Many of these emergency requests contend that the issuing judge lacked power to review the action or grant relief, a tactic that appears more prevalent than in Biden-era appeals.

The interplay between the administration’s strategy and long-standing judicial deference means the court has sometimes blocked or limited lower-court actions, including in birthright citizenship and other emergency rulings.

The Lisa Cook firing case illustrates ongoing tensions over executive power and judicial review, with the Supreme Court hearing arguments on reinstating Cook despite a lower-court injunction.

Since February 2025, the Trump administration has filed 31 emergency requests at the Supreme Court, with about 97% arguing that judges improperly interfere with the president’s power, signaling a concerted effort to curb judicial review.

By contrast, the Biden administration has filed 19 emergency requests over four years, with only about a quarter alleging judicial interference, reflecting a more deferential posture toward courts.

The push to limit universal injunctions is evident, with the Court previously curtailing such injunctions last June in a birthright citizenship case led by Trump.

Specific cases, such as Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, feature the administration arguing that courts cannot order reinstatement or review the stated cause for removal, with arguments heard recently and a decision anticipated soon.

Other cases involve firing multiple federal employees and challenges to district-court orders related to Lisa Cook, with January 2026 arguments shaping upcoming emergency rulings.

Legal observers note the Court’s handling of emergencies is fast and terse, making it hard to gauge the weight of the administration’s arguments; the Court has also narrowed universal injunctions in a landmark birthright citizenship ruling.

In cases such as attempts to fire federal employees and appointments at independent agencies, the administration has argued courts lack jurisdiction or power to intervene, while critics warn this narrows judicial oversight.

Experts say the strategy aims to diminish federal judges’ power to restrain the president and expand unilateral executive authority, signaling a shift beyond contesting outcomes toward attacking judicial authority itself.

The broader context includes ongoing disputes over universal injunctions and how aggressively courts can restrain or compel executive actions, with the Roberts Court’s decisions shaping executive power.