Four federal courts blocked executive actions in seven days. An emergency application reached the Supreme Court affecting 350,000 people. Two landmark oral arguments are days away. This is the Ides of March in American federal law.
Trump v. Miot, Docket No. 25A999 — filed March 11, 2026
Haitian nationals whose Temporary Protected Status the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to terminate immediately
On November 28, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of Haiti's TPS designation, set to take effect February 3, 2026. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes immediately blocked the termination, finding it likely violated equal protection guarantees and the governing statute.
On March 7, a divided D.C. Circuit panel refused to let the administration proceed. The Biden-appointed judges distinguished the Haiti case from prior Venezuelan TPS litigation, citing the particular vulnerability of Haitian nationals to violence if deported.
Four days later, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to stay the lower courts and allow TPS termination to proceed immediately. Chief Justice Roberts requested a response by March 16. The Court could act at any moment after that.
The Haiti application is part of a sweeping TPS unwinding. The administration has already ended TPS for over 600,000 Venezuelans. Phase-outs are underway for Ukrainians and Afghans. A parallel case involving Syrians is also pending before the courts. How the Supreme Court rules in Trump v. Miot will set the template for all of them.
Source: SCOTUSblog — Trump v. Miot
DOJ's fast-track appeals rule struck for violating the Administrative Procedure Act
The Trump DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a rule — without notice or public comment — slashing the time to file a notice of appeal from 30 days to 10 days, and allowing the Board of Immigration Appeals to summarily dismiss cases unless a majority voted to reconsider within that same window. The goal: clear a backlog of 202,946 pending appeals.
Judge Moss found the rule violated the APA's notice-and-comment requirement. His order: "Issues that are so fundamental to the rights of tens of thousands of individuals ought to be considered and addressed before — rather than after — a rule takes effect."
Source: The New York Times · Bloomberg Law
Judge Saylor extends deadline; temporary restraining order issued
In August 2025, a presidential memo directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to require colleges to submit seven years of admissions data broken down by race and sex — ostensibly to audit compliance with the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on race-conscious admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The OMB finalized requirements in December, with a compliance deadline of March 18.
Seventeen Democratic state attorneys general sued on March 11, arguing the demand violated student privacy, imposed an unreasonable timeline, and sought to transform the National Center for Education Statistics into "a mechanism for law enforcement and the furthering of partisan policy aims."
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV — a George W. Bush appointee — issued a temporary restraining order on March 13, extending the deadline to March 25 and scheduling a full hearing. The administration must now defend the demand in open court.
Courts reject the administration's "national security" justification for suspending offshore wind construction
In December 2025, the Department of the Interior issued stop-work orders on five major offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast, citing national security concerns about radar interference and drone vulnerabilities. Federal judges examined the classified supporting report and found it insufficient — each time.
Judge Lamberth, reviewing Revolution Wind, noted that DOI took a full month to act on the classified report and that officials made public statements suggesting opposition to wind power unrelated to national security. Judge Nichols found the government's concerns "too speculative." The DOI has indicated its intent to appeal.
Source: CRS Report LSB11402 · Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Watson v. Republican National Committee — The Supreme Court weighs in on Election Day itself
Mississippi enacted a law in 2020 allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days afterward. The Republican National Committee challenged it. The Fifth Circuit struck down the law, holding that federal election statutes — specifically 2 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1 — require ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day.
The Supreme Court will resolve whether Congress set a deadline only for casting votes or also for receiving them — a distinction that determines the validity of mail ballot acceptance windows in 15 states. The ruling will define the legal meaning of "Election Day" for the first time.
Source: SCOTUSblog — Watson v. RNC
Noem v. Al Otro Lado — Whether "turnback" policies block the legal right to apply for asylum
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who "arrives in the United States" at a port of entry is entitled to inspection and the right to apply for asylum. The Trump administration's "turnback" policy stops asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the border before they reach U.S. soil — physically preventing them from "arriving."
Al Otro Lado and individual asylum seekers challenged these policies, arguing that people who approach a port of entry and are turned back have, in law, "arrived in the United States" and thus retain their statutory asylum rights. The Ninth Circuit agreed. The Supreme Court will decide whether that interpretation holds.
The decision will determine whether the government can legally use geography — the precise location of a person relative to an imaginary line — to deny access to one of the most fundamental provisions of U.S. refugee law.
Source: SCOTUSblog — Noem v. Al Otro Lado · HIAS Amicus
United States v. Hemani — Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) consistent with the Second Amendment?
Oral argument on March 2 left justices visibly skeptical of the government's position. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), gun regulations must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The government points to historical laws disarming "dangerous" individuals. Challengers argue no founding-era law disarmed people based on substance use alone.
The scale of the decision's potential impact is significant: 24 states have legalized recreational marijuana, and millions of users technically fall within § 922(g)(3)'s scope. A ruling striking the provision could also call into question the felon disarmament statute, § 922(g)(1) — which the Court separately declined to review this term.
Post-Bruen, the government must show a historical analogue for any gun restriction. The harder the government finds that analogue to establish, the more Second Amendment law expands.
Source: SCOTUSblog — Hemani
Fourth Circuit vacated the nationwide block; EOs 14151 and 14173 are now enforceable
A Maryland district court's nationwide preliminary injunction blocked enforcement of both executive orders targeting federal DEI programs and contractor certification requirements.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the injunction, finding plaintiffs lacked standing on one provision and were unlikely to succeed on others. Enforcement is now permitted.
The Fourth Circuit was careful to note that its decision addresses only broad facial challenges to the orders — not specific applications. If the administration implements the orders in ways that harm specific parties, new lawsuits will be viable. The compliance landscape is now radically different for federal contractors with existing DEI programs.
Source: Cal Chamber HR Watchdog · Mondaq
How the administration is rolling back protections for over one million people — and what courts have done about it
Source: Reuters · SCOTUSblog
While the Hemani case (§ 922(g)(3) — drug users) is pending a full merits decision after oral argument, the Supreme Court this term declined to hear cases challenging the felon-disarmament statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Justice Sotomayor noted a separate dissent on the Court's refusal to hear a case involving indigent prisoner filing fees.
The contrast is striking: SCOTUS has agreed to fully consider whether the drug user gun ban survives Bruen, but has repeatedly declined to take up the felon gun ban. Whether the Court is strategically sequencing these questions — or simply finding the felon cases unripe — will become clearer when Hemani is decided in June.
For practitioners in post-conviction relief, the denial means existing § 922(g)(1) charges and sentences remain intact for now — but the Hemani framework, once decided, will likely define the next round of litigation.
Source: SCOTUSblog — March Orders List
The Ides of March, 2026 — a week that asked courts to be what the Constitution said they would be
Response due in Trump v. Miot (TPS Haiti, No. 25A999). The Court could act immediately after — or call for full briefing.
Watson v. Republican National Committee (No. 24-1260) — whether federal election statutes require mail ballots to be received by Election Day. 15 states affected.
Noem v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5) — whether asylum seekers turned back at ports of entry have "arrived in the United States" for statutory purposes.
Universities must respond to race/sex admissions data demand by this extended deadline, unless Judge Saylor's TRO is further extended or converted to a preliminary injunction.
United States v. Hemani decision expected. If § 922(g)(3) is struck down, expect immediate circuit-level follow-on challenges to other § 922(g) provisions.