President Donald Trump, who is playing tariff-tariff with countries around the world, got a huge blow from the US Supreme Court, when it ruled to cancel the tariff. However, Trump, forced by his familiar habit, termed this decision as shameful and expressed his anger by announcing the imposition of a new tariff of 10 percent globally. Although the war on tariffs is still going on, the conflict between the judiciary and the executive has become fierce under the Trump rule. According to the New York Times report, till the beginning of this year, American courts have put a stay on 149 of the decisions issued by the Trump administration. If the recent decision of the Supreme Court to cancel the tariff is included in this, then the figure becomes 150. If we look at this figure within a year of Trump returning to power, then almost every second day Trump has received a setback from the court.

On February 20, the US Supreme Court canceled President Donald Trump’s decision to impose reciprocal tariffs. By a 6-3 margin, the court declared the global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unconstitutional. The court says that only Congress has the right to impose taxes on such a large scale. Earlier, the lower court had also declared the tariff decision illegal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court with majority.

The Trump administration had imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from all countries of the world in 2025, which included a baseline tariff of up to 34 percent on China and 10 percent on other countries. Apart from this, 25 percent additional tariff was imposed on some goods from Canada, Mexico and China in the name of fentanyl prevention. The court declared most of these illegal. However, some tariffs like steel and aluminum will remain in place. However, Trump then announced the imposition of a 10 percent tariff at the global level.

Even before this, various courts of America have included birthright citizenship, electoral reforms, federal funds, transgenders, targeting of law firms, federalization of National Guards. In these cases, the American judiciary made it clear that the powers of the President are not unlimited and he has to work within the legal framework set by the Constitution and Congress. These decisions reflect the American system of balance of power between the executive and the judiciary.

• The court also blocked the controversial decision on birthright citizenship. Executive Order 14160, which aimed to deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States. Lower federal courts blocked it almost immediately. This order is still the subject of an intense legal battle and the final decision is pending.
• A ban on executive orders related to voting is also included. In October 2025 and January 2026, federal courts permanently blocked key parts of that March 2025 executive order on Trump’s behalf. In this, an attempt was made to make it mandatory for voters to show passport or other documents of citizenship. The court held that the President does not have the right to change the election procedures unilaterally. This power lies with Congress and the states.
• The court has also stayed the decision on deportation action. AARP v. In Trump, the Supreme Court blocked the administration from using the Alien Enemy Act 1798 to send people to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. The court said that the use of this old law cannot be justified for such action.
• The decision to federalize the National Guard was also stopped. In December 2025, in Trump v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the President could not take federal control of the Illinois National Guard without meeting required statutory requirements. The court clarified that it is mandatory to follow the legal norms set for federalization.
• The court also declared the decision to target law firms illegal. Several federal courts declared executive orders that targeted specialized law firms such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale to be illegal and void. The courts considered that such orders are contrary to the rights given by the Constitution and the principles of fair judicial process.
• Along with this, a ban on decisions related to military deployment is also included. The Supreme Court banned the plan to deploy the National Guard in cities like Chicago. DEI program and funding banned by court. Grants for teacher training and medical research, punitive actions taken against universities (such as Columbia University) and law firms, and orders to stop funding have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. This also includes the decision on foreign aid, in which the court granted exemption in some cases, but the legal dispute continued over the decision to stop $4 billion of foreign aid.

Action on some other important orders
According to Executive Order 13771 from the Trump administration, any executive department or agency planning to publicly announce a new rule was required to propose at least two repealed rules. The cost of implementing these new rules was to be less than or equal to $0.

Executive Order 13988, officially titled ‘Preventing and Combating Discrimination Based on Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation’, was the fourth executive order signed by US President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021. It was canceled by Donald Trump within hours of taking office on January 20, 2025.