SCOTUS Scorecard: How the Trump Administration Is Faring Before the High Court (So Far)

Another reader (and forgive me for losing track of who) suggested a scorecard of sorts to show where things stand on the many cases. At present, we're up to 429 cases involving challenges to various executive orders and actions that are being tracked (and there are more I've not yet added to my handy-dandy spreadsheet). Now, some of those have already been resolved without much ado, some involve Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, so haven't been terribly exciting, and some just haven't really had a lot of activity of note. But needless to say, putting together some sort of reader-friendly summary of them is a tall order — I'm not ruling it out; I just haven't yet figured out how best to tackle it. 

Yet another reader suggested some sort of summary of at least those cases that have already made their way to the Supreme Court. Now, that I could do — or...could attempt to do. The only question was how best to organize them. Chronological was one option, but from a practical standpoint, it seemed to make the most sense to go by topic. Here's what we've got so far:

Ban on DEIA Initiatives

• State of California v. Dept. of Education — This was one of the earlier suits (filed in March) by California and several other states challenging the administration's executive orders regarding DEIA initiatives, namely Executive Order 14168 ("Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government"), 14151 ("Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing"), and 14173 ("Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity"). Massachusetts District Court Judge Myong Joun (a Biden appointee) entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case on March 10. The administration appealed that ruling to the 1st Circuit and then filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court. On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the application, staying the district court's TRO pending appeal. (The administration subsequently dismissed its appeal — it's not entirely clear why.) 

Score: ✅ Administration - 1; Challengers - 0

Birthright Citizenship

• CASA Inc. v. Trump/State of Washington v. Trump/State of New Jersey v. Trump — This trio of cases were also early contenders, with suits filed in three separate jurisdictions on January 21 — the day after President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 ("Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"). Applications for stay were filed in each of the cases in mid-March, and the cases were consolidated for oral argument before the court (on the narrow issue of whether nationwide injunctions entered by the lower courts were appropriate). The court ruled in late June that such universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts," granting the administration's applications to partially stay the lower court decisions, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." (The cases are now back in front of the lower courts, being litigated on the merits — except that State of Washington v. Trump is now back before the Supreme Court following the 9th Circuit's order affirming the district court's preliminary injunction as to the state plaintiffs and holding the executive order unconstitutional, with the administration having filed a petition for writ of certiorari on September 26, 2025 — no ruling on that yet.)

Score: ✅ Administration - 2; Challengers - 0 

• Barbara v. Trump — This one is a direct outgrowth of the Supreme Court ruling in the above cases, as it was filed the day the decision was handed down, and New Hampshire District Court Judge Joseph Laplante issued his order granting a classwide (as to infants born on or after February 20, 2025) preliminary injunction. The administration appealed that decision to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and has now filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (The petition was just filed on September 26, 2025, so no ruling from SCOTUS on it yet.)

Score: ↔️ Administration - 2; Challengers - 0

Denial of Federal Grants

• American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health/Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kennedy, Jr. — Another instance of consolidated cases, these two both pending before Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young (a Reagan appointee) and challenging the administration's denial/termination of various research-related grants. After Judge Young granted partial judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases, the administration filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court, which the court granted in part in August. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 3; Challengers - 0

Deportation to a Third Country

• D.V.D. v. DHS — This is one of several immigration-related cases that have made their way to the high court — and this one comes with a rather tortured procedural history and its own detour to Djibouti. After Massachusetts District Court Judge Brian Murphy entered a preliminary injunction in April, enjoining the administration from removing six illegal aliens (all of whom were convicted of serious crimes), the administration appealed that injunction to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Murphy subsequently issued a pair of remedial orders related to enforcing the injunction, which had the practical effect of forcing the administration, which was in the process of removing the aliens in question to South Sudan, to halt the flights and detour to Djibouti, where DHS personnel had to maintain custody of the aliens for several weeks as the legal wrangling proceeded. The administration filed an application for stay of the injunction with the Supreme Court, which granted that application in June. But on that same day, Murphy determined that his remedial orders remained in effect, so the administration filed a motion to clarify with the Supreme Court, which then clarified that Murphy was sorely mistaken: "Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable."

Score: ✅ Administration - 4; Challengers - 0 

(It's tempting to count this one as two points, given the clarification order, but we'll leave it at one.)

Disclosure of Personal Financial Records to DOGE

• American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. SSA — This one involves a tussle over access to Social Security Administration information on governmental computer systems by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In April, Maryland District Court Judge Ellen Hollander granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The administration appealed that to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied its motion to stay pending appeal. The administration then filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court, which granted the application in June. The appeal of the district court injunction remains on appeal before the 4th Circuit — oral argument was held on September 11.

Score: ✅ Administration - 5; Challengers - 0 

Dismantling of Education Department

• State of New York v. McMahon — In this case involving the dismantling/restructuring of the Education Department pursuant to Executive Order 14242 ("Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities"), Massachusetts District Judge Myong Joun granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in May. The administration appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied its motion to stay pending appeal. The administration then filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court, which granted the application in July. After that, Judge Joun issued an "indicative" ruling, indicating that were the court of appeals to send the case back to him, he would vacate the preliminary injunction, in light of the Supreme Court's stay. So, the 1st Circuit dismissed the appeal, and Judge Youn has now vacated his preliminary injunction. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 6; Challengers - 0

Dismantling of Federal Bureaucracy

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump — This case has had its ups and downs, as well. Plaintiffs in the case are a coalition of labor organizations, non-profit groups, and local governments, challenging Executive Order 14210 ("Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative"). In May, Northern District of California District Judge Susan Illston entered a TRO in favor of the plaintiffs, which the administration appealed to the 9th Circuit and then sought a stay from the Supreme Court. However, when Illston subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the administration withdrew its application for stay and dismissed its original appeal, then appealed the order issuing the injunction. After the 9th Circuit denied the administration's motion for stay pending appeal, the administration again sought a stay from the Supreme Court, which granted it in July. The case is still being sorted out in the lower courts. (In September, the 9th Circuit vacated the district court's injunction and remanded the case, but is currently considering a petition for rehearing.) 

Score: ✅ Administration - 7; Challengers - 0 

Dismantling of USAID

• AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of State/Global Health Council v. Trump — This pair of cases has also made its way to the Supreme Court twice already. We've covered it extensively here at RedState, so I'm not going to wander too far into the weeds with it. D.C. District Court Judge Amir Ali granted plaintiffs injunctive relief at several points along the way. The initial foray to the Supreme Court came in February, with Chief Justice John Roberts initially granting an administrative stay, then the court vacating that order and denying the administration's application to vacate the district court ruling (largely because it, at that point, involved a TRO, and preliminary injunction proceedings were ongoing). After Ali entered a preliminary injunction, the administration again appealed, got a good ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but then that got held up on rehearing en banc, so the administration filed a second application for stay with the Supreme Court in September, and the court recently granted that application. (Clear as mud, right?) 

So, there are really two scores to tally here:

1. Score: ↔️ Administration - 7; Challengers - 0 
2. Score: ✅ Administration - 8; Challengers - 0 

(Technically, that first one would be ✅ then ↔️ then ❌, so it really winds up a wash.)

FOIA/Records Retention

• CREW v. DOGE — This case involves efforts by the plaintiff (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — one of Norm Eisen's babies, by the way) to have DOGE declared an agency subject to FOIA requests and requiring the preservation of records under the Federal Records Act. In March, Judge Christopher Cooper of the D.C. District Court granted, in part, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In April, he ordered expedited discovery. The administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, seeking a writ of mandamus quashing Cooper's order based on the separation of powers and asserting that DOGE is an advisory body, not an agency subject to such requests. The D.C. Circuit initially issued an administrative stay, but subsequently dissolved that and denied the administration's petition for writ of mandamus. The administration then filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court. In May, Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay. Roberts referred the application to the full court, and the court subsequently entered an order granting the stay pending appeal and treating it like a petition for certiorari, vacating the D.C. Circuit's denial of the writ of mandamus and sending it back to them "for further consideration in light of this order." This one is still being hashed out in the lower courts, but the SCOTUS ruling adds another to the "win" column for the administration.

Score: ✅ Administration - 9; Challengers - 0 

Habeas/Immigration Enforcement

• Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem — This one involves the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, California. In July, California District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a sweeping TRO, ruling that the enforcement actions taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were unconstitutional and imposing significant restrictions on the standards ICE agents could use to establish "reasonable suspicion" to stop and question suspected illegals. The administration appealed the district court order to the 9th Circuit, and, from there, filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling in early September, the high court granted the application for stay. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 10; Challengers - 0 

Habeas/Removal

• Abrego Garcia v. Noem — Where does one begin (or end) with St. Kilmar of El Salvador? This is another case that's been thoroughly covered here at RedState, so I won't belabor the procedural history. In April, the administration asked the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction entered by Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis. The high court initially entered an administrative (temporary) stay, but subsequently lifted that stay, noting that the stay had, in effect, vacated the portion of Xinis' injunction that imposed a deadline for the administration to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. The court then ordered Xinis to clarify her order as to what was meant by the term "effectuate," noting that it could be exceeding her authority. We have to chalk this one up as a wash. 

Score: ↔️ Administration - 10; Challengers - 0 

Removal of Independent Agency Leaders

• Wilcox v. Trump — Okay, we're going to whiz through these independent agency leader cases because there is a fair amount of overlap in the issues. This one's about the removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board. SCOTUS granted the administration's application for stay in this one in April. Wilcox filed a petition for certiorari before judgment with the Supreme Court in mid-September, but the court has denied that petition. Her case and Harris' (below) will likely be determined by the outcome in Slaughter (below). For a great and very thorough explainer on the chronology of these cases and how they tie together, check out this article. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 11; Challengers - 0 

• Harris v. Bessent — Like Wilcox, Cathy Harris challenged her removal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court's April order cited above also granted the administration's application for stay in Harris. And, like Wilcox, Harris filed a petition for certiorari before judgment, which SCOTUS denied.

Score: ✅ Administration - 12; Challengers - 0 

• Boyle v. Trump — This one involves Consumer Product Safety Commission appointees. The Supreme Court granted the administration's application for stay in July, noting its similarity to Wilcox. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 13; Challengers - 0 

• Slaughter v. Trump — This one is going to wind up being the key to most of these independent agency leader cases. Rebecca Slaughter challenged her removal from the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court recently granted the administration's application for stay (treating it like a petition for certiorari) and set oral argument for December. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 14; Challengers - 0 

• Cook v. Trump — We've written a lot about Lisa Cook's removal as a Federal Reserve Board governor, as well. Her case has the added twist of a criminal referral regarding potential mortgage fraud. The Supreme Court has deferred its ruling on the administration's application for stay and set oral argument in the case for January, so that means Cook retains her seat — for now. We'll call that one a wash.

Score: ↔️ Administration - 14; Challengers - 0 

• Harper v. Bessent — Todd Harper, a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board, has challenged his removal, as well. In that one, D.C. District Judge Amir Ali granted summary judgment in favor of Harper, but the administration appealed, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of Ali's judgment pending appeal. So now Harper has filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled on it — another wash.

Score: ↔️ Administration - 14; Challengers - 0 

Revocation of Temporary Protected Status 

• National TPS Alliance v. Noem — Yet another case that's making a second trek to the Supreme Court. This one involves Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelan and Haitian nationals. The administration won Round One on this, with the Supreme Court granting a stay back in May. After more wrangling (and unfavorable rulings) in the lower courts, the administration has now filed a second application for stay with SCOTUS, which hasn't yet ruled, so Round Two is currently a draw. 

1. Score: ✅ Administration - 15; Challengers - 0 
2. Score: ↔️ Administration - 15; Challengers - 0 

Tariffs

• V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump/Learning Resources v. Trump — This one's a biggie (or, these two, combined, are) — the tariff cases. They reached the Supreme Court separately, but in September, the court granted the administration's petitions for certiorari in both cases, consolidated them, and agreed to expedite proceedings on them, with oral argument now set for November 5. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 16; Challengers - 0 

Transgender - Military Service

• Shilling v. Trump — This one has flown a bit under the radar, but involves a challenge to Executive Order 14183 ("Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness"), which effectively bans transgender people from military service. After the lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Trump administration filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court, which the court granted in May. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 17; Challengers - 0 

Transgender - Passports

• Orr v. Trump — This case challenges Executive Order 14168 ("Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government"), specifically, the requirement that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder's (biological) sex. The lower courts largely sided with the plaintiff, prompting the administration to file an application for stay with the Supreme Court in September. There hasn't yet been a ruling on that, so that one's a draw, as well. 

Score: ↔️ Administration - 17; Challengers - 0 

Tren de Aragua - Alien Enemies Act Removals

• J.G.G. v. Trump — This is the infamous Judge Boasberg/Turn the Plane Around case, involving Tren de Aragua members removed pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. There are tons of twists and turns with this one, but when the administration asked the Supreme Court to vacate the district court TROs, it did so (in April), so that's a win. 

Score: ✅ Administration - 18; Challengers - 0 

• W.M.M. v. Trump — And now...we finally have a loss — of sorts — for the Trump administration before the Supreme Court. This one has its own tortured history, including that weird Good Friday ruling from the court, followed by a decision granting the plaintiffs' application for an injunction, giving the challengers a "win" — for now.

Score: ❌ Administration - 18; Challengers - 1 

One final note/caveat: All of the referenced decisions were essentially procedural, rather than final/on the merits. In some cases, the rulings favored the administration only in part, but I counted those among the "wins" because the administration at least received partial relief from lower court rulings.