After a year of success at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration faces consequential rulings in the new year on matters where victory may not be as certain, like birthright citizenship and the presidentâs tariffs.
The administration racked up 20 victories on the Supreme Courtâs emergency docket in 2025, with just five losses, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
High court victories this year have included decisions allowing the administration to stop issuing passports based on gender identity and to enforce its transgender military ban.
The majority let Trump move forward with firing federal workers and Democrat-appointed members of agency boards. It also handed the administration significant wins on immigration, allowing them to resume third-country deportations, revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelan nationals and end Biden-era parole grants for more than 500,000 migrants.
One of the administrationâs biggest legal wins was the Supreme Courtâs opinion in Trump v. CASA, where the majority reined in the power of district court judges by limiting their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Meanwhile, two of the administrationâs few losses came in the past week.
The majority declined on Tuesday to allow Trump to deploy the National Guard in Chicago. They denied on Friday a request from the administration related to restrictions on immigration judgesâ speaking engagements.
In April, the Supreme Court also directed the administration to âfacilitate and effectuateâ Kilmar Abrego Garciaâs return to the United States after he was deported to El Salvador. Through a 5-4 decision in March â which Justice Samuel Alito strongly objected to â the justices declined to halt a lower court order instructing the administration to pay out $2 billion in foreign aid.
During an interview with the Italian news outlet Corriere Della Sera published Monday, Alito noted there has been âan inclination by presidents to try to do more and more and more, using their own power, or what they believe to be their own powerâ over the past 10 years.
âAnd now, under President Trump, itâs just gone on like this, and heâs used his executive power very aggressively,â Alito said.
âAnd what we have seen since the beginning of his second term, since January, is that so many of these things that he has done are immediately challenged in court,â he continued. âWe have 680 district court judges. A district judge says âitâs unconstitutional, or itâs unlawfulâ, and then the case comes to US as an emergency matter.â
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Coming In 2026
Significant decisions are pending in 2026, but itâs less clear the administration will prevail in all cases.
On the merits docket, a dispute over Louisianaâs congressional map is still pending. After initially hearing the case last year and putting off a decision, the justices heard arguments again in October, weighing whether race-based redistricting is constitutional. Several justices have signaled an openness to limiting the use of race in creating districts.
Louisianaâs Secretary of State asked for a decision by early January before qualifying dates for state primary elections in April.
The justices already heard arguments in November on Trumpâs sweeping tariffs, appearing skeptical of their legality. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said he is confident the tariffs will be upheld because âthe Supreme Court does not interfere with a presidentâs signature policy.â
âI donât think this ruling is gonna go against US, but if it does, whatâs their plan for refunds? How is this going to get to consumers? Are they just going to hand some of these importers big windfalls?â Bessent said in November on Fox News. âWhat if the exporters had given big discounts already, and then youâre going to give a refund on the tariffs? So, theyâd be making it on both sides. So, I donât think the Supreme Court wants to wade into a mess like that.â
In another major case, Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting the presidentâs ability to remove leaders of certain âindependentâ agencies without cause. Oral arguments in early December seemed to indicate a majority was ready to side with Trump.
The Supreme Court also agreed in early December to consider President Donald Trumpâs executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Arguments have not yet been scheduled for the case, but they will take place sometime in the new year.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporterâs byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with US, please contact [email protected].