The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions

WASHINGTON— Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led by the Supreme Court ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a series of decisions that gave him much broader authority to control the federal government.

In a series of swift rulings, the justices granted emergency objections and struck down district judges’ decisions that blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration fired thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research, disbanded the agency that financed foreign aid, and paved the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also placed two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court ruled twice, including in an order issued after midnight, that the Trump administration could not secretly remove immigrants from the country without a hearing before a judge.

As soon as he took office, Trump claimed that immigrants allegedly affiliated with “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and secretly sent to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment gives immigrants, like citizens, the right to “due process.” Most of the men arrested had no criminal record and said they had never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those facing deportation “have the opportunity to receive notice and appeal their deportation.” judges say at JGG against Trump.

They also demanded that the government “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife but may face more charges or efforts to deport him.

Last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce immigration laws.

Trump has claimed he has the authority to challenge state governors and deploy Guard troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed on dissent from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

But for most of the year, Roberts and five other conservatives were in the majority in favor of Trump. Three dissenting liberal justices said the court should step aside for now and leave it to district judges.

In May, the court ruled that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections for more than 350,000 Venezuelans, as well as 530,000 immigrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and destructive than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gives the president’s top immigration officials sole authority to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” is allowed.

However, a federal judge in San Francisco has twice blocked the administration from repealing temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston has twice blocked the repeal of entry-level parole granted to immigrants under the Biden administration.

The court is also preparing to confirm the president’s power to dismiss officials appointed to independent organizations for certain periods of time.

Since 1887, when Congress established the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions run by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe these agencies are subject to the president’s “executive authority” because they enforce the law.

The decision could make an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court is sending mixed signals.

“The emergency order was consistently made on behalf of the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I think it’s important to halt the deployment of the National Guard and the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for now. And it’s possible that by this time next year the court will overturn two of Trump’s signature initiatives (the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs).”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for issuing interim unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

This practice emerged in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make sudden and sweeping changes to the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups filed suit in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston, and won rulings from district judges that put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban,” announced during Trump’s first week in the White House, set the pattern. It suspended entry of visitors and immigrants from Venezuela and seven Muslim-majority countries, citing weak vetting procedures in those countries.

The justices blocked the decision from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the decision discriminated based on nationality.

A year later the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and Approved Trump’s order By a 5-4 decision. Roberts pointed out that Congress clearly gave this authority to the president in immigration laws. If it “determines that the entry of any class of aliens would be harmful,” it says, “it may suspend the entry of all such immigrants for such period as it may deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to step aside as federal judges issue nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden became president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in West Texas ordered anti-abortion advocates to task, ruling that the Food and Drug Administration wrongly approved abortion pills that could end early pregnancy. He ordered them removed from the market before any objections could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an immediate objection. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court reversed the judge’s decision due to dissent from Thomas and Alito.

The following year the court heard arguments and then threw the whole case away on the grounds that abortion foes have no right to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to the district judges. Instead, he repeatedly lifted injunctions that prevented Trump’s policies from taking effect.

While these are not final decisions, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early victory does not mean he will win some of his most controversial policies.

In November, justices were skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law that made no mention of tariffs gave him the authority to impose such import duties on products from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s argument that he could overturn the birthright citizenship principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship to newborns whose parents are here illegally or enter as visitors.

Decisions on both cases will be announced in late June.