Supreme Court Backs Trump in 7 of 9 Major 2025-26 Cases
Updated
Updated · The Washington Post · Jun 17
Supreme Court Backs Trump in 7 of 9 Major 2025-26 Cases
1 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · Jun 17
Summary
Seven major Supreme Court decisions in the 2025-26 term have favored Donald Trump, while two have gone against him, underscoring how heavily his agenda has dominated the docket for a second straight year.
The biggest setback came in February, when the court ruled Trump lacked authority under a 1977 emergency-powers law to impose most of his sweeping tariffs, forcing the administration to refund some of the $166 billion it had collected.
The court has still delivered key wins on emergency orders, including allowing Trump to end deportation protections for Venezuelans, freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid, cut nearly $800 million in NIH grants and shrink the Education Department.
Beyond Trump-specific disputes, the term has also produced major rulings on voting maps, abortion-pill access, transgender rights, gun laws and agency power, with more high-stakes cases still pending on birthright citizenship, asylum and the Federal Reserve.
Could a 90-year-old precedent fall, reshaping the independence of crucial federal agencies?
Could a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling alter the 150-year-old promise of birthright citizenship?
How will the Court's ruling on Google data balance modern policing with Fourth Amendment rights?
Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 Term: Record Judicial Support for Trump Administration and Expansion of Executive Power
Overview
The 2025–2026 Supreme Court term was marked by a strong judicial alignment with President Trump’s second administration, as the Court frequently sided with the executive branch in major cases. This trend was driven by the expanded use of the shadow docket, which allowed for a dramatic increase in emergency rulings, especially in cases involving the U.S. government. While the government had rarely sought such relief in previous years, President Trump’s first administration greatly increased these requests, and his second administration continued this pattern. As a result, the Court’s approach highlighted a significant shift in judicial support for executive actions.