Buoyed by the US Supreme Court, Trump to press forward on firings and social agenda

US President Donald Trump's team is moving quickly to challenge injunctions that thwarted implementation of his policies on social issues and firing federal workers after the Supreme Court limited lower courts' powers to block them.

Friday's ruling was widely viewed as a victory for the president because it shifted power from the judicial to the executive branch. But Trump opponents said they still have legal options to impede his agenda.

One White House official told Reuters the administration was moving immediately to go back to the lower level courts to seek changes, citing layoffs at federal agencies driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as one example of a top priority that an injunction had blocked.

DOGE and government efficiency were "extremely important" to the president, the official added.

Since coming into office in January, Republican Trump has sought to remake American society by enacting reductions in the federal workforce, harsher immigration rules and funding cuts to programs he does not like in both the public and private sectors. Lower courts have stymied those efforts in a number of areas by issuing nationwide injunctions to block them.

The Supreme Court's ruling will largely put a stop to that practice, pleasing Trump.

During a press conference at the White House on Friday, the president listed overhauling birthright citizenship, ending funding for sanctuary cities, suspending resettlement of refugees and stopping taxpayer-funded surgeries related to gender transitions as his top goals after the Supreme Court's move.

"Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis," he said.

Strategists said they expected Trump to press forward with a right-leaning social agenda, including eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and curbing care for transgender youth.

"I expect the White House to take advantage of this by being even more aggressive on the culture issues where they believe the public is strongly behind them: immigration, gender identity and DEI," said Carlos Curbelo, a Republican former US congressman from Florida.

Options still on the table

The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration's request to narrow the scope of three so-called "universal" injunctions issued by federal judges.

But Democratic state attorneys general and groups challenging Trump's efforts to slash spending, ramp up deportations and restrict treatment for transgender youth said that while the decision was a disappointment, it did not bar them from obtaining any nationwide ruling.

The ruling still allowed for nationwide injunctions in certain situations, including some class action cases brought on behalf of a group of people. It also allowed lower courts to strike down actions nationwide when they violate administrative law, which governs work by federal agencies.

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown predicted the decision would have minimal impact on the various rulings Democratic-led states have already won in cases challenging Trump's agenda, saying "it's only been a small handful where we've asked and received nationwide injunctions."

Just hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers in two different lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship order seized on that opening by seeking to have their cases treated as class actions covering children who would be denied citizenship if Trump's order took effect.

Initial reactions to the Supreme Court decision reflected a widespread misunderstanding of its scope, said Norman Eisen, a lawyer involved in challenges to several Trump policies, including the elimination of birthright citizenship.

"The court leaves a place for nationwide orders using other vehicles," Eisen said.

Others said the decision will deter "forum shopping," in which plaintiffs file lawsuits in courts where they believe a quick win is more likely, and allow more policies to be implemented even as they are challenged in court.

"Usually in these highly politicized lawsuits, someone wants relief instantly. That's no longer available," said Judd Stone, who as the solicitor general of Texas from 2021 to 2023 represented the Republican-led state in challenges to Biden administration policies. "It's a major, major paring back of universal relief."