Supreme Court allows Trump to expel trans military members | Plus: DOGE asks SCOTUS for access to Social Security data

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 order allowing the Trump administration to purge transgender troops from the military. The case is one of fourteen brought to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket relating to Trump’s policies, and the eighth to be resolved. Nearly all of the resolutions so far have benefited the administration. Only two were clear losses for Trump (Dep't of State v. AVAC and W.M.M. v. Trump), while one is best described as a mixed outcome (Noem v. Abrego Garcia).

Resolved cases

Bessent v. Dellinger

Hampton Dellinger challenged the White House firing him from his position as head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that protects federal employees and investigates retaliation against whistleblowers. D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson (an Obama appointee) issued a temporary restraining order in February allowing Dellinger to maintain his position. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, which essentially decided not to get involved before Jackson’s restraining order expired. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, preferring that the court explicitly rule in Trump’s favor.

Judge Jackson issued a permanent injunction on March 1, writing that the Office of Special Counsel must remain an independent agency to prevent patronage and corruption in the executive branch (including the office of the president). However, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed her order days later, removing Dellinger from his position. He subsequently dropped his lawsuit to try to keep his job, saying that he didn’t believe he could win before the Supreme Court.

Dep't of State v AVAC

Two nonprofits, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and the Journalism Development Network (JDN), challenged the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign assistance funding. D.C. District Judge Amir Ali (a Biden appointee) issued a temporary restraining order in February, blocking the administration’s suspension of foreign assistance funds that were allocated prior to January 19, 2025.

Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, which (after a six-day stay) allowed Judge Ali to require the administration to fulfill its financial obligations. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Office of Personnel Management v. American Fed. of Gov’t Employees

A coalition of unions representing federal employees sued the government to challenge the Office of Personnel Management’s mass firing of probationary employees. California District Judge William Alsup (a Clinton appointee) issued a court order in March requiring the administration to immediately reinstate the fired employees, ruling that the Office of Personnel Management does not have the authority to direct agencies to terminate employees.

The Trump administration appealed first to the 9th Circuit, which declined to issue a stay of Alsup’s order, then to the Supreme Court. By an apparent 7-2 vote, the justices granted Trump’s application for a stay, putting Judge Alsup’s order to reinstate the workers on hold while the challenge to the firings continues. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied a stay.

Department of Education v. California

Eight states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin) filed a lawsuit against the administration in March, seeking to reinstate more than $65 million in Education grants canceled under Trump’s DEI ban. Massachusetts District Judge Myong Joun (a Biden appointee) issued a temporary order requiring the reinstatement, writing that without intervention, “dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted.”

The Trump administration appealed to the 1st Circuit, which declined to issue a stay of Judge Joun’s order, then to the Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that even though Congress had already appropriated money for the programs, the Education Department could stop funding them while the case is litigated in the lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that he would have denied the government’s request. All three liberal justices dissented.

Trump v. J.G.G.

Five Venezuelan men in immigration custody sued the Trump administration in March seeking to prevent their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. D.C. District Judge James Boasberg (an Obama appointee) issued an order certifying Venezuelan migrants as members of a class and temporarily enjoining their removal from the U.S. on March 15. He ordered the government to turn back any planes transporting Venezuelan “alien enemies.” The government did not comply.

After failing to convince the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to pause Boasberg’s order, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. On April 7, five justices ruled in Trump’s favor, vacating the temporary restraining order and, therefore, allowing immigrants to be sent to foreign countries (like El Salvador) using the Alien Enemies Act. All nine justices agreed that immigrants subject to the Act must be given “reasonable time” to file challenges to their removal, but they did not define what the minimum notice must be. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in part.

Noem v. Abrego Garcia

Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia filed a lawsuit seeking his return to the U.S. after the Trump administration imprisoned him in El Salvador as the result of (what it claims was) an “administrative error.” On April 4, Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis (an Obama appointee) ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return by the end of April 7, writing that “they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador.”

After the 4th Circuit declined to pause Xinis’ order, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. In an apparent unanimous decision, the justices ruled that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return but cannot be ordered to “effectuate” it. They sent the case back to the lower court to “clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

The Trump administration still has not secured Abrego Garcia’s release from CECOT.

W.M.M. v. Trump (formerly A.A.R.P. v. Trump)

On April 16, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas seeking writs of habeas corpus on behalf of detained Venezuelan immigrants subject to the Alien Enemies Act. Two days later, they discovered that the administration was preparing to remove hundreds of Venezuelan men from the country, presumably to be imprisoned in El Salvador, without proper notice. Lawyers sought a temporary restraining order, which Texas District Judge James Hendrix (a Trump appointee) denied.

The ACLU appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 late-night order, the majority of the justices prohibited the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to remove any Venezuelan immigrants from the Northern District of Texas “until further order” from the Supreme Court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

United States v. Shilling

A group of transgender military officers serving in the Navy, Army, and Air Force filed a lawsuit in February seeking to block the Trump administration from banning transgender people from serving in the military. Washington District Judge Benjamin Settle (a W. Bush appointee) issued a preliminary injunction in March, finding that there is no evidence that “open transgender service hurt[s] cohesion” or “military readiness.” The Trump administration’s policy “fails any level of Equal Protection scrutiny,” he concluded.

The 9th Circuit declined to stay Settle’s injunction. Yesterday, a majority of the Supreme Court sided with the administration, allowing the government to discharge thousands of transgender service members from the military while litigation proceeds through the courts. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson noted they would deny the application for a stay.

It is worth highlighting how Judge Reyes characterized the transgender military ban in a different case: “The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.” The Supreme Court ignored all of this, instead opting to give more weight to the alleged harm the administration would suffer from allowing trans people to continue to serve (as they have for years without harm) while litigation plays out.

Unresolved cases

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court consolidated three cases (Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey) in which lower courts issued nationwide injunctions preventing the Trump administration from terminating birthright citizenship. Oral arguments are set for May 15. However, the main question the justices will address focuses on the legality of nationwide injunctions, not on the constitutionality of Trump’s policy.

Supreme Court docket: 24A884

Trump v. Wilcox and Bessent v. Harris

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to issue a stay of lower court orders reinstating National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.

Supreme Court docket: 24A966

Noem v. National TPS Alliance

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to issue a stay of a lower court order preventing the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the temporary protected status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans living in the U.S.

Supreme Court docket: 24A1059

SSA v. American Fed. of State, County, and Municipal Employees

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to issue a stay of a lower court injunction blocking Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team members from accessing Social Security Administration record systems.

Supreme Court docket: 24A1063