Case study Trump & the Supreme Court

A Summary of the Trump Presidency 

Has Trump changed the Presidency? 

Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president 

Trump cases 2024 

Interpretations & debates of the US Supreme Court & civil rights 

Case study The conservative agenda of the Roberts Court 

Case study: Birthright Citizenship 2025

Shadow Dockets 

Trump appointed three justices, creating a rock-solid conservative majority . Is Trump now reaping the reward?

So far the evidence is mixed.

•  When Trump tried to prevent prosecutors from obtaining his financial records, the court rejected his request.

• When Trump attempted to stop a congressional committee from accessing White House documents from his administration, the court rebuffed him.

• When Trump asked for a special master to review classified documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago residence, the court turned him away.

• When Trump sought to stop his tax returns being disclosed to House Democrats, the court refused to intervene.

''Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!" he wrote in a Truth Social post. 

Given the unwillingness of the court to become involved in Trump's post-White House cases, the Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's claim to absolute presidential immunity- was a surprise.

Is the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court trying its best to help Trump?

Yes: The decision to hear the case and delay his criminal trial in Washington DC was unquestionably one of Trump’s biggest legal victories to date. The delay is of the court’s own making. Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecutor handling the election interference case, first came to the Supreme Court in December and asked the justices to quickly take up the issue so that the trial would not be delayed. The court declined to do so. 

There is absolutely no constitutional text, no precedent and no authority in the original debates over the Constitution’s ratification to support the idea of a former president’s absolute immunity. The argument advanced by Trump’s counsel is patently absurd. The idea that senators could impeach a president who threatened them with deadly violence and so no criminal justice process is needed, is facetious. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rightly ridiculed it — and issued a comprehensive, tightly reasoned and unanimous opinion that presented no good cause for further review. 

In Trump's second term, the Supreme Court have been much more supportive using shadow dockets to make interim judgments over Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs and controls on borders and round up immigrants. In the first year of his second term (2025), the Supreme Court has generally favoured the Trump administration's positions, particularly on its "emergency" or "shadow" docket. Reports indicate the administration won approximately 84% to 90% of its emergency applications in 2025 

The Court frequently issued temporary orders allowing the administration to proceed with controversial policies while litigation continued in lower courts:

• Executive Branch Personnel: Permitted the mass firing of federal employees and the removal of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

• Immigration Enforcement: Allowed the termination of deportation protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants and permitted race to be used as a factor in certain immigration checks.

• Funding and Regulation: Upheld the freezing of over $4 billion in foreign aid and allowed cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants targeting minority and LGBTQ+ research.

• Social Policy: Decided to end a policy allowing individuals to self-identify their gender on passports.

No:  The immunity and the eligibility issues are significant and untested legal questions that might merit the Supreme Court's intervention, unlike some of Trump's earlier requests. Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, speculated rather than outright support for Trump that the delay might reflect some division on the court and that the justices had reached a compromise. 

While the Court was broadly supportive in 2025, it did issue rare but significant checks on executive power:

• National Guard Deployment: On December 23, 2025, the Court blocked the federalization of National Guard troops in cities like Chicago over the objection of state governors, forcing a withdrawal.

• Alien Enemies Act: Ruled against using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for the mass deportation of Venezuelan nationals, requiring the administration to pause and provide due process. 

Upcoming High-Stakes Cases (2026)

Several "signature" Trump initiatives face final verdicts in 2026, where the Court has already shown scepticism:

• Tariffs: Justices appeared sceptical during November 2025 arguments about whether the president has unilateral authority to impose sweeping tariffs under national emergency powers (Learning Resources v. Trump).

• Birthright Citizenship: The Court will hear a challenge to Trump’s executive order attempting to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants (Trump v. Barbara). .2025: Case study: Birthright Citizenship & nationwide injunctions

• Federal Reserve Independence: Arguments are scheduled for late January 2026 regarding Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, a move that could fundamentally shift control over monetary policy (Trump v. Cook). 

Trump's Immunity?

In April 2024, the 6-3 conservative majority on the supreme court said it would hear arguments to decide if ex-President Donald Trump is immune from being prosecuted on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

A ruling was made in July 2024.

in

A US Court of Appeals panel had already rejected Mr Trump's argument.

He had claimed in the landmark legal case that he was immune from all criminal charges for acts that he said fell within his duties as president.

The federal appeals court in Washington.

The appeals court rejected his immunity arguments earlier this month, ruling unanimously against the 77-year-old.

"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralise the most fundamental check on executive power - the recognition and implementation of election results," it wrote.

July  2024

 On July 1, the Supreme Court issued a divided 6-3 opinion in Trump v. United States, addressing, for the first time, the existence and scope of a constitutionally based presidential immunity from criminal indictment and prosecution. The decision, which held that the Constitution provides former President Donald Trump with “some immunity” from criminal liability for acts taken while in office, appears to establish a three-tiered framework in which Presidents receive absolute immunity for actions that relate to “core” or “exclusive” presidential powers, at least presumptive immunity for all other “official acts,” and no immunity for “unofficial” acts. The Court reached only two specific determinations on the particular criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 

The former President, the Court concluded, is absolutely immune from prosecution for any “alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” actions the Court viewed as touching on core presidential powers. The Court also determined that the former President is “at least” presumptively immune from prosecution for allegedly pressuring the Vice President to decertify the 2020 election, actions the Court viewed as “official.” Mr. Trump will therefore be immune from prosecution for such conduct unless the trial court determines that the Special Counsel can rebut the presumed immunity by showing, as described below, that enforcement of the criminal law in that instance would not intrude on the powers of the presidency. The fate of the remaining charges—including those relating to the former President’s interactions with state election officials, and other private parties—was left unresolved. The Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to assess each charge individually and determine whether the underlying and allegedly unlawful conduct constituted an “official act,” for which the former President enjoys at least presumptive immunity, or an unofficial act, for which the former President enjoys no protections. 

Following the election of Trump and his current Vice President JD Vance on November 6, 2024, Smith filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, citing the DOJ's policy of not prosecuting sitting Presidents.On November 25, 2024, Judge Chutkan approved the request and dismissed the charges. In January 2025, the special counsel report was released, in which "the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial." 

2025:Case study: Birthright Citizenship & nationwide injunctions