As President Donald Trump reasserts sweeping executive authority in his return to office, legal challenges against his administration are mounting, setting the stage for potential U.S. Supreme Court showdowns. However, it remains uncertain whether the justices will act as a check on his power.
Since taking office on January 20, Trump has pursued an aggressive interpretation of presidential authority, implementing policies that legal scholars argue exceed those of previous administrations. These include efforts to limit birthright citizenship, withhold congressionally approved funding, and remove independent federal agency heads.
"The unifying theme is an extreme view of presidential power unlike anything we have seen before," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.
Supreme Court’s Role in Trump’s Legal Battles
With a 6-3 conservative majority—including three justices appointed by Trump—the Supreme Court has steadily shifted U.S. law rightward in recent years. Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet suggests Trump’s administration is banking on the court not acting as an "effective firewall" against his policies.
Trump faces a growing number of lawsuits challenging his executive actions on immigration, federal workforce protections, transgender rights, and his restructuring of federal agencies. Some lawsuits argue Trump has overstepped congressional authority, raising constitutional concerns.
Steve Schwinn, a University of Illinois Chicago law professor, noted that Trump’s attempt to shut down federal agencies and block appropriated funding could face strong legal opposition. "These efforts most clearly encroach on congressional authority," Schwinn said.
Legal Uncertainty Over Birthright Citizenship
One of the most contentious legal battles involves Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, directing federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful resident.
Lower courts have indefinitely blocked the order, with legal experts widely agreeing the Supreme Court would likely strike it down. "The original understanding of the 14th Amendment, and Supreme Court precedent, require that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen," said UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo.
However, some scholars believe conservative justices may be open to reinterpreting the court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children of non-citizens born in the U.S. are entitled to citizenship.
"I would hope the Supreme Court categorically stops this, but I have learned better than to have confidence in this court," said Cornell Law Professor Gautam Hans.
Trump’s Influence on the Supreme Court
Trump’s three Supreme Court appointments—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have played key roles in decisions rolling back abortion rights, expanding gun rights, and limiting federal agency powers.
The court previously ruled in Trump’s favor on three major cases last year, including granting former presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the ruling, marking the first time the court recognized such a degree of presidential immunity.
Lower court judges have raised concerns about Trump’s legal approach. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle criticized Trump’s stance on birthright citizenship, saying, "To our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals."
Will Trump Prevail in Key Legal Battles?
While legal scholars predict Trump may lose on birthright citizenship and funding disputes, he could succeed in other cases.
One ongoing lawsuit challenges Trump’s removal of a National Labor Relations Board member, citing laws that limit a president’s power to fire certain agency officials. The Supreme Court could use the case to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which restricted a president’s ability to fire independent agency heads.
"Given what a majority of the court has recently said about Humphrey’s Executor, Trump might win," Tushnet said.
Trump’s executive orders to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in government may also stand, according to Yoo. "If past presidents could establish DEI programs, the current president can eliminate them," he said.
Trump has framed his broad use of executive power as necessary in times of national crisis, including his recent declaration of a national emergency over illegal immigration. "In such periods, presidential power expands," Yoo added. "The question is whether the United States is truly facing emergency circumstances."
As Trump’s legal battles advance, the Supreme Court’s role in shaping the limits of executive authority will become increasingly critical.