing the deportations.[57] Judge James Wesley Hendrix issued a ruling on April 17 denying the request for a temporary restraining order, saying the named petitioners and class members did not face an imminent threat of deportation.[58] The ACLU appealed Hendrix's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 18, which denied the appeal the same day.[59]
The ACLU filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on April 18, saying the lower court's assessment that the plaintiffs were not at risk of deportation was incorrect. The ACLU asked the court to grant an injunction pending appeal.[60] On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 opinion granting the ACLU's request for an injunction. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.[61]
United States v. Shilling
On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence And Readiness, which said, "Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service." In February 2025, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum banning "individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria" from military service.[62]
Seven transgender military members, a transgender person who wished to join the military, and the Gender Justice League filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the policy. In the lawsuit, they said the federal government was banning individuals from military service based on sex and transgender status, and that this action violated "the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment."[63] On March 27, 2025, Judge Ben Settle granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction on the federal government's policy.[64]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the policy "draws classifications based on a medical condition (gender dysphoria) and related medical interventions," and did not ban individuals from serving on the basis of their transgender or sex status. The federal government said it met the rational-basis review required for drawing classifications based on a medical condition.[65] On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request in a 6-3 decision and stayed Settle's order. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.[66]
Noem v. Abrego Garcia
On March 15, 2025, the federal government deported three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan individuals to be held at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador. One of these individuals was a man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who illegally entered the United States in 2011. In 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal status, which barred the U.S. from deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador due to the likelihood that he would be targeted by gangs there.[67]
Abrego Garcia's family filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 24, 2025, saying he was illegally deported to El Salvador due to his withholding of removal status and that he was not affiliated with any criminal gang, and seeking his return to the United States.[67][68] On April 4, 2025, Paula Xinis ruled that the federal government needed to "facilitate and effectuate the return" of Abrego Garcia.[69] The federal government subsequently appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On April 7, 2025, a three-judge panel upheld Xinis' order.[70]
The federal government then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying that Abrego Garcia was a member of a criminal gang, and that the lower court did not have the authority or jurisdiction to order his release from a foreign prison. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to vacate Xinis' April 4 order.[71] The court issued an order partially granting and partially denying the federal government's application, with no justices writing dissents. In its April 10 opinion, the court wrote that, "The order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."[72]
To read more about events in this case, click here.
Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees
On February 13, 2025, the federal government began firing thousands of probationary employees across many agencies. Several unions representing federal employees, along with other organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California saying the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) ordered these firings, that they infringed on Congress' authority, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs asked the court to place an injunction on the OPM's order, and order the federal government to rehire fired probationary employees and cease such terminations.[73][74]
Judge William Alsup issued an order on March 13, 2025, saying the federal government had to stop firing probationary employees en masse and re-hire all fired probationary employees in the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs departments.[75] The federal government appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which denied the federal government's request for an administrative stay on March 17, 2025.[76]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the OPM did not direct the agencies to fire probationary employees en masse, that some of the organizations joining the federal employee unions did not have standing, that the district court did not have jurisdiction, and that ordering the federal government to rehire probationary employees was unlawful. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to place an administrative stay on Alsup's order.[74] On April 8, 2025, the Supreme court granted the federal government's application and placed an administrative stay on Alsup's order pending further litigation in the case, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.[77]
Trump v. J.G.G.
On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued a presidential proclamation titled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua." The proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in Venezuela.[78] The proclamation said, "I find and declare that [Tren de Aragua] is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. [...] All Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."[79]
Later that day, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several Venezuelan men in immigration custody, saying they were not members of a criminal gang, that the deportations were illegal under several statutes, violated the Fifth Amendment, and violated the men's habeas corpus rights. The ACLU asked the court to place an injunction on the deportations under the proclamation.[80] Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the proclamation and preventing the Trump administration from deporting anyone as a result of the proclamation for 14 days, treating all possibly affected individuals as a class for the purpose of the lawsuit.[81] After Boasberg's verbal order was issued, the federal government deported three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan individuals to be held at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador.[67] The federal government appealed Boasberg's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which declined to place a stay pending appeal on Boasberg's order.[82]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying it was incorrect for the court to allow for a class action challenge to the proclamation in D.C. and that challenges to the proclamation should be through habeas petitions in the place of an individual's confinement instead, and that the deportations were lawful under the Alien Enemies Act. The federal government asked the court to vacate Boasberg's order.[83] The court issued a 5-4 opinion on April 7, 2025, granting the federal government's application vacating Boasberg's orders in this case. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The court said the case should be litigated individually through habeas petitions in Texas, where some of the plaintiffs were being held by federal authorities, rather than as a class action lawsuit in D.C.. The opinion did not address the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport the Venezuelan citizens. The court also said that non-citizens have due process rights.[84]
To read more about events in this case, click here.
Department of Education v. California
On February 7, 2025, the Department of Education began terminating grants related to the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program, a program seeking to "support high-quality teacher preparation and professional development for prospective teachers and school leaders," and the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, a program seeking to "increase the number of highly effective educators by supporting the implementation of Evidence-Based practices that prepare, develop, or enhance the skills of educators."[85][86] In a press release, the Department of Education said it terminated "grants to institutions and nonprofits that were using taxpayer funds to train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies."[87]
Eight states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the terminations, arguing that the directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the federal government from further grant terminations and to restore previously-awarded funds.[88] Judge Myong Joun issued an order on March 10, 2025, temporarily ordering the federal government to restore terminated TQP and SEED grants to the plaintiff states and preventing the federal government from terminating any further TQP and SEED grants in the plaintiff states.[89] The federal government appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which denied its request for a stay pending appeal on March 21, 2025.[90]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the lower court did not have jurisdiction to compel grant payments and that the government's action did not violate the APA. The federal government asked the court to vacate the lower court's order.[91] On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the lower court order pending appeal, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.[92]
Bessent v. Dellinger
On February 7, 2025, the federal government fired Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger from his position leading the United States Office of Special Counsel one year into his five year term. Dellinger filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on February 10, 2025, saying the firing was illegal since the Office of the Special Counsel was an independent agency whose leader could only be removed by the president for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" according to the statute establishing the office, which Dellinger said he had not committed. Dellinger asked the court to find his firing unlawful and restore him to his position.[93]
Judge Amy B. Jackson ruled that day to grant a temporary administrative stay in the case, preventing Dellinger's firing, and extended the stay a couple of days later.[94] The federal government appealed the orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which dismissed the appeals.[95][96]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying Article II of the United States Constitution empowered Trump to fire Dellinger. The federal government asked the court to vacate the lower court's order.[97] On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court said it would determine whether to grant or deny the application on February 26, when the lower court's order reinstating Dellinger was set to expire. The lower court's order expired and was not renewed, so the Supreme Court denied the federal government's application as moot.[98]
Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued Executive Order 14169: Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, which sought to implement a 90-day pause on foreign aid, pending a review of programs receiving funds.[99] On February 10, 2025, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, two nonprofit organizations that received foreign aid federal grants, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the federal government over the executive order. In the lawsuit they said it was outside the president's authority to freeze congressionally appropriated funds and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the federal government from enforcing the executive order and reinstate the foreign aid funds that were suspended.[100]
Judge Amir Ali temporarily paused part of the executive order on February 13, 2025, saying the government could not suspend foreign aid funding that existed before January 20, 2025.[101] The federal government appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which dismissed the appeal on February 26.[102]
The federal government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, saying the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to resume payments and the order was overbroad.[103] On March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the application, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting.[104]
Withdrawn applications
The table below displays a list of emergency docket applications related to the second Trump administration that were withdrawn before the Supreme Court responded.
| Name | Lower court | Applicant | Application date | Docket number | Withdrawal date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trump v. Global Health Council | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia | Donald J. Trump, et al. | 08/27/2025 | 25A227 | 08/29/25 |
| Trump v. AFGE | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Donald J. Trump, et al. | 05/16/2025 | 24A1106 | 05/27/25 |
Historical data
The chart below displays the number of Supreme Court emergency applications each presidential administration filed from 2001 to present.
See also
- Donald Trump presidential administration, 2025
- Donald Trump's executive orders and actions, 2025
- Donald Trump's Cabinet, 2025
- Multistate lawsuits against the federal government during the Trump administration, 2025
Footnotes
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "The 'Shadow Docket': The Supreme Court’s Non-Merits Orders," accessed April 25, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "A Reporter's Guide to Applications," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Symposium: Shining a light on the shadow docket," October 22, 2020
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A269," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A264," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A227," accessed September 2, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A227," accessed September 2, 2025
- ↑ This case was consolidated with Trump v. New Jersey and Trump v. Washington.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 ACLU, "FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Supreme Court, "APPLICATION TO STAY THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order — Document #87," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Vasquez Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al. (25-4312)," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A169," accessed September 9, 2025
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Supreme Court, "Emergency Application NIH vs. APHA," accessed August 26, 2025
- ↑ ACLU, "APHA v. NIH," accessed August 26, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order — Document #138," accessed August 26, 2025
- ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Supreme Court allows Trump administration to terminate $783 million in NIH grants linked to DEI initiatives," August 21, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A103," accessed August 26, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint — Document #1," May 21, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Boyle Appendix," accessed July 29, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Boyle Stay Application," accessed July 29, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 25A11," accessed July 29, 2025
- ↑ Department of Education, "U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force," July 15, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint — Document #1," March 13, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Document #128," May 22, 2025
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Supreme Court, "Application," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ White House, "Implementing The President’s 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative," February 11, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint — Document #1," April 28, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Document #124," May 22, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, et al. (25-3293)," accessed July 9, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Application for Stay," accessed July 9, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A1174," accessed July 9, 2025
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedOpinion - ↑ name=noemvdoecrlcCivil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, "Case: Doe v. Noem," accessed July 8, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Doe v. Noem," February 28, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Document #97," April 14, 2025
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namednoemvdoecrlc - ↑ Supreme Court, "Noem v. Doe application," accessed July 8, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A1079," accessed July 8, 2025
- ↑ Associated Press, "Federal judge reinstates labor board member fired by President Donald Trump," March 6, 2025
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Federal judge rules Trump’s firing of merit board chair was illegal," March 4, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "WILCOX v. TRUMP," accessed June 20, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "HARRIS v. BESSENT," accessed June 20, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order on Motion for Declaratory Judgment," March 4, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment," March 6, 2025
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 Supreme Court, "Wilcox-Harris Application," accessed June 20, 2025
- ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Trump v. Wilcox," accessed June 20, 2025
- ↑ Federal Register, "Vacatur of 2025 Temporary Protected Status Decision for Venezuela," February 3, 2025
- ↑ Federal Register, "Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status," February 5, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "National TPS Alliance v. Noem," February 19, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "National TPS Alliance v. Noem," March 31, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "National TPS Alliance, et al. v. Noem, et al.," April 18, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Kristi Noem application," May 1, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A1059," accessed May 20, 2025
- ↑ BBC, "What is Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang targeted by Trump?" March 17, 2025
- ↑ White House, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua," March 14, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "W.M.M. v. Donald J. Trump," April 16, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "W.M.M. v. Donald J. Trump," accessed May 20, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "A.A.R.P. v. Trump (25-10534)," accessed May 20, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "AARP Application," April 18, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A1007," accessed May 20, 2025
- ↑ Department of Defense, "Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Memorandum," February 26, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Shilling v. United States of America," April 7, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Shilling v. United States of America," March 27, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON," accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A1030," accessed May 13, 2025
- ↑ 67.0 67.1 67.2 The Atlantic, "An ‘Administrative Error’ Sends a Maryland Father to a Salvadoran Prison," March 31, 2025
- ↑ Court Listener, "Complaint," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order Granting Preliminary Injunction," April 4, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order," April 7, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Docket," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND," April 10, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ 74.0 74.1 Supreme Court, "Application," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ Politico, "Thousands of fired federal workers must be rehired immediately, judge rules," March 13, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. (25-1677)," April 23, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A904 Docket," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ BBC, "What is Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang targeted by Trump?" March 17, 2025
- ↑ White House, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua," March 14, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "J.G.G. v. TRUMP Complaint," accessed April 23, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "J.G.G. v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00766)," accessed March 20, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (25-5067)," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Trump v. J.G.G. emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas," April 7, 2025
- ↑ Department of Education, "Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program," accessed April 7, 2025
- ↑ Department of Education, "Teacher Quality Partnership Program," accessed April 7, 2025
- ↑ Department of Education, "U.S. Department of Education Cuts Over $600 Million in Divisive Teacher Training Grants," February 17, 2025
- ↑ Court Listener, "California v. Department of Education," accessed April 7, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Memorandum and Order," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "State of California v. US Department of Education (25-1244)," April 23, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Department of Education v. California emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A910 docket," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "DELLINGER v. BESSENT (1:25-cv-00385)," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent (25-5025)," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent (25-5028)," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Bessent v. Dellinger emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A790," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Federal Register, "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Order," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ CourtListener, "Per Curiam Order," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Emergency application," accessed April 24, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court, "No. 24A831 docket," accessed April 24, 2025