WASHINGTON — Facing a growing number of legal setbacks in lower federal courts, President Donald Trump is increasingly turning to a strategy that proved highly effective for him during his first term: fast-tracking cases to the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court.
In just the past week, the Justice Department has made three emergency appeals to the high court—bringing the total to six since Trump returned to office a little over two months ago. This aggressive approach is a direct response to more than 130 lawsuits challenging his executive orders, many of which have been filed in Democratic-leaning jurisdictions.
With federal judges repeatedly ruling against the administration—blocking policies on immigration, diversity programs, federal spending, and more—the White House is relying on the Supreme Court not only to reverse these rulings but also to rein in what Trump and his allies see as judicial overreach.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris made this clear in a recent filing related to a deportation case, writing: “Only this Court can put an end to rule-by-TRO and restore the proper balance of powers—sooner rather than later.”
The administration’s reliance on emergency appeals, often referred to as the “shadow docket,” isn’t new, but it has escalated significantly under Trump. During his first term, the Justice Department made 41 such appeals, securing at least partial victories in 28 cases. By contrast, the Obama and George W. Bush administrations combined used this legal maneuver just eight times over 16 years.
Unlike standard Supreme Court cases, which unfold over months and involve extensive legal reasoning, emergency appeals are handled on an accelerated timeline—sometimes within days—offering minimal opportunity for legal arguments to be fully developed.
So far this year, the justices have largely avoided taking immediate action on Trump’s requests. However, as the volume of cases increases, pressure on the court will grow, particularly in politically charged disputes such as mass deportations.
A recent call by Trump to impeach a federal judge who blocked one of his deportation policies even prompted a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Here’s a closer look at the major legal battles playing out in the Supreme Court’s emergency docket:
Deportation Fight Could Be a Major Test
Trump’s tough stance on immigration was a cornerstone of his campaign, and earlier this month, he invoked a rarely used 18th-century wartime law to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations.
However, attorneys for the migrants—some of whom deny any gang ties—challenged the deportations in court, arguing that they were being removed without due process.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg halted the deportations, ordering flights to be turned around midair. While two planes did land despite the ruling, the administration’s attempts to overturn the decision in appellate court failed.
On Friday, the Justice Department took the fight to the Supreme Court, arguing that the deportations should proceed and that legal challenges should be handled in Texas, where the migrants are being held.
Mass Firings of Federal Employees Spark Legal Challenges
The Trump administration’s effort to drastically reduce the federal workforce has led to thousands of job losses—particularly among probationary employees, who have fewer protections.
Legal battles erupted after two judges ruled that the administration violated federal law in its handling of the terminations. One California judge went so far as to order the reinstatement of 16,000 workers, citing apparent falsehoods in the administration’s justification for the firings.
The government has now turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the judiciary lacks the authority to interfere with executive branch hiring and firing decisions.
Efforts to Cut DEI Programs Face Legal Pushback
Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government and education system.
Eight Democratic-led states have sued, claiming that his administration’s decision to slash funding for teacher training was politically motivated. A federal judge in Boston sided with them, temporarily blocking the cuts on the grounds that they were already impacting efforts to address the national teacher shortage.
After an appellate court upheld the ruling, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that courts should not have the power to force the government to continue spending money on programs it has chosen to eliminate.
Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship Faces Roadblocks
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants.
The sweeping order was immediately challenged in court and quickly blocked by multiple judges. Three appellate courts have since refused to allow the policy to take effect while litigation continues.
Rather than asking the Supreme Court for a full reversal, the administration has instead requested that the justices limit the rulings to the individuals who filed lawsuits, rather than applying nationwide.
This argument touches on a broader legal debate over whether individual judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions—an issue that has previously drawn concern from some Supreme Court justices.
What Comes Next?
As legal challenges to Trump’s policies continue to pile up, his administration will likely keep relying on emergency Supreme Court appeals. The question now is how often the justices will step in—and whether they will push back against Trump’s efforts to bypass the traditional judicial process.
