The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to review 13 additional cases involving key elements of its agenda, including asylum restrictions, transgender troop policies, and the deportation of foreign students. According to an analysis of the court's docket on Sunday, October 25, 2026, the administration is seeking to overturn lower court rulings that have blocked or limited these policies. Unlike lower federal courts, the Supreme Court has the discretion to select which cases it will hear, and several of these disputes could be resolved as early as next year.
This wave of petitions follows a series of recent actions on the court's interim docket. On Wednesday, October 21, the Supreme Court denied a request by the administration to implement a new policy that would have restricted transgender inmates from receiving gender-transition surgeries, hormone therapy, and social accommodations. On Thursday, October 22, the court allowed New Hampshire to enforce a law prohibiting the use of student IDs for voter identification, citing the principle that lower federal courts should not change election rules shortly before an election.
A central case in the new petitions involves President Trump's proclamation shutting down asylum processing at the southern border. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) convinced lower courts that the president exceeded federal law. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the proclamation as one of the administration’s "most important policy initiatives." Additionally, the administration is challenging a ruling that restricted its ban on transgender troops to new recruits only, with Sauer arguing that military service eligibility is a matter of "exceptional importance."
Other cases involve the deportation of foreign students and academics. The Justice Department is appealing lower court splits regarding whether students like Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri must wait for immigration proceedings to end before raising First Amendment defenses. In a separate matter, the administration is defending its decision to cut federal grants for University of California researchers under executive orders targeting diversity programs, arguing that a lower court ruling against the cuts hamstrings the government’s ability to subsidize projects aligned with its policies.
On a broader scale, these rulings will define the limits of executive power and the role of the federal judiciary. The administration's challenge to nationwide injunctions seeks to prevent judges from blocking federal policies across the entire country. Furthermore, the administration’s attempt to keep interim U.S. attorneys in place without Senate confirmation by designating them as "first assistants" could set a precedent for how presidents fill high-level vacancies during transitions.
The court's decisions will also impact specialized industries and local governance. A case regarding the 2020 horseracing law will determine if the federal government can delegate regulatory power to a private organization to set national anti-doping standards. A separate land dispute in Idaho involves the legal rights of tribes regarding the disposal of land formerly part of the Fort Hall Reservation. The Supreme Court has already scheduled a closed-door meeting for Friday to discuss the asylum ban petition, while responses regarding the administration's request to resume border wall construction in Big Bend, Texas, are due by 4 p.m. on October 29.