So far, at least nine (now ~40) (now ~160) judges, including Trump appointees, have called a halt to Trump executive actions

[eclipsenow]

Yes - is it even possible to sue SCOTUS?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judge blocks Trump's $2.2 billion Harvard funding freeze​

The judge said the Trump administration "used antisemitism as a smokescreen."

"Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost," she wrote.

While the Trump administration cited antisemitism as a basis to cancel funds, Judge Burroughs said the actual reason was the president's "power and political views." She noted that the Trump administration's demands on admissions, governance, and staffing had little relationship with antisemitism, undercutting the government's claims.

"[T]here is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism," the judge wrote.

See also:

Trump threatens Harvard's tax-exempt status after freezing $2bn funding, demands apology

President Donald Trump has called for Harvard University to lose a valuable tax break, hours after his administration announced it is freezing more than $2bn (£1.5bn) in federal funds for the elite institution. The White House has demanded the oldest university in the US make changes to hiring...

www.christianforums.com

 

[eclipsenow]

Judge blocks Trump's $2.2 billion Harvard funding freeze​

The judge said the Trump administration "used antisemitism as a smokescreen."

"Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost," she wrote.

While the Trump administration cited antisemitism as a basis to cancel funds, Judge Burroughs said the actual reason was the president's "power and political views." She noted that the Trump administration's demands on admissions, governance, and staffing had little relationship with antisemitism, undercutting the government's claims.

"[T]here is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism," the judge wrote.

See also:

Trump threatens Harvard's tax-exempt status after freezing $2bn funding, demands apology

President Donald Trump has called for Harvard University to lose a valuable tax break, hours after his administration announced it is freezing more than $2bn (£1.5bn) in federal funds for the elite institution. The White House has demanded the oldest university in the US make changes to hiring...

www.christianforums.com

Awesome! It seems Trump's "Thought Crime!" policies are being rejected by the courts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judge issues nationwide block on Trump policy that cuts off Head Start for people in US illegally​

In issuing the preliminary injunction Thursday, Judge Ricardo Martinez said he saw no reason for a change to the interpretation of eligibility that has been in place for decades.

On the plus side, ICE is authorized to nab the kiddos at preschool.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judge rules Trump overstepped in requiring new immigration checks for federal services​

A federal judge has blocked President Trump’s attempt to impose new immigration-status checks for a host of government benefit programs, saying the administration wrongly rushed its reinterpretation of law into effect.

Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee to the court in Rhode Island, said past administrations of both parties had all shared a more limited view about the government programs that fell under a 1996 welfare reform law

She issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the new rules in more than 20 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia, which all sued to halt the reinterpretations.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump admin’s basis for deporting Guatemalan kids ‘crumbled like a house of cards,’ judge rules​

U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly, a Trump appointee, took the administration to task as he blocked the deportation of hundreds of children.

A Justice Department attorney told [emergency judge] Sooknanan at the time that the lawsuit to block the deportations was “outrageous” because parents of the children had requested their return and some were waiting at an airport in Guatemala for them.

[That was a lie.]

Kelly, in his ruling Thursday, said that allegation was simply not true. Many of the administration’s claims, he noted, fell apart quickly when the Guatemalan government reported that it was unable to locate most of the children’s parents, and those it could find said they had not sought their children’s return and preferred for them to seek economic opportunity in the United States.

“While Defendants plunged ahead in the middle of the night with their ‘reunification’ plan and then represented to a judge that a parent or guardian had requested each child’s return, that turned out not to be true,” he wrote. “On this record, it appears that Defendants intend to send back to Guatemala many unaccompanied children without an identified parent or legal guardian there.”

The Justice Department has provided little explanation for the apparent misstatements to the court. The senior DOJ attorney who made the claims at the Aug. 31 Zoom hearing, Drew Ensign, did not attend the court session last week where Kelly heard arguments on the requested injunction.

At that session, another DOJ lawyer, Sarah Welch, said Ensign’s earlier assertion was “withdrawn.”

Asked for comment on the new ruling, Trump administration spokespeople blamed President Joe Biden for allowing the Guatemalan children into the U.S. and suggested that [Trump appointee] Kelly was part of an attempt to “get Trump.”

 

[Pommer]

Asked for comment on the new ruling, Trump administration spokespeople blamed President Joe Biden for allowing the Guatemalan children into the U.S. and suggested that [Trump appointee] Kelly was part of an attempt to “get Trump.”

Something about strawberries pops to mind, for some reason.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judge rules feds can't require states to cooperate on immigration to get FEMA disaster money​

In a ruling granting a summary judgment to the plaintiffs [20 US states] and denying one for the federal government, U.S. District Judge William Smith found that the “contested conditions are arbitrary and capricious” and that the actions are unconstitutional because they are “coercive, ambiguous, unrelated to the purpose of the federal grants.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judge finds Trump violated law in firing inspectors general, but allows dismissal to stand​

"President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious. And Plaintiffs raise compelling arguments that the violation must be remedied through reinstatement to their positions,” Reyes wrote, referencing the Inspectors General Act.

However, she said, Trump could simply fire them again by providing the required notice to Congress.

--

Similarly for all the probationary employees. It was illegal to fire them, but they can't get their jobs back.

If the laws don't matter, this is lawlessness.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Appeals Court rules against Trump admin's birthright citizenship EO​

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a lower court ruling that President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is very likely unconstitutional on its face and that a nationwide injunction precluding enforcement is the only way to provide complete relief to the state plaintiffs, pending litigation.

Trump asks Supreme Court to decide whether he can end birthright citizenship, CNN reports​

 

[essentialsaltes]

Federal judge rules Trump can’t require citizenship proof on the federal voting form​

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

 

[Fantine]

Thank you, justices, for your faithfulness to the Constitution.

 

[Always in His Presence]

• The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Trump in roughly 90% of cases it reviewed involving his executive actions.
• This suggests that many lower court rulings against Trump were overturned or modified upon reaching the Supreme Court.

They keep trying and 90% loose.

 

[JSRG]

• The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Trump in roughly 90% of cases it reviewed involving his executive actions.
• This suggests that many lower court rulings against Trump were overturned or modified upon reaching the Supreme Court.

They keep trying and 90% loose.

And this information is from... where, precisely?

 

[Hans Blaster]

• The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Trump in roughly 90% of cases it reviewed involving his executive actions.
• This suggests that many lower court rulings against Trump were overturned or modified upon reaching the Supreme Court.

They keep trying and 90% loose.

Partisan court is partisan. News at 10.

 

[rjs330]

• The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Trump in roughly 90% of cases it reviewed involving his executive actions.
• This suggests that many lower court rulings against Trump were overturned or modified upon reaching the Supreme Court.

They keep trying and 90% loose.

Just means the lower courts are incorrect. A lot of them. We know how this works that those who file suits judge shop, looking for those who have a propensity to rule certain ways. The Supreme Court is Supreme. The lower courts have been wrong on their rulings more often than right.

 

[juanwood]

Just means the lower courts are incorrect. A lot of them. We know how this works that those who file suits judge shop, looking for those who have a propensity to rule certain ways. The Supreme Court is Supreme. The lower courts have been wrong on their rulings more often than right.

trump owns the Supreme Court Judges. They will not dare rule against their Dear Leader. Wake up.

 

[Always in His Presence]

160 Judges including Trump appointees rule and only 16 have been successful when appealed -

Not a whole lot to crow about. A 90% fail rate.

 

[Always in His Presence]

trump owns the Supreme Court Judges. They will not dare rule against their Dear Leader. Wake up.

Good propaganda line - but not close to reality.

The Supreme Court has rejected some Trump administration moves in small but meaningful ways​

they also have blocked almost 20 of Trumps actions -

 

[RocksInMyHead]

160 Judges including Trump appointees rule and only 16 have been successful when appealed -

Not a whole lot to crow about. A 90% fail rate.

That math ain't mathing. The Supreme Court has not undertaken every lower-court ruling made against the administration, let alone issued a ruling on all of the cases that it has undertaken.

So far, the USSC has weighed in - in some form - on 33 cases. Of those, they have stayed or vacated court orders 17 times and upheld lower court orders once (notably, that does not constitute a ruling on the merits; court orders and stays are actions demanded by the judge during the course of the trial). They have issued a ruling on the merits (either via arguments or dismissal) in favor of the federal government 7 times and against the government 8 times.

So, in the most generous interpretation of "success," the Trump administration has about a 73% success rate in front of the Supreme Court. In terms of rulings that have real consequence though, that falls to 47%.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation