— President Donald Trump’s recent high-profile moves — from sweeping tariffs and an unprecedented use of the 18th‑century Alien Enemies Act to the deployment of troops in Los Angeles and the cutting of $2.6bn in federal grants to Harvard — have been blocked or questioned by lower courts and are likely to reach a Supreme Court that currently leans 6–3 toward conservative appointees.
Key takeaways
- The Washington, D.C. appeals court ruled 7–4 that Trump exceeded his authority in imposing broad tariffs; the White House has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
- A three‑judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a 2–1 decision preliminarily blocking deportations tied to the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.
- A federal judge found the deployment of national guard and marine troops to Los Angeles unlawful and barred their use for police functions; roughly 300 troops remain deployed.
- The Supreme Court, with six conservative justices appointed or supported during Trump’s influence, is positioned to be the final arbiter of several of these disputes.
- Advocates warn the administration’s pattern of pushing controversial measures then testing courts is straining both plaintiffs and the judicial system.
Verified facts
On 5 September 2025, the D.C. Circuit issued a 7–4 ruling concluding that while statutes give the president significant powers during declared emergencies, they do not authorize the imposition of tariffs or taxes of the kind the administration enacted. The White House has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Separately, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2–1 that the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals tied to the Tren de Aragua gang was unlawful at the preliminary stage. The injunction prevents those removals pending further proceedings.
In June, the administration deployed thousands of personnel to Los Angeles; a federal judge later found that use unlawful under the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which restricts active-duty military from domestic law enforcement. The court ordered limits on using National Guard members and marines for arrests or crowd control, with the order set to take effect on 12 September 2025. Reports indicate about 300 troops remain on Los Angeles streets.
Another federal judge ruled the administration’s termination of approximately $2.6bn in federal grants to Harvard University unlawful, finding the cuts amounted to retaliation after Harvard declined to accede to White House requests on governance and policy. A separate order had already blocked the administration from curbing Harvard’s enrollment of international students.
Context & impact
These cases form part of a broader pattern: the administration advances aggressive policy changes, sometimes citing rarely used statutes or broad emergency powers, and those moves are promptly challenged in federal courts. Many of the disputes are likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which now has a 6–3 conservative majority—a balance that could shape final outcomes.
Where lower courts have limited national injunctions against federal policy, they have continued to issue narrower, case‑specific orders. Those targeted rulings can protect affected individuals or jurisdictions but leave similar policies in force elsewhere until a higher court provides definitive guidance.
Practical effects are already evident: universities and state governments must decide whether to litigate costly defenses; city officials weigh public‑safety plans knowing federal troops may be restricted; foreign governments and industries adjust to trade uncertainty while awaiting final legal rulings on tariffs.
Stakeholder pressure points
- States and cities that oppose federal actions are pursuing court challenges and seeking injunctions.
- Private institutions like Harvard are using litigation to defend federal funding and institutional autonomy.
- International partners and exporters face ongoing uncertainty while tariff policies are litigated.
“The administration is pressing novel and expansive claims of authority that courts must scrutinize,”
— Donald Sherman, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Official statements
“This decision rein[s] in claims that the executive can declare an unchecked emergency,”
— Lee Gelernt, ACLU (representing Venezuelan plaintiffs)
“Governor Newsom argued the deployments violated federal law and presented a threat to civil liberties,”
— Office of the Governor of California
Unconfirmed or pending items
- Whether the Supreme Court will accept each case and on what schedule remains uncertain.
- Potential further deployments of troops to other cities named by the president are threatened but not confirmed.
- The final legal outcome of tariff and Alien Enemies Act cases will depend on Supreme Court review, if granted.
Bottom line
The administration’s high‑profile measures—tariffs, mass deportation strategies, domestic troop deployments and funding cuts—have repeatedly run into legal limits in lower courts. With a Supreme Court that tilts conservative, the final resolution of several of these disputes will be pivotal for presidential power, federal‑state relations and institutional autonomy. Expect protracted litigation and a decisive role for the court in setting long‑term precedents.