Courts halt Trump plans from citizenship to voting

courts decide – As President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda races ahead through executive actions, federal and state courts are increasingly deciding what survives—ranging from a Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship to lawsuits over mail-in voting, the Kennedy C

When the judge ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, the Trump campaign to reshape how America defines citizenship still had one thing going for it: momentum. When higher courts step in next, that momentum may not carry over.

More than 800 lawsuits have been filed to challenge second-term Trump administration executive actions. according to a litigation tracker from Just Security. a law and policy publication of New York University’s law school. The scale of litigation matches the pace of executive moves the administration has made since the earliest days. at times pushing beyond widely accepted legal boundaries on issues that reach into immigration status. federal worker protections. and election procedures.

That tension—between speed from the White House and limits from the courts—has become the defining feature of Trump’s second-term legacy so far. Even when the Supreme Court has curtailed portions of the agenda. it has also left room for certain controversial policies to proceed. at least in the short term.

Norm Eisen. a former Obama White House ethics lawyer who co-founded the Democracy Defenders Fund and is involved in many prominent cases against the administration. said the president has tried “to flood the zone with illegality.” Eisen said that wins for the president on major initiatives—such as redefining who is a citizen or firing influential. nonpartisan economic regulators—would represent “a stunning break with American constitutionalism.”.

The White House disputes that framing. In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the “real problem” is “the unrelenting, unlawful rulings issued by some lower court judges who push their own policy goals and are clearly triggered by President Trump’s agenda.”

The Department of Justice, for its part, has pointed to its own courtroom record. Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said the DOJ has highlighted criminal prosecutions. including by drug cartel leaders. and noted that the Supreme Court has granted emergency actions that benefited the administration “about two dozen times.” She called those achievements “nothing short of astonishing. ” and said “the policy positions of rogue. unelected judges will not deter us from delivering for the American people.”.

UFC Freedom 250 tests rules tied to national park space

One of the lawsuits aiming to stop a high-profile Trump-linked event centers on a proposed Ultimate Fighting Championship event on the White House South Lawn—dubbed “UFC Freedom 250. ” timed for President Donald Trump’s birthday. June 14. as part of the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations this summer. The combat sport includes boxing, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, and kickboxing, and the planned event includes fighter weigh-ins at the Lincoln Memorial.

Two Virginia residents filed the case seeking to block the event. alleging it violates National Park Service rules that restrict the use of monument spaces because. they say. it is not actually meant to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday but is instead designed to make money and celebrate the president’s birth.

The lawsuit alleges that “In substance as well as formally, UFC Freedom 250 is being planned and operated as a private, profit-motivated sports promotion.”

The timing and the money have also drawn attention. Trump’s trust bought between $15,001 and $50,000 of stock in the UFC’s parent company in March, according to his May financial disclosure. Vice President JD Vance told reporters Trump “doesn’t make his own trades.”

Silver and gold “Trump Coins” for the event are being sold for between about $250 and $12,000 by a company that has a licensing agreement with the Trump Organization. The coins were “designed by President Trump,” according to online marketing.

On June 12, Washington, DC, federal Judge Amit P. Mehta cleared the way for the event to take place, while declining to rule on whether it is actually lawful. Mehta said the plaintiffs don’t have the right to sue because they didn’t show they are directly affected by the event. and that any harms they will experience are “decidedly temporary.” As of early June 14. the plaintiffs hadn’t appealed.

In a statement. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public. ” adding that he was “overwhelmingly re-elected” despite “years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.” Kelly said. “There are no conflicts of interest.”.

A Supreme Court decision over birthright citizenship could redirect the agenda

While lawsuits tied to events and symbolism move through lower courts, the biggest fight is headed toward the Supreme Court.

For decades. presidential administrations and most legal scholars agreed that the Constitution grants citizenship to nearly all people born in the United States. including children of undocumented immigrants. On the first day back in office. Trump issued an order denying automatic citizenship for children born in the United States if their biological parents aren’t authorized to be in the country or only have temporary authorization.

The administration faced several lawsuits, and the Supreme Court is deciding one of those cases right now. By early July. it is expected to rule on whether the Constitution’s promise of citizenship to people born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” includes children whose parents fall outside the categories described in Trump’s order.

White House ballroom reshapes itself through court orders

Other lawsuits focus less on defining rights and more on who has the authority to change federal property.

Trump demolished the White House’s historic East Wing in October to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom that will dwarf the main White House itself. The project is paid for with $400 million in private donations.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued, alleging that the Trump administration violated federal law that gives Congress control over federal property and did not follow legal requirements for an environmental review, planning approvals, and consultation with oversight bodies.

The administration has argued the effort falls under the president’s authority to “alter” or “improve” the White House, and that construction will advance national security needs by providing a secure venue for large events.

A federal trial judge halted above-ground construction in mid-April while litigation proceeds. Since then, a Washington, DC, federal appeals court allowed construction to continue while it considers the Trump administration’s appeal.

Kennedy Center name change and shutdown fight ends with a court order

In Washington, DC, another cultural institution became a test of board authority and deadlines.

A board largely appointed by Trump voted in December 2025 to rename the Kennedy Center the “Trump-Kennedy Center.” Soon after. the physical name on the building was changed. Then. in early 2026—after ticket sales dropped sharply—the board decided to close the center for about two years for major renovations.

Washington, DC, federal Judge Christopher R. Cooper, an Obama appointee, ordered the board to remove Trump’s name from the building by June 12 and halted the shutdown plan, ruling that the board probably overstepped its authority.

In the late hours of June 12, after an appeals court declined to halt Cooper’s order, the board asked Cooper for 12 additional hours to take Trump’s name down, saying thunderstorms caused delays. Cooper approved the request, and the name came down in the early hours of June 13.

Mail-in voting order faces constitutional challenges

Courts are also confronting Trump’s approach to election administration.

Trump issued an order threatening states’ control over voter lists and interfering with mail-in voting. On March 31, he directed the U.S. Postal Service to create “uniform standards” to prevent the service from transmitting mail-in ballots of people who are not approved to vote. Under the order, the service is supposed to provide each state with a list of “enrolled” voters.

The order arrives amid Trump’s baseless claims that many elections Republicans lose—including the 2020 presidential election—are rigged. Trump repeated the claim as recently as June 7 in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press. ” adding that he disputed results in California where Democrats were gaining on Republican candidates as vote-by-mail ballots—an option disproportionately used by Democrats in that state—were counted in the days after June 2 primary elections. Trump said, “The election was rigged. It was a dirty election. And it’s happening again right now in California.”.

Several lawsuits are challenging the mail-in voting order as unconstitutional. They argue that the Constitution gives the states and Congress power over running elections, not the president. Those cases are ongoing, with federal courts weighing whether to halt the policy before November elections.

Federal worker layoffs and regulatory independence meet the courts

The Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the federal bureaucracy have also sparked courtroom battles.

The administration has conducted large-scale layoffs of federal workers and dismantled some parts of government entirely, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the government’s main agency for providing foreign aid overseas.

Labor unions, nonprofits, and individual workers brought dozens of lawsuits challenging efforts to fire workers or strip them of job protections.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether Trump had the power to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. The Federal Reserve is a powerful economic regulator traditionally insulated from presidential control so governors can act in the U.S. economy’s best interest.

Courts are also handling lawsuits alleging retaliation for doing work tied to previous administrations. Former Justice Department employees have filed multiple lawsuits alleging they were illegally fired for investigating or prosecuting cases tied to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On USAID, multiple lawsuits were grouped together. Washington, DC, federal Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, cleared the way for mass dismissals of USAID employees and contractors. Nichols ruled the workers’ issues were personnel-related and should have been raised through administrative review processes rather than in his court.

A $100,000 H1-B fee becomes a legal battleground

Immigration-related restrictions are also turning into a series of court fights, including a major cost shift for employers seeking high-skilled workers.

The Trump administration imposed a new $100. 000 fee for high-skilled worker visa applications. requiring employers to pay the fee to submit an application for an H1-B employee visa—used by U.S. companies to temporarily employ highly-skilled immigrant professionals in areas such as the tech sector, engineering, finance, and medicine.

The fee is being litigated on multiple fronts. Washington, DC, federal Judge Beryl A. Howell, appointed by Obama, sided with the government against a lawsuit from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, leaving the fee in place until it expires in September 2026. Howell wrote that the fee was authorized by laws giving the president “broad authority” to regulate entry into the U.S. The Chamber appealed.

A different case reached a different result. Massachusetts federal Judge Leo T. Sorokin. an Obama appointee. ruled on June 8 in a lawsuit brought by Democratic state attorneys general that the fee improperly usurped Congress’ power under the Constitution to impose taxes and ran afoul of legal requirements to provide notice and respond to public comments ahead of new regulations. The DOJ appealed that decision.

Another lawsuit against the fee, filed by religious and labor groups, is pending in a San Francisco federal court.

Gold Card citizenship program faces a challenge over who can create it

Critics say the administration is also trying to sell a route to citizenship.

The Trump administration is under legal fire for what critics describe as an effort to sell citizenship through a Trump “Gold Card.” The $1 million Trump “Gold Card” allows foreign nationals permanent residency and a pathway to U.S. citizenship. The money is described as a “gift to the Nation,” according to Trump’s September 2025 order.

The American Association of University Professors. a labor union for academics. has challenged the program in a Washington. DC. federal court. The association says the program will slow the application process for highly-skilled visa applicants who can’t or won’t pay the fee and that the Trump administration didn’t have the authority to create it without Congress.

The DOJ has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing mainly that the association hasn’t suffered sufficient injury to have standing.

SNAP funding conditions are temporarily blocked

The courts are also weighing limits on how the federal government can tie nutrition funding to compliance demands.

The Trump administration restricted access to billions of dollars in federal nutrition funding, including for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps about 39 million Americans buy groceries.

The administration says states will only get those funds if they certify they are complying with federal anti-discrimination policies, which the administration is using to penalize race-based affirmation action.

Washington, DC, federal Judge Myong J. Joun, a Biden appointee, preliminarily blocked those conditions on June 5, ruling that Democratic state attorneys general were likely to succeed in proving the conditions are unlawful.

The DOJ disputed the claims, arguing the issue isn’t ripe for a court to rule on because the government hasn’t applied the conditions to a federal-state agreement.

The pattern is now visible in deadlines and access: court rulings determine not just the legality of policy. but whether it reaches the public in time to matter. From an event on the White House South Lawn and a Supreme Court decision expected by early July. to a June 12 deadline for removing Trump’s name at the Kennedy Center and ongoing questions about whether mail-in voting rules will be halted before November. the judiciary is repeatedly deciding the pace.

For Trump’s opponents, the flood of litigation is a brake. For the administration, court losses and pauses are evidence of judges pursuing their own agendas. What comes next depends on which cases move upward. which judges issue stays. and how quickly appeals courts act—because for many of these disputes. timing is the difference between policy and aftermath.

Trump second term courts Supreme Court birthright citizenship mail-in voting H1-B fee SNAP USAID Kennedy Center UFC Freedom 250 Federal Reserve Lisa Cook federal worker layoffs