Trump's Supreme Court Record: Victories on Emergency Docket, Rebukes on Major Rulings

President Donald Trump has had a mixed record before the U.S. Supreme Court, a bench he reshaped with three nominees during his first term. His public posture has shifted with the outcomes: admiration when the court sides with him, sharp criticism when it does not.

That pattern was on display this week after the court rejected his administration's proposed restrictions on mail ballots ahead of the midterm elections. By the following morning, Trump had taken to social media to denounce the decision and the justices he had appointed who joined the majority.

None of the three justices explained their reasoning for joining the majority opinion, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested he might view the matter differently if the election were not so close. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito fully backed the administration's position.

Trump's rebuke also revived his frustration over earlier losses on tariffs and birthright citizenship — two areas where the conservative majority has checked the president's power. He wrote that the justices had issued "shockingly bad rulings" and said they were "not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court."

The court has handed the president nearly two dozen victories in emergency appeals, often lifting lower court orders that had blocked key parts of his second-term agenda. Those decisions, while technically temporary, have largely allowed his administration to proceed with its immigration crackdown, a ban on transgender people serving in the military, and the dismantling of the Department of Education.

He also gained significantly more power over federal regulatory agencies when the court found that presidents can fire their leaders at will. Another ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act allowed his call for redistricting for partisan advantage to move forward.

Those outcomes, however, aligned with longstanding goals of the conservative legal movement. "They're the kind of cases that, for the most part, it doesn't matter what administration would have brought them, the court would have come out the same place," said Erin Murphy, an appellate attorney and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking at a Georgetown Law panel.

Trump's record has been more mixed in cases that received full briefing and oral argument. The justices struck down his far-reaching tariffs on nearly every other country, his restrictions on birthright citizenship, and put the brakes on his push to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board. His administration is still pursuing those goals through new avenues.

The mail ballot decision was the second time in as many weeks that the court rejected a Trump-backed appeal related to the election. It also declined to allow Missouri to use new election maps redrawn at Trump's urging to help Republicans gain an extra House seat. The majority did not explain either decision in detail, as is typical on the emergency docket, but together they suggest a reluctance to intervene in election litigation before the November contests.

"I think it's certainly right that this is not a MAGA court. The court is asserting its independence from the president," said Don Verrilli, a former solicitor general under President Barack Obama, at the same Georgetown event.

"My guess is there's a robust majority that doesn't want to be the decision maker allowing the chaos to happen," said attorney Roman Martinez, another former Roberts clerk who frequently argues before the court.

The court will likely be drawn into election litigation again before or after the votes are cast. "As the rest of this electoral cycle unfolds, I think there is going to be a lot of turbulence around these issues," Verrilli said.