President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.

Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to «federalize» and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.

Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief. 

Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.

WINS:

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders. 

Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.

Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions «transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,» and «create a host of practical problems.»

The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.

Firing independent agency heads 

The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.

It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.

The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.

SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REINS IN SOTOMAYOR AFTER REPEATED INTERRUPTIONS

Supreme Court Justices attend the 60th inaugural ceremony Jan. 20, 2025, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

LOSSES:

Tariffs 

While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan. 

At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.

Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.

A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. 

Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices «were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.»

«However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,» Turley added.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.

«Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,» Skorup said.

‘LIFE OR DEATH’: SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRUMP TARIFF POWERS IN BLOCKBUSTER CASE

President Donald Trump signs an executive order at the White House Dec. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Trump has signed more executive orders in 2025 than he did in all four years of his first presidency combined. (Getty Images) (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.

At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.

The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and «unprecedented» one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center. 

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June. 

Los cerdos de las islas del Pacífico tienen una historia que se conecta con antiguos viajes humanos.

Un equipo internacional encontró que la mayoría de los cerdos domésticos y libres desde Filipinas hasta Hawái desciende de animales que grupos de habla austronesia llevaron desde el sudeste de China y Taiwán hace unos 4.000 años.

Esa llegada dejó una marca clara en la fauna de las islas. Los cerdos viajaron junto a los humanos en canoas por largas distancias y, al establecerse en nuevas islas, se integraron a los ecosistemas locales.

El estudio publicado en la revista Science, de la Asociación Estadounidense para el Avance de la Ciencia (AAAS) muestra que estos cerdos no se mezclaron con especies silvestres locales en las islas al llegar.

Los investigadores afirmaron: “los cerdos en Oceanía carecen de mezcla genética con especies silvestres nativas presentes a lo largo de la ruta de dispersión austronesia en Filipinas, Sulawesi y otras islas”.

Solo los descendientes que quedaron en Wallacea (una región de islas en el sudeste asiático, situada entre Asia y Australia) y se volvieron salvajes llegaron a cruzarse con especies locales.

David W. G. Stanton lideró la investigación junto a científicos de la Universidad Queen Mary de Londres, el Instituto de Ciencia Evolutiva de Montpellier, la Universidad de Oxford, la Universidad de Estocolmo y otras instituciones del Reino Unido, Francia, Suecia, Alemania, Estados Unidos, Filipinas, Australia, Nueva Zelanda, Islandia, Bélgica, Brunei, Vietnam, Bután, Sri Lanka, Vanuatu e Indonesia.

Durante mucho tiempo, la presencia de cerdos en islas lejanas como Hawái fue un misterio para la ciencia. Las personas han movido animales durante siglos, pero el origen real de los cerdos del Pacífico seguía sin respuesta.

Los investigadores quisieron saber si estos animales llegaron en una sola ola migratoria o en varias etapas. Buscaron aclarar si los cerdos del Pacífico se mezclaron con otras especies o si mantuvieron su linaje original.

Para responder, el equipo analizó el ADN y la forma de los dientes de cientos de cerdos modernos y antiguos. Así lograron reconstruir los recorridos y cambios de los cerdos en el Pacífico durante casi 3.000 años.

El hallazgo ayuda a entender cómo los movimientos humanos pueden transformar la vida animal y el ambiente en las islas.

El equipo estudió 117 genomas de cerdos modernos, antiguos y de museos y más de 700 dientes.

Los datos muestran que los cerdos llevados por los austronesios permanecieron aislados de las especies silvestres durante siglos.

Los investigadores escribieron: “los cerdos en Oceanía carecen de mezcla genética con especies silvestres nativas de las islas a lo largo de la ruta migratoria”.

Identificaron un grupo genético especial, el “Clado del Pacífico”, en la mayoría de los cerdos desde Wallacea hasta Hawái.

Ese grupo se identifica en la mayoría de los cerdos al este de la Línea de Wallace (un límite biogeográfico que separa las especies animales de Asia y Australia en el sudeste asiático) y también en algunos animales de Java, Sumatra y el sudeste asiático continental.

La forma de los dientes fue una pista clave. Los cerdos del Pacífico tienen una dentadura diferente, que los distingue de otras poblaciones. Este rasgo surgió por el aislamiento y la adaptación a nuevas islas.

Los primeros cerdos domésticos que llegaron al Pacífico no se mezclaron con especies salvajes locales. Solo después, algunos de estos cerdos se volvieron salvajes en Wallacea y se cruzaron con otras especies.

Durante la época colonial, llegaron cerdos europeos a Papúa Nueva Guinea y Nueva Caledonia. Esto generó nuevas mezclas genéticas.

Los investigadores escribieron que “la ascendencia europea se introdujo en estas regiones, probablemente por cerdos domésticos europeos durante y después del periodo colonial”.

El análisis reveló que, aunque algunos cerdos de Sumatra, Java y otras islas mezclaron linajes, la mayoría de los cerdos del Pacífico mantiene el linaje traído por los austronesios.

Los resultados muestran que la dispersión de los cerdos estuvo marcada por cuellos de botella genéticos y adaptación.

Los investigadores afirmaron: “su peculiar morfología dental y el aislamiento genético inicial pueden reflejar que estos cerdos introducidos tenían rasgos domésticos que facilitaron su transporte y manejo por grupos de habla austronesia”.

El equipo científico expresó que se debería analizar más genomas antiguos y modernos para entender mejor la historia de los cerdos en el Pacífico.

“Las futuras investigaciones con genomas de alta cobertura y análisis funcionales serán clave para entender el éxito de estas poblaciones ferales”, mencionaron.

Aún faltan muestras de ADN antiguo en partes de Asia. Esto impide conocer todos los detalles de las rutas que siguieron los cerdos.

Pero con los resultados obtenidos ya se puede afirmar que la historia de estos cerdos muestra cómo los viajes humanos dejan huellas en los animales y en los ambientes. El estudio reveló una historia de traslados, aislamiento y cambios en islas lejanas.

Estado

Ciclo