The Supreme Court on June 30 struck down President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, dealing a major blow to his immigration agenda. Yet the president celebrated other rulings that backed his priorities—from transgender athletes’ eligibil
On the Supreme Court’s final stretch of the term. Donald Trump walked into Washington with momentum—and left with a mixed ledger. The court dealt his immigration plan a near-defining setback on June 30, rejecting his bid to narrow birthright citizenship. But in the same week. it also handed him high-profile wins across sports eligibility. money in politics. and multiple immigration and administrative issues.
The contrast was stark: a doctrine long treated as settled was abruptly put back into play—only for the court to refuse Trump’s version of the change. And while the president lost on tariffs and on whether he can immediately remove a key Federal Reserve governor. he scored enough victories to keep his agenda moving. even as lawmakers and the courts become the next battleground.
The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s birthright citizenship limits
On June 30, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s attempt to redefine who is an American by birth, striking down limits on birthright citizenship that were a centerpiece of his hard-line immigration approach.
Five of the nine justices said the executive order Trump signed his first day in office limiting birthright citizenship violated the Constitution’s citizenship clause. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed in part with the outcome but said it conflicted only with a 1952 immigration law.
Trump responded immediately, writing on Truth Social: “The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process.”
The practical road ahead is still narrow for Trump. Any new law would have to persuade at least one of the five justices who ruled against him that it is consistent with the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
A separate June 30 ruling delivered a “BIG WIN” for Trump
The same day, the Supreme Court delivered another headline decision: states may ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams without violating the Constitution or a federal law barring sex discrimination in education.
Trump called the ruling a “BIG WIN” on social media.
His opposition to transgender women competing on female teams was a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign. As president, he has moved to cut off federal funding to schools that allow transgender females to participate on girls’ and women’s sports.
The Justice Department helped West Virginia and Idaho defend their bans before the Supreme Court. Yet in a parallel fight over federal funding, the Justice Department urged the court to rule only that bans are allowed—not that they are required.
Campaign finance ruling could boost Republicans in the short run
On June 30, the court’s conservative majority also backed a challenge by Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans tied to one of the remaining checks on money in politics.
The Supreme Court overruled a quarter-century-old decision meant to prevent wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give federal candidates by funneling money through political parties.
The decision may benefit the GOP “at least in the short run,” in part because Democratic candidates have not relied as much on financial help from political parties and have instead attracted more small-dollar donations.
Rick Hasen, an elections expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote on his Election Law Blog: “The opinion may marginally help Republicans, whose party arms have raised more money than Democratic party orgs. But in the longer term we can expect more parity.”
A June 29 ruling expands presidential power over independent boards
Trump also celebrated a June 29 Supreme Court decision on presidential firing powers, calling it “the biggest and most consequential Decision issued by the Court” for presidential power.
The court overturned a 90-year precedent from Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had restricted how presidents could remove members of independent boards. Congress created various boards with representation from both parties. but Trump argued he should control every post in the executive branch by removing and replacing members at will.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, writing that a president “must have the assistance of officers he can trust.” He added that the ruling could affect a dozen government agencies.
Trump wrote on social media: “It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.”
The court blocked Trump from immediately firing Fed governor Lisa Cook—but sent the case back
Trump downplayed another June 29 decision that worked against him. The Supreme Court blocked him from immediately firing Lisa Cook from the Federal Trade Commission, and Trump posted that the court sent the case back down to a lower court “on a strictly procedural basis.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority of the court that the Trump administration “has not shown that it is likely to prevail” at that lower court in defending how Cook was fired.
Roberts emphasized that Congress established protections for the Fed’s governors and that the U.S. has a tradition of shielding central banking from political influence.
The Federal Reserve board is made up of governors nominated by presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for staggered 14-year terms. The court’s stance, had it gone the other way, would have left the Fed more vulnerable to whomever holds the presidency.
Trump argued he could remove Cook immediately based on allegations that she made misrepresentations affecting mortgage rates on two properties she purchased. Cook said she was looking forward to “debunking” Trump’s allegations. and argued the firing was unlawful because the Fed board is historically independent and its governors have statutory protections.
Mississippi’s mail ballot rule survives, despite a key Trump grievance
In another loss for Trump, the Supreme Court upheld on June 29 a Mississippi law counting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive up to five days later.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in supporting the law. Barrett wrote that voters must make their decision by a specific day, not that the ballots must be received on that day.
Trump has opposed mail-in ballots, arguing they are easily corrupted—though he voted by mail himself in March.
He cited the decision as he continued to pressure Congress to require voters to provide identification at polling places and show proof of citizenship to register. He has also pushed to prohibit mail-in ballots except for voters who are ill, traveling, or serving in the military.
Trump wrote on social media: “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements. There is only one reason to oppose – CHEATING!”
A 2025 report from the Brookings Institution found fraud cases related to voting by mail are extremely rare: about four cases for every 10 million mail-in votes. Studies cited in the reporting also show voting by noncitizens is virtually nonexistent.
Three immigration and humanitarian decisions aligned with Trump’s direction—at least on the issues that survived
In the closing weeks of the Supreme Court term, key rulings confirmed three Trump policies on humanitarian aid, asylum, and green-card administration.
One decision allowed Trump to end a humanitarian program letting people fleeing dangerous countries live temporarily in the United States: Temporary Protected Status. The program provided work permits and protection from deportation for 350,000 Haitians and Syrians. But the administration has proposed to end the protected status for 1.3 million people from a combined 13 countries.
A second decision allowed the administration to turn away refugees seeking asylum at the border rather than letting them enter to await a decision on their applications. Critics of the decision said it would spur refugees to try to enter the country illegally. and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “more people will die.”.
A third ruling agreed to allow immigration officials to consider criminal accusations against green-card holders returning from abroad when deciding whether to allow them back.
The court also overturned Trump’s emergency tariffs—a central blow to his economic policy
Trump’s economic agenda suffered a major judicial defeat earlier in the term. In February, the Supreme Court overturned Trump’s emergency tariffs, gutting a centerpiece of his economic policy.
The decision forced him to refund more than $166 billion already collected and removed a major foreign policy tool. The 6-3 ruling said the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize Trump to impose tariffs on his own.
Other statutes, including the 1974 Trade Act, still allow Trump to impose tariffs after investigating unfair trade practices such as forced labor or overproduction—both of which the administration is pursuing.
Trump responded to opponents of the tariffs with sharp language, calling them “obnoxious, ignorant and loud,” accusing the justices of acting out of fear of critics, and calling the plaintiffs in the lawsuit “sleazebags.”
Where the term leaves Trump now
Across the Supreme Court’s final rulings, Trump’s record reads like a tug-of-war between courts and campaign promises. Birthright citizenship—the policy he sought to remake—was blocked on June 30. with five justices concluding his executive order violated the Constitution’s citizenship clause. Yet multiple other decisions backed parts of his agenda. from transgender sports restrictions and changes to campaign finance rules. to immigration restrictions tied to asylum. humanitarian protection. and green-card scrutiny.
And even when the court pushed back—on tariffs and on aspects of immediate presidential control affecting the Fed—the court’s reasoning kept the fight alive in lower courts and through future legislation. For Trump. the term ended not with a wipeout. but with a clear map: some battles were lost in the courtroom. while others are already circling back through Congress. federal agencies. and the next wave of appeals.
Supreme Court Trump birthright citizenship tariffs Federal Reserve Lisa Cook transgender athletes campaign finance JD Vance immigration asylum