President Donald Trump has exercised executive authority in areas such as tariffs, immigration policy, and efforts to remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and these matters could shape the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming docket.
Trump’s administration appealed on Wednesday a lower court’s ruling last week that many of his tariffs pursued under a 1977 law meant for emergencies are illegal, urging the justices to fast-track their review of the case.
The case, along with others advancing to the Supreme Court, will consider the extent to which the justices address the president’s position on executive authority and the administration’s methods of carrying out its agenda.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has already handed major wins to Trump in his second term, granting emergency requests to implement his policies while challenges play out in lower courts.
The justices return in September from their summer recess and typically choose 60–70 appeals to hear. In the upcoming term, which runs from October through June, they may consider cases related to presidential authority, including actions taken under Trump’s administration involving claims of executive power.
The 7-4 decision on Aug. 29 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed what Trump calls “reciprocal” tariffs announced in April as well as other tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada, and Mexico.
At issue is whether Trump overstepped his authority in invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs, the first time the law was used for that purpose.
Trump has made tariffs a central part of U.S. foreign policy, using them as leverage to renegotiate trade agreements with exporting countries.
Trump’s immigration policy has given rise to similar challenges. A New Orleans-based federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Trump’s reliance on a 1798 law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members was likely unlawful. Historically, the law has been used only in wartime.
The Alien Enemies Act expansively empowers the government to detain and deport citizens of hostile nations in times of war or during an “invasion or predatory incursion.” The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the law, rejecting the administration’s view that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had made a “predatory incursion” on U.S. soil.
This has been one of the few areas where the Supreme Court has pushed back on the administration so far. In May, the justices faulted his administration for seeking to remove Venezuelan migrants at a Texas detention center without adequate legal process.
A case now before the courts centers on whether Trump has the authority to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which sets U.S. monetary policy.
Cook quickly filed a lawsuit seeking to block the move, setting up a legal battle that could upend long-established norms for the Fed’s independence.
The Trump administration has accused Cook, the first Black woman on the Fed board, of committing mortgage fraud, which she has denied. Cook also contends that, even if she made misstatements on mortgage applications, they do not give the president legal cause to remove her because she disclosed all the relevant information during her 2022 vetting.
The case has major implications for the Federal Reserve’s long-standing independence from political influence.
Trump’s policy changes affecting diversity programs, federal funding allocations, and regulations involving transgender individuals, among other disputed areas, have drawn hundreds of lawsuits — many of which are now moving quickly through the appeals process.
The Supreme Court has heard some of them on an emergency basis, as the administration fought attempts to stymie its policies while legal challenges continued.
In May, the Supreme Court let the administration end Biden-era temporary deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans as it put on hold a judge’s ruling against the government. A San Francisco-based U.S. appeals court on Aug. 29 upheld the judge’s ruling, setting up a further appeal.
In June, the court allowed the administration to deport migrants to third countries — including South Sudan — without requiring individual hearings on potential risks to those migrants.
The court also upheld Trump’s removal of members from federal labor boards and the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, affirming presidential authority over agencies that were created to operate independently of direct White House control.
The court also permitted implementation of his ban on transgender people in the military in May.
Reuters contributed to this report
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
