President Donald Trump’s use of executive authority is once again under scrutiny as a series of legal battles and policy decisions move toward the U.S. Supreme Court and dominate the national conversation. In recent weeks, Trump’s administration has doubled down on its controversial approaches to tariffs, immigration, and the deployment of military forces in American cities, sparking heated debate across the political spectrum.
At the heart of the controversy lies Trump’s aggressive use of presidential powers. According to Newsmax, Trump’s administration on September 3, 2025, appealed a lower court’s ruling that found many of his tariffs—imposed under a 1977 emergency law—illegal. The administration is urging the Supreme Court to fast-track its review, arguing that the tariffs, which have been central to U.S. foreign policy under Trump, are lawful tools for renegotiating trade agreements with countries like China, Canada, and Mexico.
This legal challenge follows the U.S. Court of Appeals’ August 29, 2025, decision against Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs announced in April and others imposed in February. The crux of the dispute is whether Trump overstepped his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a law never before used for such tariffs. The Supreme Court’s upcoming term, running from October 2025 through June 2026, is expected to address this and other cases testing the boundaries of presidential power.
Meanwhile, Trump’s immigration policies have also come under fire. On September 2, 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump’s reliance on a 1798 law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of gang membership was likely unlawful. The Alien Enemies Act, historically reserved for wartime use, grants the government sweeping powers to detain and deport citizens of hostile nations during war or invasion. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants, rejecting the administration’s argument that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua constituted a “predatory incursion” on U.S. soil.
Legal experts note that this is one of the rare instances where the Supreme Court has pushed back on the administration’s approach. In May, the justices criticized the administration for attempting to remove Venezuelan migrants at a Texas detention center without providing adequate legal process. Still, the court has often sided with Trump, granting emergency requests to implement his policies while lower courts deliberate. For example, the court has upheld the administration’s transgender military ban and affirmed Trump’s power to remove members from federal labor boards and the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission—decisions that reinforce presidential authority over agencies designed to operate independently.
One particularly high-profile legal battle involves Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board, quickly filed a lawsuit to block her removal, setting up a clash with significant implications for the central bank’s independence. Trump’s administration has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, allegations she denies. Cook argues that even if she made misstatements on mortgage applications, they do not provide legal grounds for her removal since she disclosed all relevant information during her 2022 vetting. As Newsmax reports, this case could upend long-established norms and test the Fed’s insulation from political pressure.
Outside the courtroom, Trump is making headlines for his comments on deploying National Guard troops to American cities. On September 3, 2025, the president said his administration is considering sending National Guard forces to Chicago or to cities with governors who would welcome federal intervention, such as New Orleans. Louisiana’s Republican Governor Jeff Landry publicly expressed support for the plan, posting on social media that he would accept Trump’s help “from New Orleans to Shreveport!” In contrast, Illinois’ Democratic Governor JB Pritzker has strongly opposed any such deployment to his state, setting up a clear partisan divide.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said, “In Louisiana, we have a great governor, Jeff Landry, who wants us to come in and straighten out a very nice section of this country that’s become quite, you know, quite tough. Quite bad.” He added, “We’ll straighten that out in about two weeks. It’ll take us two weeks—easier than D.C. But we could straighten out Chicago—all they have to do is ask us.” Trump also floated the idea of sending National Guard troops to New York and Baltimore but acknowledged the opposition from Democratic governors in those cities, stating, “the politicians are not in tune with the people.”
Yet, Trump’s stance on when and where to deploy the National Guard has shifted. While he has recently said he will wait for governors to request federal support, he maintains that he has the right to send in troops if he chooses. This ambiguity comes as the administration is embroiled in a lawsuit over its previous deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Earlier in September 2025, a federal judge in California ruled that the administration violated federal laws prohibiting the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. According to NPR, most voters surveyed oppose the deployment of U.S. service members to the nation’s capital, even as violent crime rates continue a national decline.
Trump has not shied away from politicizing the issue, portraying Democrats as “in favor of crime” while casting his administration as tough on law and order. He has predicted that crime will be a major topic in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, using the debate over National Guard deployments as a wedge issue. “I think we’re pretty much waiting till we get asked,” Trump said, though critics argue his administration’s actions suggest a willingness to intervene regardless of local opposition.
All of this is unfolding against a backdrop of hundreds of lawsuits challenging Trump administration policy changes—ranging from diversity programs and federal funding allocations to regulations affecting transgender individuals. Many of these cases are moving rapidly through the appeals process. The Supreme Court has at times heard cases on an emergency basis, allowing Trump’s policies to remain in effect while legal challenges play out. For instance, in May, the court allowed the administration to end Biden-era temporary deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, even as a San Francisco-based U.S. appeals court upheld a lower judge’s ruling against the government, setting up further appeals.
As the Supreme Court prepares to return from its summer recess, the nation is bracing for a term that could redefine the limits of presidential authority. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the court’s decisions in the coming months will not only shape Trump’s legacy but also set precedents that could reverberate for decades. Whether the justices will continue to grant the administration broad latitude or impose new checks on executive power remains to be seen, but the stakes for American governance, law enforcement, and civil liberties could hardly be higher.
With legal battles intensifying and partisan tensions running high, the coming Supreme Court term promises to be one of the most consequential in recent history.
