Presidents Before the Supreme Court

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (1)

• Little v. Barreme (1804)

  6 U.S. 170 · Vote: Unanimous

  Action challenged: President Adams's 1799 instructions to Navy commanders, sent through the Secretary of the Navy, to seize American vessels sailing to or from French ports; Captain Little seized the Flying Fish on December 2, 1799

  The Non-Intercourse Act of February 9, 1799 allowed seizure only of vessels bound to French ports, so the President's broader instructions could not make lawful the seizure of a vessel sailing from one. Captain Little was liable for damages.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President JeffersonRead the case: Little v. Barreme ↗

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (2)

• The Thomas Gibbons (1814)

  12 U.S. 421 · Vote: Unanimous on the President's authority

  Action challenged: President Madison's instruction to privateers of August 28, 1812, ordering them not to interrupt American vessels coming from British ports with British merchandise after the repeal of the Orders in Council

  The prize act of 1812 gave the President full authority to issue the instruction, and it protected the ship and cargo from capture. The dismissal of the privateer's claim was affirmed.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: The Thomas Gibbons ↗

• Martin v. Mott (1827)

  25 U.S. 19 · Vote: Unanimous

  Action challenged: President Madison's 1814 call of the New York militia into federal service during the War of 1812, and the court-martial fine of a militiaman who refused to report

  Under the Militia Act of 1795 the President alone decides whether an invasion or imminent danger of invasion exists, and his decision is conclusive on everyone else. The fine was upheld.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President J. Q. AdamsRead the case: Martin v. Mott ↗

Struck Down (2)

• Brown v. United States (1814)

  12 U.S. 110 · Vote: Divided, 2 dissents (Story, joined by one other justice)

  Action challenged: Seizure and condemnation, on behalf of the United States and without an act of Congress, of British-owned timber found in Massachusetts after the 1812 declaration of war

  The power to confiscate enemy property found in the country at the start of a war belongs to Congress, and the declaration of war did not by itself authorize it. The condemnation was reversed.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Brown v. United States ↗

• Gelston v. Hoyt (1818)

  16 U.S. 246 · Vote: No dissent (Johnson concurring separately)

  Action challenged: Seizure of the ship American Eagle at New York on July 10, 1810 by customs officers acting on President Madison's instructions under the Neutrality Act of 1794

  The 1794 act let the President use military and naval forces to enforce a seizure but gave him no power to order a civil seizure, so his instructions did not protect the officers. The damages judgment against them was affirmed.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President MonroeRead the case: Gelston v. Hoyt ↗

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (1)

• Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)

  37 U.S. 524 · Vote: 3 dissents (Taney, Barbour, Catron)

  Action challenged: Postmaster General Amos Kendall's refusal to credit mail contractors with the full amount awarded to them by the Solicitor of the Treasury under an act of Congress

  When Congress gives an executive officer a specific, ministerial duty, the officer must perform it and the President cannot direct otherwise. A court may compel performance by mandamus.

  Basis: BothDecided under President Van BurenRead the case: Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes ↗

Upheld (1)

• Decatur v. Paulding (1840)

  39 U.S. 497 · Vote: Judgment affirmed; separate opinions by McLean, Baldwin, and Catron

  Action challenged: Refusal by the Secretary of the Navy to pay Susan Decatur, widow of Commodore Stephen Decatur, both a pension under a general law and one under a special resolution of Congress

  Deciding the pension claim required the Secretary to interpret the laws and use judgment, so it was an executive duty that a court cannot control by mandamus. The refusal of the writ was affirmed.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Decatur v. Paulding ↗

Struck Down (1)

• United States v. The Amistad (1841)

  40 U.S. 518 · Vote: 1 dissent (Baldwin)

  Action challenged: The Van Buren administration's claim in court, made at the request of the Spanish minister, that the Africans found aboard the schooner Amistad be delivered up as property under the 1795 treaty with Spain

  The Africans had been kidnapped and were never lawfully slaves, so the treaty with Spain did not require their return. The Court declared them free and rejected the government's claim.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President W. H. HarrisonRead the case: United States v. The Amistad ↗

Upheld (3)

• Fleming v. Page (1850)

  50 U.S. 603 · Vote: 1 dissent (McLean)

  Action challenged: Collection of tariff duties in 1847 on goods shipped to Philadelphia from Tampico, Mexico, while the port was under U.S. military occupation, following Treasury Department practice during the Mexican War

  Military occupation under the President's command did not make Tampico part of the United States, because the President cannot enlarge the nation's boundaries by conquest. Tampico remained a foreign port and the duties were lawfully charged.

  Basis: BothDecided under President TaylorRead the case: Fleming v. Page ↗

• Cross v. Harrison (1854)

  57 U.S. 164 · Vote: No dissent noted

  Action challenged: Collection of import and tonnage duties at San Francisco by the military government of California, under the President's authority, from February 3, 1848 to November 12, 1849

  The government set up in California under the President's war power lawfully continued after the peace treaty until Congress provided otherwise, and the duties it collected were lawfully collected.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President PierceRead the case: Cross v. Harrison ↗

• Leitensdorfer v. Webb (1858)

  61 U.S. 176 · Vote: No dissent noted

  Action challenged: The provisional government and courts that General Stephen Kearny established in occupied New Mexico in 1846 under the authority of the United States

  The officer holding conquered territory for the United States could lawfully set up a provisional government and courts, which stayed in force until Congress replaced them. The judgment resting on those courts was affirmed.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President BuchananRead the case: Leitensdorfer v. Webb ↗

Struck Down (2)

• Jecker v. Montgomery (1852)

  54 U.S. 498 · Vote: No dissent noted

  Action challenged: Condemnation of the captured ship Admittance by a prize court set up at Monterey, California, at the Navy commander's request and with the President's sanction during the Mexican War

  Neither the President nor a military officer can create a court in conquered territory with power to decide prize cases, so the Monterey condemnation was void, in part. The Court sent the case back for a lawful prize court to decide whether the capture itself was valid.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President FillmoreRead the case: Jecker v. Montgomery ↗

• Mitchell v. Harmony (1852)

  54 U.S. 115 · Vote: 1 dissent (Daniel)

  Action challenged: Seizure of an American trader's wagons, mules, and goods at Chihuahua, Mexico, on February 10, 1847 by Lt. Col. David Mitchell on the orders of Colonel Doniphan during the Mexican War

  An officer may take private property in wartime only when the danger is immediate and impending or the public need is urgent, and a superior's order is no defense to an unlawful taking. The damages judgment against the officer was affirmed.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President FillmoreRead the case: Mitchell v. Harmony ↗

Upheld (1)

• Ex parte Wells (1856)

  59 U.S. 307 · Vote: 3 dissents (McLean on the merits; Curtis and Campbell on jurisdiction)

  Action challenged: President Fillmore's conditional pardon of April 23, 1852, changing William Wells's death sentence to life imprisonment

  The President's pardon power under the Constitution includes the power to grant a conditional pardon, and a condition the prisoner accepted is binding on him. The Court refused to release Wells.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President PierceRead the case: Ex parte Wells ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (3)

• The Prize Cases (1863)

  67 U.S. 635 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: President Lincoln's proclamations of April 19 and April 27, 1861, blockading Southern ports before Congress acted, and the capture of ships under the blockade

  A state of civil war existed in fact, and the President had the power to meet it with a blockade without waiting for Congress to declare war. The captures made under the blockade were upheld.

  Basis: BothRead the case: The Prize Cases ↗

• The Grapeshot (1870)

  76 U.S. 129 · Vote: No dissent noted

  Action challenged: President Lincoln's order of October 20, 1862 establishing a Provisional Court for Louisiana during the military occupation of New Orleans

  The President, as commander in chief, properly established the Provisional Court in occupied territory during the war, and Congress could later transfer its cases and judgments to the regular federal courts.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President GrantRead the case: The Grapeshot ↗

• Hamilton v. Dillin (1875)

  88 U.S. 73 · Vote: No dissent noted

  Action challenged: Treasury Department regulations, issued with President Lincoln's license to trade with insurrectionary areas, charging four cents a pound on cotton bought there, collected at Nashville from August 1863 to July 1864

  The charge was a lawful condition of the President's license to trade with the insurrectionary states, authorized by the act of July 13, 1861 and by the war powers of the government, and later confirmed by Congress.

  Basis: BothDecided under President GrantRead the case: Hamilton v. Dillin ↗

Struck Down (1)

• Ex parte Milligan (1866)

  71 U.S. 2 · Vote: 9-0 (four justices concurred separately)

  Action challenged: Trial and death sentence of Lambdin Milligan, a civilian, by a military commission in Indiana in 1864 under the authority of the President

  A military commission had no jurisdiction to try a civilian in a state where the civilian courts were open and operating. Milligan was entitled to be discharged.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President A. JohnsonRead the case: Ex parte Milligan ↗

Upheld (2)

• Ex parte Garland (1867)

  71 U.S. 333 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: President Johnson's July 1865 full pardon of former Confederate senator Augustus H. Garland

  The Court gave the pardon full effect, holding that it relieved Garland of all penalties for the offense and that Congress could not bar him from practicing in federal court through a retroactive loyalty oath.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Ex parte Garland ↗

• Armstrong v. United States (1872)

  80 U.S. 154 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: President Johnson's proclamation of December 25, 1868, granting unconditional pardon and amnesty to all who took part in the rebellion

  The Court held that the proclamation was a public act that every court must notice and give effect, so a pardoned claimant could recover the proceeds of captured property.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President GrantRead the case: Armstrong v. United States ↗

Struck Down (1)

• Raymond v. Thomas (1876)

  91 U.S. 712 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: Military order of General Edward Canby, May 1868, annulling a decree of a South Carolina court during Reconstruction

  The Court held the order void, finding that the Reconstruction Acts did not authorize a military commander to set aside a court's decree in a private suit.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President GrantRead the case: Raymond v. Thomas ↗

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (1)

• United States v. Perkins (1886)

  116 U.S. 483 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: Secretary of the Navy's discharge of a naval cadet engineer, June 1883, without a court-martial

  The Court held the discharge unlawful, ruling that when Congress vests the appointment of inferior officers in a department head it may limit their removal.

  Basis: BothDecided under President ClevelandRead the case: United States v. Perkins ↗

Upheld (1)

• McAllister v. United States (1891)

  141 U.S. 174 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: President Cleveland's suspension of Alaska territorial judge Ward McAllister Jr., July 21, 1885

  The Court held that territorial judges are not Article III judges and that the President could lawfully suspend one under the Tenure of Office Act.

  Basis: BothDecided under President HarrisonRead the case: McAllister v. United States ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (1)

• Cunningham v. Neagle (1890)

  135 U.S. 1 · Vote: 6-2

  Action challenged: Attorney General's 1889 instructions assigning a deputy U.S. marshal to protect Justice Stephen Field, with no statute expressly authorizing it

  The Court held that the President's duty to see the laws faithfully executed allowed the assignment, so the marshal who killed Field's attacker acted under federal law and could not be tried by California.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Cunningham v. Neagle ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (2)

• In re Debs (1895)

  158 U.S. 564 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: The Cleveland administration's suit of July 2, 1894, for an injunction against the Pullman strike leaders

  The Court held that the executive branch may go to court to remove obstructions to interstate commerce and the mails, and it upheld the injunction and the contempt sentences.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: In re Debs ↗

• Parsons v. United States (1897)

  167 U.S. 324 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: President Cleveland's removal of U.S. Attorney Lewis E. Parsons Jr., May 26, 1893, before his four-year term ended

  The Court held that the President could remove a U.S. attorney before the end of the four-year term set by statute.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President McKinleyRead the case: Parsons v. United States ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (2)

• Shurtleff v. United States (1903)

  189 U.S. 311 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: President McKinley's removal of customs general appraiser Ferdinand Shurtleff, May 3, 1899, without notice or a hearing

  The Court held that a statute listing causes for removal did not take away the President's general power to remove the officer without stating a cause.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President RooseveltRead the case: Shurtleff v. United States ↗

• Santiago v. Nogueras (1909)

  214 U.S. 260 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: General Order No. 88 of June 27, 1899, creating a U.S. provisional court in Puerto Rico under military authority with the President's approval

  The Court held that the President, through the military government, could lawfully set up the court in ceded territory until Congress acted, and that its judgments were valid.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President TaftRead the case: Santiago v. Nogueras ↗

Struck Down (7)

• The Paquete Habana (1900)

  175 U.S. 677 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Navy's capture of two Cuban coastal fishing boats as prizes of war during the 1898 blockade of Cuba

  The Court held that international law, which is part of U.S. law, exempts coastal fishing vessels from capture, and it ordered the proceeds returned to the owners.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: The Paquete Habana ↗

• De Lima v. Bidwell (1901)

  182 U.S. 1 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Collection of tariff duties on goods from Puerto Rico after the 1899 treaty with Spain, as if the island were still a foreign country

  The Court held that Puerto Rico stopped being a foreign country under the tariff laws when the treaty was ratified, so the duties were collected unlawfully.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: De Lima v. Bidwell ↗

• Dooley v. United States (1901)

  182 U.S. 222 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Tariffs on goods shipped to Puerto Rico, set by military order in 1898 and by orders of President McKinley

  The Court upheld the duties collected during the military occupation but held, in part, that the President had no power to keep collecting them on goods from the United States after the treaty was ratified on April 11, 1899.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Dooley v. United States ↗

• Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States (1901)

  183 U.S. 176 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Customs seizure of rings a soldier brought home from the Philippines, treated as imports from a foreign country

  The Court held that the Philippines stopped being a foreign country under the tariff laws when the treaty with Spain was ratified, so no duty was owed.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President RooseveltRead the case: Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States ↗

• Lincoln v. United States (1906)

  202 U.S. 484 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: President McKinley's order of July 12, 1898, imposing tariffs in the Philippines, as applied to goods from the United States after April 11, 1899

  The Court held that the order was a wartime measure whose force over goods from the United States ended when the treaty was ratified, and that Congress had not ratified the later collections. It reaffirmed its 1905 ruling in the same case (197 U.S. 419).

  Basis: BothDecided under President RooseveltRead the case: Lincoln v. United States ↗

• MacLeod v. United States (1913)

  229 U.S. 416 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: Military authorities' demand for import duties at Manila on a cargo landed in January 1899 at Cebu, a port U.S. forces did not yet hold

  The Court held that the payment was an unauthorized exaction, covered neither by the President's tariff order nor by Congress's later ratification, and ordered it refunded.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President WilsonRead the case: MacLeod v. United States ↗

• Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales (1913)

  230 U.S. 139 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: Order of the military governor of Puerto Rico, April 4, 1899, shortening the time needed to turn a recorded possession of land into ownership

  The Court held the order void, in part, so far as it worked retroactively to take land from its owners without due process of law.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President WilsonRead the case: Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales ↗

Upheld (2)

• Wilson v. Shaw (1907)

  204 U.S. 24 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: The Roosevelt administration's acquisition of the Panama Canal Zone and the Treasury's payments for building the canal (taxpayer suit against the Secretary of the Treasury)

  The Court held that the United States lawfully acquired the Canal Zone and had the power to build the canal, and that the taxpayer had no ground for relief.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Wilson v. Shaw ↗

• United States v. Grimaud (1911)

  220 U.S. 506 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: Secretary of Agriculture's forest reserve rules of June 12, 1906, requiring a permit to graze sheep (Regulation 45)

  The Court held that Congress could let the Secretary fill in the details of forest reserve management by regulation and that violating the rules could be punished as a crime.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President TaftRead the case: United States v. Grimaud ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (2)

• United States v. Midwest Oil Co. (1915)

  236 U.S. 459 · Vote: 5-3

  Action challenged: President Taft's order of September 27, 1909, withdrawing public oil lands in California and Wyoming from private entry

  The Court held that the President could withdraw the lands without a statute, because Congress had long known of and accepted the practice.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President WilsonRead the case: United States v. Midwest Oil Co. ↗

• Biddle v. Perovich (1927)

  274 U.S. 480 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: President Taft's commutation of a death sentence to life in prison, June 5, 1909, without the prisoner's consent

  The Court held that the President may commute a death sentence to life imprisonment and that the prisoner's consent is not required.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President CoolidgeRead the case: Biddle v. Perovich ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (6)

• Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota (1919)

  250 U.S. 163 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: President Wilson's proclamation of July 22, 1918, taking control of telephone and telegraph systems, and the rates set under it

  The Court held that the takeover was a valid use of the war power given by Congress and that the state could not control the telephone rates set under federal control.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota ↗

• Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota (1919)

  250 U.S. 135 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Railroad rates set by the Director General of Railroads during President Wilson's wartime takeover of the railroads

  The Court held that under federal wartime control the United States, and not the state, had the power to set rates for travel and shipping inside the state.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota ↗

• United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson (1921)

  255 U.S. 407 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: Postmaster General's 1917 order revoking the second-class mailing privilege of the Milwaukee Leader under the Espionage Act

  The Court upheld the order, holding that the Postmaster General could revoke the privilege of a newspaper that kept publishing material the Espionage Act made nonmailable.

  Basis: BothDecided under President HardingRead the case: United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson ↗

• Wallace v. United States (1922)

  257 U.S. 541 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: President Wilson's wartime dismissal of an Army colonel, General Orders No. 17 of February 13, 1918

  The Court held that the officer was lawfully out of the Army once the President appointed and the Senate confirmed a successor to his place, and denied his claim for pay.

  Basis: BothDecided under President HardingRead the case: Wallace v. United States ↗

• Myers v. United States (1926)

  272 U.S. 52 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: President Wilson's removal of Portland, Oregon, postmaster Frank Myers, February 2, 1920, without the Senate's consent

  The Court held that the President alone may remove executive officers he appointed with the Senate's consent, and that a law requiring Senate approval for the removal was unconstitutional.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President CoolidgeRead the case: Myers v. United States ↗

• United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (1926)

  272 U.S. 1 · Vote: 7-0

  Action challenged: Sale of seized German chemical patents to the Chemical Foundation under President Wilson's executive orders of December 3, 1918, and February 13, 1920

  The Court held that the Trading with the Enemy Act let the President authorize the sale and act through another official, and it refused to cancel the sale.

  Basis: BothDecided under President CoolidgeRead the case: United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. ↗

Struck Down (1)

• Burdick v. United States (1915)

  236 U.S. 79 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: President Wilson's pardon of February 14, 1914, issued to a newspaper editor to make him testify before a grand jury

  The Court held that a pardon has no effect unless it is accepted, so the editor could refuse it and still claim his right not to incriminate himself.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Burdick v. United States ↗

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (2)

• Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States (1927)

  275 U.S. 13 · Vote: 7-0

  Action challenged: The Harding administration's lease of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 (Teapot Dome), April 7, 1922

  The Court held that the lease was made without authority of law and was procured by fraud, and it affirmed the cancellation.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President CoolidgeRead the case: Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States ↗

• Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States (1927)

  273 U.S. 456 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: The Harding administration's 1922 contracts and leases of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills), made after the executive order of May 31, 1921, moved the reserves to the Interior Department

  The Court held that the contracts and leases were made without authority of law and were obtained by fraud and corruption, and it affirmed their cancellation.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President CoolidgeRead the case: Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States ↗

Upheld (3)

• Ex parte Grossman (1925)

  267 U.S. 87 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Coolidge's December 1923 pardon commuting a jail sentence for criminal contempt of court

  The Court held that the President's pardon power covers criminal contempt of a federal court, and it ordered the prisoner released.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Ex parte Grossman ↗

• J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)

  276 U.S. 394 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Coolidge's proclamation raising the tariff on barium dioxide under the flexible tariff provision of the Tariff Act of 1922

  The Court held that Congress may let the President adjust tariff rates when it gives him an intelligible principle to follow, and it upheld the higher duty.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States ↗

• The Pocket Veto Case (1929)

  279 U.S. 655 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: President Coolidge's pocket veto of a bill presented to him on June 24, 1926, shortly before Congress adjourned its session

  The Court held that an adjournment at the end of a session of Congress prevents the President from returning a bill, so the unsigned bill did not become law.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President HooverRead the case: The Pocket Veto Case ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (1)

• United States v. Smith (1932)

  286 U.S. 6 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: President Hoover's appointment of George Otis Smith to the Federal Power Commission in December 1930 and his refusal to return the confirmation when the Senate voted to reconsider

  The Court held that once the Senate notified the President of its consent and he made the appointment, the Senate could not take its consent back, so Smith held the office lawfully.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: United States v. Smith ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (11)

• Nortz v. United States (1935)

  294 U.S. 317 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Treasury orders of December 28, 1933, and January 15, 1934, approved by the President, requiring holders of gold certificates to turn them in for currency

  The Court held that a holder of gold certificates who was paid their face amount in legal currency had shown no actual loss and could not recover more. It did not reach whether the orders were a taking of property.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Nortz v. United States ↗

• United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

  299 U.S. 304 · Vote: 7-1

  Action challenged: Proclamation of May 28, 1934, barring arms sales to Bolivia and Paraguay during the Chaco War

  The Court held that Congress could give the President broad discretion to bar the arms sales because of his authority in foreign affairs, and that the proclamation was valid.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. ↗

• Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States (1937)

  300 U.S. 139 · Vote: unanimous

  Action challenged: Executive Order 6166 (June 10, 1933), abolishing the Shipping Board and moving its work to the Department of Commerce

  The Court held that Congress had ratified the transfer made by the executive order in later laws, so an order of the Secretary of Commerce issued under it stood.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States ↗

• United States v. Belmont (1937)

  301 U.S. 324 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Executive agreement with the Soviet Union of November 16, 1933 (the Litvinov Assignment), made with recognition of the Soviet government

  The Court held that the President could make the agreement without Senate approval and that it overrode New York policy, so the United States could sue to collect the assigned bank deposit.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: United States v. Belmont ↗

• United States v. George S. Bush & Co. (1940)

  310 U.S. 371 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Proclamation 2081 (May 1, 1934), raising the tariff on canned clams from Japan

  The Court held that the President's judgment on the facts behind a tariff proclamation under the Tariff Act of 1930 was not open to review by the courts, and it reversed the ruling that had held the proclamation invalid.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: United States v. George S. Bush & Co. ↗

• Ex parte Quirin (1942)

  317 U.S. 1 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: Order of July 2, 1942, creating a military commission to try eight German saboteurs, and Proclamation 2561 of the same date

  The Court held that the President had authority to order the saboteurs tried by military commission for offenses against the law of war and that the commission was lawfully set up.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Ex parte Quirin ↗

• United States v. Pink (1942)

  315 U.S. 203 · Vote: 5-2

  Action challenged: Executive agreement with the Soviet Union of November 16, 1933 (the Litvinov Assignment)

  The Court held that the agreement gave the United States title to the New York assets of a nationalized Russian insurance company and that New York could not refuse to give it effect.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: United States v. Pink ↗

• Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)

  320 U.S. 81 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Curfew for persons of Japanese ancestry (Public Proclamation No. 3, March 24, 1942) under Executive Order 9066 (February 19, 1942)

  The Court held that the curfew was within the war power of Congress and the President acting together and did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Hirabayashi v. United States ↗

• Yasui v. United States (1943)

  320 U.S. 115 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Curfew for persons of Japanese ancestry under Executive Order 9066 (February 19, 1942)

  The Court upheld the curfew as applied to a citizen on the authority of Hirabayashi and sent the case back for resentencing.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Yasui v. United States ↗

• Korematsu v. United States (1944)

  323 U.S. 214 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 (May 3, 1942), issued under Executive Order 9066, removing persons of Japanese ancestry from a West Coast military area

  The Court held that the exclusion order was within the war power of Congress and the President at the time it was made, and it affirmed the conviction.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Korematsu v. United States ↗

• L. P. Steuart & Bro., Inc. v. Bowles (1944)

  322 U.S. 398 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Office of Price Administration order suspending a fuel oil dealer for breaking rationing rules, under the President's power to allocate scarce materials

  The Court held that the President's power under the Second War Powers Act to allocate scarce materials included power to cut off supplies to a dealer who broke the rationing rules.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: L. P. Steuart & Bro., Inc. v. Bowles ↗

Struck Down (5)

• A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)

  295 U.S. 495 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Live Poultry Code, approved by the President on April 13, 1934, under the National Industrial Recovery Act

  The Court held that the code was invalid because Congress could not hand the President open-ended power to write codes for industry, and because the code reached business that was not interstate commerce.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ↗

• Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)

  295 U.S. 602 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Removal of Federal Trade Commissioner William Humphrey by the President on October 7, 1933

  The Court held that the President could remove a Federal Trade Commissioner only for the causes named in the statute, and that Congress could set that limit for an agency of this kind.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Humphrey's Executor v. United States ↗

• Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)

  293 U.S. 388 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Executive Orders 6199 (July 11, 1933) and 6204 (July 14, 1933), barring interstate shipment of oil produced above state quotas

  The Court held that section 9(c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act gave the President lawmaking power with no standard to guide him, so the executive orders and the regulations issued under them could not be enforced.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan ↗

• Ex parte Endo (1944)

  323 U.S. 283 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: War Relocation Authority's continued detention of a loyal citizen of Japanese ancestry

  The Court held that the War Relocation Authority had no authority to detain a citizen it conceded was loyal, and ordered her release. It did not decide the constitutional questions.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Ex parte Endo ↗

• Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946)

  327 U.S. 304 · Vote: 6-2

  Action challenged: Martial law in Hawaii, declared by the territorial governor on December 7, 1941, and approved by the President, under which civilians were tried in military courts

  The Court held that the Hawaiian Organic Act's allowance of martial law did not authorize the military to replace the civilian courts and try civilians in military tribunals.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President TrumanRead the case: Duncan v. Kahanamoku ↗

Upheld (9)

• In re Yamashita (1946)

  327 U.S. 1 · Vote: 6-2

  Action challenged: Trial of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita by a U.S. Army military commission in the Philippines, 1945

  The Court held that the military commission was lawfully created and had authority to try Yamashita for violations of the law of war, and it denied relief.

  Basis: BothRead the case: In re Yamashita ↗

• Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co. (1947)

  331 U.S. 111 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Executive Order 9809 (December 12, 1946), merging the Office of Price Administration into a new Office of Temporary Controls

  The Court held that the transfer of the price administrator's duties to the Temporary Controls Administrator under the executive order was valid, and that Congress had ratified the order.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co. ↗

• United States v. United Mine Workers (1947)

  330 U.S. 258 · Vote: 7-2 (5-4 on the Norris-LaGuardia Act question)

  Action challenged: Government's court order against a coal strike while it ran the mines seized under Executive Order 9728 (May 21, 1946)

  The Court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not bar the government from getting an injunction against a strike in mines it had seized. It affirmed the contempt judgment against John L. Lewis and affirmed the judgment against the union after modifying it.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: United States v. United Mine Workers ↗

• Ludecke v. Watkins (1948)

  335 U.S. 160 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Proclamation 2655 (July 14, 1945), ordering removal of alien enemies judged dangerous, and the Attorney General's removal order of January 18, 1946

  The Court held that the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 barred courts from reviewing the removal order and that the President's power under the act continued after the fighting stopped, because the war had not formally ended.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Ludecke v. Watkins ↗

• Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950)

  339 U.S. 763 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Trial and imprisonment of German nationals by a U.S. military commission in China, held afterward by the Army in occupied Germany

  The Court held that enemy aliens tried and held by the military outside the United States had no constitutional right to seek habeas corpus in American courts.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Johnson v. Eisentrager ↗

• United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950)

  338 U.S. 537 · Vote: 4-3

  Action challenged: Exclusion of a soldier's foreign-born wife without a hearing in 1948, under Proclamation 2523 (November 14, 1941) and the entry regulations

  The Court held that the Attorney General could exclude an alien without a hearing on security grounds under the 1941 act, the proclamation, and the regulations, and that the War Brides Act did not change that.

  Basis: BothRead the case: United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy ↗

• Madsen v. Kinsella (1952)

  343 U.S. 341 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Trial of an American civilian by a U.S. occupation court in Germany in 1950

  The Court held that the United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany had jurisdiction to try the wife of an American serviceman for a killing in the American zone.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Madsen v. Kinsella ↗

• Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953)

  345 U.S. 206 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Attorney General's order of May 10, 1950, permanently excluding a returning resident alien without a hearing, leaving him held on Ellis Island

  The Court held that the Attorney General could exclude the alien without a hearing on security grounds and that his continued confinement on Ellis Island was not an unlawful detention.

  Basis: BothDecided under President EisenhowerRead the case: Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei ↗

• United States v. Reynolds (1953)

  345 U.S. 1 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Air Force's claim of privilege over the accident report on a military aircraft crash

  The Court recognized a privilege for military secrets and held that the Air Force's claim was valid, so the government did not have to hand over the accident report.

  Basis: BothDecided under President EisenhowerRead the case: United States v. Reynolds ↗

Struck Down (2)

• Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)

  341 U.S. 123 · Vote: 5-3 (no majority opinion)

  Action challenged: Attorney General's listing of organizations as Communist under Executive Order 9835, the federal employee loyalty program

  The Court ruled that organizations placed on the Attorney General's list without notice or a hearing had stated a valid claim, and it sent the cases back to the trial court. The five justices in the majority gave differing reasons.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath ↗

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

  343 U.S. 579 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Executive Order 10340 (April 8, 1952), seizure of the steel mills

  The Court held that the President had no power under the Constitution or any act of Congress to seize the steel mills, and it affirmed the order blocking the seizure.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ↗

Upheld (4)

• Wilson v. Girard (1957)

  354 U.S. 524 · Vote: per curiam, 8-0

  Action challenged: Decision of the Secretaries of State and Defense (June 4, 1957) to waive U.S. jurisdiction and turn an Army specialist over to Japan for trial

  The Court found no constitutional or statutory barrier to the government's waiver of its right to try the soldier, which allowed Japan to prosecute him under the security treaty arrangements.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Wilson v. Girard ↗

• United Steelworkers of America v. United States (1959)

  361 U.S. 39 · Vote: per curiam, 8-1

  Action challenged: President Eisenhower's use of the Taft-Hartley Act national emergency provisions (October 1959) to seek an injunction halting the nationwide steel strike

  The Court upheld the 80-day injunction, holding that the strike imperiled the national safety within the meaning of the Taft-Hartley Act and that the law, as applied, was constitutional.

  Basis: BothRead the case: United Steelworkers of America v. United States ↗

• Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy (1961)

  367 U.S. 886 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Navy's withdrawal of a cafeteria worker's security badge at the Naval Gun Factory (November 15, 1956) without a hearing

  The Court held that Navy regulations authorized the commanding officer to exclude the worker from the base and that the Fifth Amendment did not require notice and a hearing first.

  Basis: BothDecided under President KennedyRead the case: Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy ↗

• Schick v. Reed (1974)

  419 U.S. 256 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: President Eisenhower's commutation of a military death sentence to life in prison on the condition of no parole (March 25, 1960)

  The Court held that the pardon power in Article II lets a President attach conditions to a commutation, including a bar on parole, and that the condition remained valid.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President FordRead the case: Schick v. Reed ↗

Struck Down (8)

• Peters v. Hobby (1955)

  349 U.S. 331 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: Loyalty Review Board's 1953 finding against a federal health consultant and his three-year debarment from federal service, under Executive Order 9835

  The Court held that the Loyalty Review Board went beyond the powers Executive Order 9835 gave it when it reopened a favorable loyalty ruling on its own motion and debarred Peters. It did not reach the constitutional questions.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Peters v. Hobby ↗

• Cole v. Young (1956)

  351 U.S. 536 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953), the federal employee security program, as used to dismiss a food and drug inspector

  The Court held that the 1950 summary suspension law covers only jobs that affect national security, so the dismissal under Executive Order 10450 of an employee in a nonsensitive job was not authorized and violated the Veterans' Preference Act.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Cole v. Young ↗

• Dayton v. Dulles (1958)

  357 U.S. 144 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Secretary of State's denial of a passport to a physicist (final decision October 4, 1956) under the passport regulations

  Following Kent v. Dulles, decided the same day, the Court held that the Secretary of State denied the passport for reasons Congress had not authorized.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Dayton v. Dulles ↗

• Harmon v. Brucker (1958)

  355 U.S. 579 · Vote: per curiam, 8-1

  Action challenged: Army policy of issuing less than honorable discharges based on soldiers' activities before induction

  The Court held that the Secretary of the Army exceeded his statutory authority, because the type of discharge must be based only on the soldier's military record.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Harmon v. Brucker ↗

• Kent v. Dulles (1958)

  357 U.S. 116 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: State Department denial of passports to applicants who refused to file affidavits about Communist Party membership, under passport regulations

  The Court held that Congress had not authorized the Secretary of State to deny passports because of a citizen's beliefs or associations. It did not reach the constitutional question.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Kent v. Dulles ↗

• Wiener v. United States (1958)

  357 U.S. 349 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Eisenhower's removal of a member of the War Claims Commission (December 10, 1953)

  The Court held that the President had no power, under the Constitution or the War Claims Act, to remove a member of a body that decides claims simply to put in someone of his own choosing.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Wiener v. United States ↗

• Greene v. McElroy (1959)

  360 U.S. 474 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Defense Department industrial security program, revocation of a defense contractor employee's security clearance (1953) without a chance to confront the witnesses against him

  The Court held that neither the President nor Congress had authorized the Defense Department to take away a person's clearance, and with it his job, in a proceeding without confrontation and cross-examination. It did not decide the constitutional question.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Greene v. McElroy ↗

• Vitarelli v. Seaton (1959)

  359 U.S. 535 · Vote: 9-0 on the 1954 dismissal, 5-4 on reinstatement

  Action challenged: Interior Department's 1954 dismissal of an employee on security grounds under Executive Order 10450

  The Court held the dismissal illegal because the Interior Department did not follow its own security regulations, and it ordered the employee reinstated.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Vitarelli v. Seaton ↗

Upheld (1)

• Zemel v. Rusk (1965)

  381 U.S. 1 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: State Department's 1962 refusal to validate a citizen's passport for travel to Cuba, under the Cuba travel restriction announced January 16, 1961

  The Court held that the Passport Act of 1926 authorized the Secretary of State to refuse to validate passports for travel to Cuba and that the refusal did not violate the First or Fifth Amendment.

  Basis: BothDecided under President JohnsonRead the case: Zemel v. Rusk ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (0)

None

Struck Down (2)

• Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 (1968)

  393 U.S. 233 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Selective Service delinquency rules used to take away a divinity student's draft exemption after he returned his registration certificate in protest of the Vietnam War

  The Court held that the Selective Service had no statutory authority to use delinquency proceedings to take away an exemption Congress had granted, and that the registrant could challenge the action in court before induction.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 ↗

• Gutknecht v. United States (1970)

  396 U.S. 295 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: Selective Service delinquency regulations (32 CFR 1642), used in December 1967 to speed up the induction of a registrant who turned in his draft cards in protest

  The Court held that Congress had not authorized the Selective Service to use delinquency declarations to punish registrants by speeding up their induction, and it reversed the conviction for refusing induction.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President NixonRead the case: Gutknecht v. United States ↗

Upheld (5)

• Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972)

  408 U.S. 753 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Attorney General's refusal (February 1970) to waive the visa ineligibility of Belgian Marxist writer Ernest Mandel, who had been invited to speak at American universities

  The Court held that when the executive branch gives a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for refusing a waiver, courts will not look behind it or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of the people who want to hear the visitor.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Kleindienst v. Mandel ↗

• Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink (1973)

  410 U.S. 73 · Vote: 5-3

  Action challenged: Nixon administration's refusal to give members of Congress classified reports prepared for the President on the Cannikin nuclear test

  The Court held that the Freedom of Information Act did not allow courts to order release of documents classified under executive order, or to inspect them in private to separate out unclassified parts.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink ↗

• Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)

  457 U.S. 731 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Former President Nixon's claim of immunity from a damages suit over the January 1970 dismissal of an Air Force analyst

  The Court held that a President has absolute immunity from civil damages suits based on his official acts.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President ReaganRead the case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald ↗

• Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)

  461 U.S. 574 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Internal Revenue Service policy, announced in 1970 and set out in Revenue Ruling 71-447, denying tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminate by race

  The Court held that the IRS acted within its authority under the tax code in denying tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools, and that doing so did not violate the schools' religious freedom under the First Amendment.

  Basis: BothDecided under President ReaganRead the case: Bob Jones University v. United States ↗

• Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985)

  472 U.S. 511 · Vote: 5-2 on the judgment (two justices took no part)

  Action challenged: Attorney General John Mitchell's authorization of a warrantless domestic security wiretap (November 1970), and his claim of immunity from a damages suit over it

  The Court held that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune for national security actions, but that Mitchell had qualified immunity because the law against warrantless domestic security wiretaps was not clearly established in 1970. His immunity claim succeeded in part.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President ReaganRead the case: Mitchell v. Forsyth ↗

Struck Down (6)

• New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

  403 U.S. 713 · Vote: per curiam, 6-3

  Action challenged: Nixon administration's suits to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers

  The Court held that the government had not met the heavy burden the First Amendment places on any prior restraint of publication, and it lifted the orders blocking publication.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: New York Times Co. v. United States ↗

• United States v. United States District Court (1972)

  407 U.S. 297 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: Warrantless wiretaps in domestic security investigations, approved by Attorney General John Mitchell

  The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to get a warrant from a judge before using electronic surveillance in domestic security cases.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: United States v. United States District Court ↗

• United States v. Nixon (1974)

  418 U.S. 683 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: President Nixon's claim of executive privilege (May 1, 1974) against a subpoena for White House tapes in the Watergate cover-up trial

  The Court held that a President's general interest in confidentiality must give way to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial, and it ordered the tapes turned over.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: United States v. Nixon ↗

• Train v. City of New York (1975)

  420 U.S. 35 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Nixon's order (November 22, 1972) to withhold part of the water pollution control funds Congress had authorized, an impoundment

  The Court held that the 1972 water pollution law did not allow the administration to allot to the states less than the full amounts Congress had authorized.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President FordRead the case: Train v. City of New York ↗

• Butz v. Economou (1978)

  438 U.S. 478 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Claim by the Secretary of Agriculture and department officials of absolute immunity from a damages suit over a 1970 enforcement proceeding

  The Court held that federal executive officials generally have only qualified immunity from suits over constitutional violations, although officials acting as judges or prosecutors in agency proceedings are absolutely immune. The claim of blanket immunity was rejected in part.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President CarterRead the case: Butz v. Economou ↗

• Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)

  457 U.S. 800 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Claim by two Nixon White House aides of absolute immunity from a damages suit over the dismissal of an Air Force analyst

  The Court held that presidential aides generally have only qualified immunity, which protects them unless their conduct violated clearly established rights a reasonable person would have known. It sent the case back to the trial court.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President ReaganRead the case: Harlow v. Fitzgerald ↗

Upheld (1)

• Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. (1976)

  426 U.S. 548 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Proclamation 4341 (January 23, 1975), raising license fees on imported oil, building on the fee system of President Nixon's Proclamation 4210

  The Court held that Section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 lets the President impose license fees on oil imports, not only quotas, and that the law is not an unconstitutional delegation of power.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (3)

• American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan (1981)

  452 U.S. 490 · Vote: 5-3

  Action challenged: Occupational Safety and Health Administration cotton dust standard (June 23, 1978)

  The Court upheld the standard in large part, holding that the law does not require the agency to weigh costs against benefits when it sets limits on toxic materials. It set aside one provision, a wage guarantee, as not explained.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President ReaganRead the case: American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan ↗

• Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)

  453 U.S. 654 · Vote: 9-0 (one justice dissenting in part)

  Action challenged: Executive Orders 12276 to 12285 (January 19, 1981) carrying out the Iran hostage agreement, ratified by President Reagan's Executive Order 12294 (February 24, 1981), which suspended claims against Iran in U.S. courts

  The Court held that the emergency economic powers law authorized the President to cancel attachments on Iranian assets and order their transfer, and that he could suspend claims pending in U.S. courts, given Congress's long acceptance of presidential claims settlements.

  Basis: BothDecided under President ReaganRead the case: Dames & Moore v. Regan ↗

• Haig v. Agee (1981)

  453 U.S. 280 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: State Department's revocation (December 1979) of the passport of a former CIA officer who was exposing agents abroad

  The Court held that the Passport Act of 1926 authorized the Secretary of State to revoke a passport when the holder's activities abroad seriously damage national security or foreign policy, and that the revocation did not violate the Constitution.

  Basis: BothDecided under President ReaganRead the case: Haig v. Agee ↗

Struck Down (1)

• Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (1980)

  448 U.S. 607 · Vote: 5-4 (plurality)

  Action challenged: Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard (February 10, 1978) cutting the workplace exposure limit for benzene from 10 parts per million to 1

  The Court set the standard aside, with a plurality holding that the agency must first find that a workplace hazard poses a significant risk before it can regulate it, and that it had not made that finding.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute ↗

Upheld (9)

• Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)

  467 U.S. 837 · Vote: 6-0

  Action challenged: Environmental Protection Agency rule (October 14, 1981) letting states treat a whole plant as a single pollution source under the Clean Air Act

  The Court held that the EPA's plantwide definition of a source was a permissible reading of the Clean Air Act, and that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable reading of an unclear statute it administers.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ↗

• Regan v. Wald (1984)

  468 U.S. 222 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Treasury Department's 1982 amendment to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations restricting travel to Cuba

  The Court held that the President kept the statutory authority to restrict travel-related transactions with Cuba and that the restrictions did not violate the right to travel under the Fifth Amendment.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Regan v. Wald ↗

• Wayte v. United States (1985)

  470 U.S. 598 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: Policy of prosecuting only those draft registration resisters who reported themselves or were reported by others, known as passive enforcement

  The Court held that the passive enforcement policy did not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Wayte v. United States ↗

• Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society (1986)

  478 U.S. 221 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Executive agreement with Japan (November 13, 1984) under which the Secretary of Commerce did not certify Japan for exceeding international whaling quotas

  The Court held that the law did not require the Secretary of Commerce to certify Japan and that his decision to secure Japan's future compliance by agreement was a reasonable reading of the statutes.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society ↗

• Department of the Navy v. Egan (1988)

  484 U.S. 518 · Vote: 5-3

  Action challenged: Navy's denial of a security clearance to a civilian employee (1983) and his removal for lack of it

  The Court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board has no authority to review the substance of a security clearance decision, noting the President's authority over national security information.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Department of the Navy v. Egan ↗

• National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)

  489 U.S. 656 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: U.S. Customs Service drug testing program (announced May 1986) for employees seeking certain positions

  The Court held that testing employees who apply for drug interdiction jobs or jobs that require carrying a firearm, without individual suspicion, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It sent back the part of the program covering jobs with access to classified material, so the program was upheld in part.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President BushRead the case: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab ↗

• Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association (1989)

  489 U.S. 602 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: Federal Railroad Administration regulations (1985) requiring drug and alcohol tests of railroad crews after major accidents

  The Court held that the tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment but are reasonable without a warrant or individual suspicion, given the government's interest in rail safety.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President BushRead the case: Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association ↗

• Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

  500 U.S. 173 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Department of Health and Human Services regulations (1988) barring federally funded family planning clinics from counseling or referring patients for abortion

  The Court held that the regulations were a permissible reading of Title X of the Public Health Service Act and did not violate the First or Fifth Amendment.

  Basis: BothDecided under President BushRead the case: Rust v. Sullivan ↗

• Reno v. Flores (1993)

  507 U.S. 292 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation (1988) limiting the release of detained immigrant children to parents, guardians, or close adult relatives

  The Court held that the regulation, on its face, did not violate due process and was within the Attorney General's authority under the immigration laws.

  Basis: BothDecided under President ClintonRead the case: Reno v. Flores ↗

Struck Down (2)

• Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983)

  463 U.S. 29 · Vote: 9-0 in part, 5-4 in part

  Action challenged: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rescission (October 1981) of the rule requiring airbags or automatic seat belts in new cars

  The Court held that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not adequately explain it, and it sent the matter back to the agency.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. ↗

• Bowen v. American Hospital Association (1986)

  476 U.S. 610 · Vote: 5-3 (plurality)

  Action challenged: Department of Health and Human Services rules (effective February 1984) on medical care for handicapped newborns, known as the Baby Doe rules

  The Court held that the mandatory parts of the rules were not authorized by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Bowen v. American Hospital Association ↗

Upheld (2)

• Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992)

  505 U.S. 788 · Vote: 9-0 on the judgment

  Action challenged: Counting of federal employees serving overseas in the 1990 census figures used to apportion seats in the House, sent to Congress by President Bush

  The Court held that the President is not an agency whose actions can be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that counting overseas federal employees in their home states was consistent with the Constitution.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Franklin v. Massachusetts ↗

• Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. (1993)

  509 U.S. 155 · Vote: 8-1

  Action challenged: Executive Order 12807 (May 24, 1992), directing the Coast Guard to return Haitians intercepted at sea without asylum screening

  The Court held that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the United Nations refugee treaty limits the President's power to order the return of migrants intercepted on the high seas.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President ClintonRead the case: Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. ↗

Struck Down (0)

None

Upheld (1)

• Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001)

  531 U.S. 457 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: EPA's 1997 revised national air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter

  The Clean Air Act's standard-setting provision is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and EPA may not consider costs in setting the standards. The standards survived, but in part the Court held EPA's policy for implementing the ozone standard unreasonable and sent it back.

  Basis: BothDecided under President BushRead the case: Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. ↗

Struck Down (4)

• Clinton v. Jones (1997)

  520 U.S. 681 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Clinton's claim that a sitting president is immune from a civil suit over conduct before he took office until his term ends

  The Constitution does not give a sitting president immunity from civil suits over unofficial conduct, and the separation of powers did not require the trial court to postpone the case until he left office.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Clinton v. Jones ↗

• Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

  524 U.S. 417 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: President Clinton's 1997 cancellations, under the Line Item Veto Act, of a spending provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and a tax benefit in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

  The cancellations were invalid because the Line Item Veto Act let the president change enacted laws without following the Presentment Clause of Article I.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Clinton v. City of New York ↗

• Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives (1999)

  525 U.S. 316 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Census Bureau plan to use statistical sampling in the 2000 census to set the population counts used to apportion House seats

  The Census Act prohibits the use of statistical sampling to determine the population for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Court did not reach the constitutional question.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives ↗

• Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)

  529 U.S. 120 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: FDA's 1996 rule asserting authority over tobacco products and restricting their sale and marketing to young people

  Congress did not give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed, so the rule exceeded the agency's power under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. ↗

Upheld (5)

• Munaf v. Geren (2008)

  553 U.S. 674 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: Planned transfer of U.S. citizens held by American forces in Iraq to Iraqi authorities for criminal prosecution

  Federal courts have habeas jurisdiction over American citizens held overseas by U.S. forces, but they may not use it to block the transfer of people detained in a foreign country to that country for prosecution.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Munaf v. Geren ↗

• Republic of Iraq v. Beaty (2009)

  556 U.S. 848 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Bush's May 2003 determination, under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, making the terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity inapplicable to Iraq

  The President's exercise of the authority Congress gave him validly made the terrorism exception inapplicable to Iraq, so Iraq could no longer be sued in federal court under it.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President ObamaRead the case: Republic of Iraq v. Beaty ↗

• Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011)

  563 U.S. 731 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: Alleged post-September 11 policy of Attorney General Ashcroft of using material witness warrants to detain terrorism suspects

  An objectively reasonable arrest under a valid material witness warrant cannot be challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of the alleged motive behind it, and Ashcroft was entitled to immunity from the suit.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President ObamaRead the case: Ashcroft v. al-Kidd ↗

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson (2011)

  562 U.S. 134 · Vote: 8-0

  Action challenged: Background checks of federal contract employees carried out under a 2004 presidential directive on identification standards

  Assuming the Constitution protects a right to informational privacy, the background-check questions asked of contract employees did not violate it.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President ObamaRead the case: National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson ↗

• Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

  576 U.S. 1 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: State Department refusal, under its policy on Jerusalem, to record Israel as the place of birth on the passport of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem, despite a 2002 statute

  The President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and the statute requiring the State Department to record Israel as the birthplace of citizens born in Jerusalem unconstitutionally infringed on that power.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President ObamaRead the case: Zivotofsky v. Kerry ↗

Struck Down (6)

• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

  542 U.S. 507 · Vote: 6-3 (plurality)

  Action challenged: Military detention of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant without charges or a hearing

  Congress authorized the detention of enemy combatants in the circumstances alleged, but due process requires that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant get a meaningful chance to contest the basis for his detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The detention without such a hearing was rejected in part and the case was sent back.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ↗

• Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)

  546 U.S. 243 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Attorney General Ashcroft's 2001 interpretive rule declaring that prescribing drugs for assisted suicide violates the Controlled Substances Act

  The Controlled Substances Act does not authorize the Attorney General to bar doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under a state law that permits it.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Gonzales v. Oregon ↗

• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

  548 U.S. 557 · Vote: 5-3

  Action challenged: Military commissions created under President Bush's Military Order of November 13, 2001, to try Guantanamo detainees

  The military commission set up to try Hamdan was not authorized by Congress, and its structure and procedures violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ↗

• Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

  549 U.S. 497 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: EPA's 2003 denial of a petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles

  Massachusetts had standing to sue, greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and EPA's reasons for refusing to decide whether they endanger public health or welfare were not grounded in the statute.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ↗

• Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

  553 U.S. 723 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants with habeas corpus review barred by section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006

  Detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, and section 7 of the Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of the writ because the review procedures Congress provided were not an adequate substitute.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Boumediene v. Bush ↗

• Medellin v. Texas (2008)

  552 U.S. 491 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: President Bush's Memorandum for the Attorney General of February 28, 2005, directing state courts to give effect to the International Court of Justice's Avena judgment

  The Avena judgment is not directly enforceable federal law, and the President's memorandum could not make it binding on state courts without action by Congress.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Medellin v. Texas ↗

Upheld (2)

• Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (2014)

  572 U.S. 489 · Vote: 6-2

  Action challenged: EPA's 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (the Transport Rule) limiting power plant emissions that cross state lines

  EPA's rule was a permissible reading of the Clean Air Act's Good Neighbor Provision, and the agency could consider costs in dividing emission reductions among upwind states.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. ↗

• King v. Burwell (2015)

  576 U.S. 473 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: IRS rule making Affordable Care Act tax credits available to people who buy insurance on the federal exchange

  The Affordable Care Act makes tax credits available on exchanges run by the federal government as well as on exchanges run by the states.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: King v. Burwell ↗

Struck Down (6)

• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

  573 U.S. 682 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Department of Health and Human Services rules requiring employer health plans to cover contraceptives

  As applied to closely held for-profit corporations whose owners object on religious grounds, the contraceptive coverage requirement violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. ↗

• National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014)

  573 U.S. 513 · Vote: 9-0

  Action challenged: President Obama's January 4, 2012, recess appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board

  The appointments were invalid because the Senate was holding pro forma sessions and the three-day break between them was too short to count as a recess under the Recess Appointments Clause.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning ↗

• Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (2014)

  573 U.S. 302 · Vote: 5-4 in part, 7-2 in part

  Action challenged: EPA rules requiring stationary sources to obtain Clean Air Act permits based on greenhouse gas emissions, including the 2010 Tailoring Rule

  EPA could not require a source to get a permit solely because of its greenhouse gas emissions and could not rewrite the statute's emission thresholds, so the rules were set aside in part. EPA could require sources already needing permits for other pollutants to use the best available control technology for greenhouse gases.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency ↗

• Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency (2015)

  576 U.S. 743 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: EPA's finding that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants, the basis of its 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

  EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it treated cost as irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency ↗

• National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. (2017)

  580 U.S. 288 · Vote: 6-2

  Action challenged: President Obama's designation of Lafe Solomon as acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and Solomon's continued service after being nominated for the post

  The Federal Vacancies Reform Act bars a person nominated to fill a vacant Senate-confirmed office from serving in that office in an acting capacity, so Solomon's continued service after his nomination violated the Act.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President TrumpRead the case: National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. ↗

• West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)

  597 U.S. 697 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: EPA's Clean Power Plan, the 2015 rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants

  Congress did not give EPA authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to set emission limits based on shifting electricity generation from coal to cleaner sources, the approach the Clean Power Plan took.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President BidenRead the case: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency ↗

Upheld (4)

• Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

  585 U.S. 667 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Proclamation 9645 (September 24, 2017), the third travel ban restricting entry from eight countries

  The Court held that the proclamation was a lawful use of the President's authority under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and that the challengers were not likely to succeed on their Establishment Clause claim. In December 2017 it had let the proclamation take full effect while the appeals were pending.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Trump v. Hawaii ↗

• Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020)

  591 U.S. 657 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: 2017 and 2018 rules exempting employers with religious or moral objections from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement

  The Court held that the departments had authority under the Affordable Care Act to create the exemptions and that the rules were free of procedural defects under the Administrative Procedure Act.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania ↗

• Trump v. United States (2024)

  603 U.S. 593 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Former President's claim of immunity from federal criminal prosecution for acts taken in office after the 2020 election

  The Court held that a former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within his core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. It sent the case back to sort the charged conduct into those categories.

  Basis: ConstitutionalDecided under President BidenRead the case: Trump v. United States ↗

• Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (2026)

  609 U.S. 258 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Border "metering" policy of turning back asylum seekers at full ports of entry, begun in 2016 and set out in 2018 Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security memoranda

  The Court held that a person stopped on the Mexican side of the border has not arrived in the United States, so the Immigration and Nationality Act did not require officers to inspect such a person or allow an asylum application.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President TrumpRead the case: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado ↗

Struck Down (4)

• Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)

  588 U.S. 752 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Commerce Secretary's March 26, 2018 decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census

  The Court held that the decision did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but it set the decision aside in part because the reason the Secretary gave did not match the evidence, and sent the matter back to the agency.

  Basis: BothRead the case: Department of Commerce v. New York ↗

• Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020)

  591 U.S. 1 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, announced September 5, 2017

  The Court held that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency did not consider important aspects of the problem. It rejected the equal protection claim.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California ↗

• Trump v. Vance (2020)

  591 U.S. 786 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: President's claim of absolute immunity from a state grand jury subpoena for his financial records while in office

  The Court held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically bar, or require a heightened standard for, a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Trump v. Vance ↗

• Garland v. Cargill (2024)

  602 U.S. 406 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule of December 26, 2018 classifying bump stocks as machineguns

  The Court held that the agency exceeded its statutory authority, because a semiautomatic rifle fitted with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" under federal law.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President BidenRead the case: Garland v. Cargill ↗

Upheld (2)

• Biden v. Texas (2022)

  597 U.S. 785 · Vote: 5-4

  Action challenged: Homeland Security Secretary's memoranda of June 1 and October 29, 2021 ending the Migrant Protection Protocols

  The Court held that ending the program did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and that the October 29 memoranda were valid final agency action.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Biden v. Texas ↗

• Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025)

  604 U.S. 458 · Vote: 7-2

  Action challenged: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule of 2022 treating certain weapon parts kits and unfinished frames and receivers ("ghost guns") as firearms

  The Court held that the rule was not inconsistent on its face with the Gun Control Act of 1968, rejecting a facial challenge to it.

  Basis: StatutoryDecided under President TrumpRead the case: Bondi v. VanDerStok ↗

Struck Down (1)

• Biden v. Nebraska (2023)

  600 U.S. 477 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Education Secretary's August 2022 plan to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt per borrower under the HEROES Act

  The Court held that the HEROES Act did not authorize the Secretary to create the loan forgiveness program.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Biden v. Nebraska ↗

Upheld (1)

• Trump v. Slaughter (2026)

  609 U.S. 422 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Removal without cause of Federal Trade Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in 2025

  The Court held that the law allowing Federal Trade Commissioners to be removed only for cause violates the separation of powers. A September 22, 2025 order had allowed the removal to stand while the case was heard.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Trump v. Slaughter ↗

Struck Down (2)

• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026)

  607 U.S. 229 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including Proclamation 10886 and Executive Orders 14193, 14194, 14195, and 14257 (2025)

  The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

  Basis: StatutoryRead the case: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump ↗

• Trump v. Barbara (2026)

  No. 25-365 · Vote: 6-3

  Action challenged: Executive Order 14160 (January 20, 2025) denying citizenship to children born in the United States to parents present unlawfully or temporarily

  The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it affirmed the injunction against the order. Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the result on statutory grounds only.

  Basis: ConstitutionalRead the case: Trump v. Barbara ↗