With Supreme Court Set To Return, What To Expect In Trump Cases

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

Months of litigation related to Trump administration policies have made it likely the Supreme Court justices will wrestle with limits on executive power in their upcoming term.

Months after President Donald Trump took office, his policy on birthright citizenship prompted the Supreme Court to issue a landmark ruling on judicial authority and the nation’s separation of powers. The ruling opposed lower courts’ imposition of so-called nationwide injunctions, which block a policy on a nationwide basis.

The justices did not, however, resolve underlying constitutional arguments surrounding birthright citizenship.

That issue and other Trump policies could return to the Supreme Court, which has used its emergency docket to offer more tentative decisions on blocks by lower courts.

If and when the justices give those issues more thorough consideration, it could result in landmark decisions on constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s new term is expected to start in October when the justices return for oral arguments.

Tariffs

The ability to impose tariffs is a power typically understood as reserved for Congress under the Constitution. It’s unclear, though, whether Congress effectively delegated that power to the president in a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear arguments in November over that issue.

An appeals court said in August that Congress didn’t delegate that power, but delayed its ruling until October. The eventual decision could have major economic consequences, altering the balance of trade and revenue inflows for the United States. In August, the United States reported a record $31 billion in revenue under tariffs that Trump implemented.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that the Trump administration has backup plans in place in case the court rules against it.

Similar to some of Trump’s immigration cases, this issue raises questions about courts intervening in sensitive, ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

Immigration

The 14th Amendment has been interpreted in recent decades to allow birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. However, after ruling on the preliminary issue of nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court could reconsider that interpretation and one of its 19th-century precedents.

The Trump administration’s eventual appeal will likely force the Supreme Court to confront competing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

Other cases could revisit how far Trump’s authority extends as the chief executive of the nation’s laws. A series of legal disputes has developed over the way that Trump views his authority to deport individuals under laws passed by Congress. One of those is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to remove certain individuals during an invasion.

Federal agents detain a man after his hearing in immigration court at the Ted Weiss Federal Building in New York on July 9, 2025. The Supreme Court may consider the issue of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in its upcoming term. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Trump invoked this law to deport suspected members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang. While the Supreme Court has addressed whether the detainees received adequate due process, the justices have yet to rule on whether gang members perpetrated the type of invasion that would allow deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Many lower courts have ruled that Trump invalidly invoked the law, with a recent appeals court ruling teeing up a potential Supreme Court challenge.

Other immigration-related cases could also return, such as the administration’s attempt to deport people to “third countries” or those other than their home nations.

That question popped up more recently in yet another case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was returned to the United States after an order from a district court judge. Other cases could revisit Trump’s attempt to remove temporary protected status or parole for migrants who would otherwise be subject to deportation.

Spending

In an attempt to reduce excess spending, the Trump administration has attempted to freeze or cut disbursements related to gender, foreign aid, and a wide variety of other issues. And despite months of litigation over cuts, the court system seems far from resolving the legality.

That’s in part because the Supreme Court keeps sending the cases back to lower courts with rulings more about the judges’ authority than Trump’s. In at least two cases, the Supreme Court has agreed with the administration’s argument that challenges to Trump’s spending cuts should have been brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than a regular district court.

The Supreme Court indicated as much in April when it allowed Trump to freeze millions of dollars’ worth of education-related grants. It later reaffirmed that position in an August decision that focused on health grants. That decision, however, was limited, and the justices sharply disagreed over which aspects of a district court’s block on Trump should be removed.

Besides the question of jurisdiction, debate has emerged over how much discretion Trump has in canceling outlays of those funds.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon (R) and Education Department budget analyst Hillary Perkins testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 3, 2025. In April, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to freeze millions in education-related grants, and the justices will continue to weigh cases on presidential spending powers. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Federal Officials

Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook has again raised the prospect that the justices could rule on the president’s ability to remove high-ranking federal officials. While the Supreme Court has allowed many of Trump’s firings to proceed, they’ve yet to issue a full-throated explanation of his authority to do so.

The litigation could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to revisit a precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which was decided in 1935 and has been cited by multiple lower courts in their support of fired federal officials. That decision and others limited the president’s ability to fire officials depending on how much executive authority those officials exercised.

Trump’s victories have signaled that those judges may be misinterpreting Humphrey’s and the Constitution by not giving the president more deference.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks alongside Board Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman (L), Board Governor Lisa Cook (2nd R), and Board Governor Adriana Kugler (R) during a meeting at the Federal Reserve Board building in Washington on June 25, 2025. Trump’s firing of Cook has renewed speculation that the Supreme Court could weigh in on the president’s power to remove high-ranking federal officials. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

In May, the Supreme Court indicated that members of the Federal Reserve Board, like Cook, could enjoy more protection than heads of other agencies. A majority of the justices had allowed Trump to fire the heads of two labor boards and disputed the officials’ attempts to compare their agencies to the Federal Reserve.

According to the majority, the “Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

Cook’s firing also included a more detailed explanation from Trump as to why he fired her, raising the prospect that the Supreme Court could judge what is an appropriate cause of termination.