top of page

American Federalism: May in Review

Updated: 20 hours ago


“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Justice Louis Brandeis (New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 1932)


What's New


In May, the Federalism Policy Tracker added more than 20 new entries covering a range of critical issues—including sanctuary cities, preemption of state laws on AI, and new developments in the ongoing legal challenges aimed at halting or limiting President Trump’s “Agenda 47.”


AI Preemption Moratorium

The AI preemption provision, introduced in May by way of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," is without question the most substantial and polarizing assertion of federal power in recent months.


The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBB), recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, includes a provision—Section 43201(c)—that imposes a 10-year moratorium on state and local governments enforcing any laws or regulations concerning artificial intelligence (AI).


The text of Section 43201(c) states:

“No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.”


The Federalism Index will be tracking developments related to AI and preemption as things heat up (for now, the bill now moves to the Senate, where it faces scrutiny, particularly regarding its compatibility with the Byrd Rule, which restricts the inclusion of non-budgetary provisions in reconciliation bills).


Why it matters


Supporters of AI preemption argue that a uniform federal approach prevents a fragmented regulatory landscape, which could hinder innovation and create compliance challenges for businesses operating across multiple states. 


Critics argue that the moratorium undermines states' abilities to protect their residents from potential AI-related harms. They also express concern over the lack of a comprehensive federal framework to replace state regulations during the moratorium period. As David S. Rubenstein, constitutional law professor at Washburn University School of Law, argues:

“Congress cannot compensate for its inability or unwillingness to regulate AI by silencing states that can.”

Read more:


Tracking Trump


In April, we reported on the end of the "Trump Honeymoon." A new report from Harvard Harris shows a modest reversal of the percentage of Americans who say that the country is "on the right track":




President Trump's biggest gains appear to be driven by signs of economic optimism. For the first time since July 2021, just over half of voters say the U.S. Economy is strong today:




While President Trump lost a point on "Reducing the Cost of the Government," he appears to have made gains in public opinion on the topic of "Returning America to Its Values":





Federalism at a Crossroads


As we’ve noted for some time, unfortunately, data is still lacking on how Americans are responding to the second Trump era in terms of broader Constitutional issues ("thinking federal").


As per our previous posts, it is clear that Americans do not want a King, but it is less clear to what extent Americans are willing to go along - or tolerate - an increased reliance on executive power as a means for achieving the President's ends (however popular those ends may be). For example,


  • An Elon University Poll from April showed that two-thirds of Americans feared a Constitutional crisis between the Trump administration and the Courts.

  • A Pew Research Center poll found that half of U.S. adults say that Trump is setting "too much policy" by executive order.

  • A CNN-SSRS poll found that 46 percent of Americans have “a lot” or “some” confidence in Trump’s ability to use the power of the presidency responsibly - down from 54 percent in December.


On May 2, a new poll showed that 54% of Americans now think the president has too much power - up from 22% last year.



Federalism Flashpoints


This month, the Federalism Index Project has revised our list of the top five Federalism Flashpoints.


  1. The previous section on "Spending Power Threats" has been replaced with "Executive Power."

  2. The previous section on "Presidential Rhetoric" has been replaced with a new section on "AI Preemption."


I: Executive Orders


As of writing, the President has issued 157 Executive Orders, averaging approximately 1.04 executive orders per day (down from 1.19 orders per day in April).


1.04 executive orders per day, down from April

This number is simply unprecedented, and there has been no shortage of coverage in the media of this record-smashing pace.


  • For context, during his first term, President Trump signed 55 executive orders over the entire year, averaging about 0.15 per day. President Joe Biden issued 42 executive orders in his first 100 days in 2021, averaging 0.42 per day.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt, known for his extensive use of executive orders during the Great Depression, issued 93 in his first 100 days in 1933, averaging 0.93 per day.


In terms of his reliance on executive orders, Trump is now firmly in a league of his own.


Executive Orders Tracker

To help readers keep track of Executive Orders that have Federalism Implications, the Federalism Project has released a new tool, the Trump Executive Order Tracker, designed to help users view, understand, monitor, and learn more about key Executive Actions currently facing legal challenges.


EOs by Topic Area


A healthy number of Executive Orders (37) are focused on foreign policy and trade. We note the high number of EOs (27) aimed at breaking down or dismantling the "Administrative State":




II: Executive Power or Executive Coercion?


In previous months, we have focused on "Spending power threats," which refer to instances where a president or Congress uses the leverage of federal funding (e.g., grants, aid, or appropriations) to compel state or local compliance with federal objectives (often where direct authority is lacking).


Below, we focus more broadly on examples of the use of executive power that have implications for federalism.


These are selected either because they affect states or the balance of power directly or because they have attracted public attention, debate, controversy, or legal action in the use of executive power.


*Note: items are listed in no particular order. We take no position on any particular policy.


  1. Sanctuary Cities Update. On April 28, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to identify sanctuary jurisdictions—cities and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities—and to initiate steps to withhold federal funding from them. The order aimed to compel local governments to comply with federal immigration laws by threatening the loss of federal funds. This move faced immediate legal challenges. On April 24, a federal judge blocked the administration from withholding funds from 16 sanctuary cities and counties, ruling that the executive order likely violated constitutional principles by imposing conditions on federal funding without congressional authorization. Since then, several states and cities have initiated legal challenges against the federal government's actions. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general from 20 states, including California, New York, Illinois, and Maryland, filed lawsuits accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully withholding federal funds to coerce compliance with immigration enforcement. On May 30, the Department of Homeland Security put more than 500 jurisdictions "on notice," via a list published on the department's website.


  2. Harvard Funding Freeze and International Students. The Trump administration has frozen over $3 billion in federal research grants to Harvard University, citing the institution's alleged failure to address antisemitism and support for DEI initiatives. Harvard University is also currently at the center of a significant legal and political dispute concerning its international student population, which comprises approximately 27% of its total enrollment—around 6,800 students from over 140 countries. In May 2025, the Trump administration revoked Harvard's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), effectively barring the university from enrolling new international students and jeopardizing the visa status of current ones . The administration cited concerns over campus safety and alleged noncompliance with federal policies .Harvard contested these claims, arguing that the revocation was retaliatory and infringed upon the university's rights. Recently, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, allowing Harvard to continue admitting foreign students while the case proceeds.


  3. Executive Order 14290: Defunding Public Broadcasting. On May 1, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14290, directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cease all funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), citing concerns over biased news coverage. Some critics question the president has the authority to cease funding for NPR and PBS via executive order. The CBP is now suing the Trump administration arguing that "CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President's authority," and that "Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government."


  4. Education Funding and DEI Programs. In early April, the Trump administration's Department of Education issued a directive to state education chiefs, requiring them to certify that their schools do not implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs as a condition for receiving federal education funds. The administration argued that DEI initiatives violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination in federally funded programs. This policy shift threatened to withdraw federal funding from schools that continued to operate DEI programs. Legal challenges from teachers' unions and civil rights organizations are ongoing.


  5. Maine Transgender Policy Update. The showdown with Maine's governor is ongoing. As we reported last month, President Trump threatened to withhold federal education funding from the state of Maine unless it complied with his executive order banning transgender girls from participating in girls' sports. Governor Janet Mills responded defiantly, stating that Maine would not be intimidated and would follow its own laws, including the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. Following this confrontation, the Trump administration initiated several investigations into Maine's education policies. Governor Janet Mills challenged, resulting in a legal settlement on May 2, 2025 (USDA agreed to unfreeze the funds without requiring Maine to alter its policies).


III: Congress


While much of the spotlight remains on Trump, a number of bills are currently under consideration that could have significant implications for states and for the federal structure more generally. Using Govtrack as an initial pass, we have narrowed down the top "trending" bills in May, affecting states:



The AI "Preemption mandate" embedded within the OBBB is worthy of its own section, below.


IV: AI Preemption


The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBB), recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, includes a significant provision that imposes a 10-year federal moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). 


This measure has sparked considerable debate regarding its implications for federalism, state authority, and the future of AI governance in the United States.


Passed by the House on May 22, 2025, with a narrow 215-214 vote, the bill provision would allow the federal government to block states from enforcing or enacting laws governing artificial intelligence (AI) models, systems, or automated decision-making tools for ten years.


The provision reads:


"No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act."

Not surprisingly, this section of the bill has raised concerns among various organizations and experts. Critics argue that it would invalidate existing state laws designed to protect against high-impact AI harms.


  • On May 27, a bipartisan coalition of 49 state attorneys general, encompassing both Republican and Democratic leaders, sent a letter to Congress vehemently opposing the AI moratorium. They argued that the sweeping nature of the provision would dismantle reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI, such as identity theft, deepfakes, and AI-driven consumer fraud.


As the bill progresses through the legislative process, the inclusion of this AI preemption language is likely to be a point of contention. The Center for Democracy & Technology has recommended to throw the regulations ban out using the Byrd rule.


Read more:



V: The Courts



President Trump’s second term, perhaps unlike any other president in American history, is also putting a spotlight on the Courts. As one commenter put it,


"No modern president has done more in his first 130 days than President Trump-only to have much of it undone, at least temporarily, by the courts."

As for the Supreme Court, it remains to be seen how or to what extent it may act as a "safeguard" of federalism and Constitutional structure more broadly.


So far this term, 34 decisions have been released (averaging 4 per month).


  • 5 decisions were released in May (more below)



Executive Actions


As of May 31, the President has signed 157 Executive Orders.


  • By comparison, the President had signed ~36 Executive Orders by this point in the first term. This blistering pace of executive action is matched only by the number of legal actions and complaints, also at record levels.


Our updated "race chart" provides a sense of the unprecedented pace:


Executive Orders - First 100 Days in Office

May Overview


In May, President Trump signed 18 Executive Orders, 0 memoranda, 5 notices, 1 determination, and 21 proclamations.


  • Below, we provide a selection of executive actions that have clear federalism implications.


Order #

Description

Federalism Impact



The order directs the termination of all federal funding to NPR and PBS and claims these organizations have violated impartiality standards by engaging in partisan reporting. It instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and all federal agencies to end grants, contracts, and other financial support to them.

The move has triggered legal action, with NPR suing the administration for alleged First Amendment violations, and raised concerns about the impact on over 1,500 local stations dependent on federal funding. While ending taxpayer funding for media on general budgetary grounds is constitutional, and perhaps more popular than ever, the question of whether ending taxpayer subsidization of “biased media” is constitutional hinges on several complex First Amendment, spending power, and equal protection issues.



The EO directs the Attorney General to provide legal support for law enforcement officers facing unjust legal expenses, including pro bono assistance and mandates a review of federal oversight measures. Additionally, the order calls for maximizing federal resources to enhance training, increase officer compensation, strengthen legal protections, and improve crime data collection.

The order encourages the use of military and national security assets to support local law enforcement efforts. The order instructs the prosecution of state and local officials who obstruct law enforcement duties or implement diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives deemed to endanger public safety. 



The order mandates that all commercial motor vehicle drivers in the U.S. demonstrate English proficiency, including the ability to read and understand road signs, communicate with law enforcement, and complete required documentation. The EO also rescinds prior guidance that had relaxed enforcement of these standards and to implement stricter measures, such as placing non-compliant drivers out of service. 

The EO calls for a review of state-issued commercial driver's licenses to identify any irregularities and aims to improve working conditions for truck drivers by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens.



The EO establishes the Religious Liberty Commission to reinforce and expand protections for religious freedom across the United States. The commission will also advise the White House Faith Office and the Domestic Policy Council on religious liberty policies and recommend executive or legislative actions to protect these freedoms.

Chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick with Dr. Ben Carson as Vice Chair, the 13-member commission includes faith leaders, legal experts, and public advocates. Its mandate is to produce a comprehensive report by July 4, 2026, addressing the foundations of religious liberty, current threats to domestic religious freedom, and strategies to preserve and enhance these protections for future generations.



The order mandates the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish and regularly update a list of state and local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These jurisdictions are to be formally notified of their non-compliance and potential violations of federal law. 

The EO directs federal agencies to identify and, where legally permissible, suspend or terminate federal funding to these non-compliant jurisdictions. It also instructs the development of mechanisms to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving federal public benefits and calls for legal action against state or local laws that prioritize undocumented individuals over U.S. citizens, such as offering in-state tuition or lenient sentencing.


For information on executive orders over time, see our "Executive Orders" primer. For a complete list of all Executive Orders see our new Executive Order Tracker: https://www.federalismindex.org/executive-order-tracker


Agencies (in the Era of DOGE)


Federal agencies create regulations through a structured process known as rule-making, which is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. In theory, this process helps to ensure transparency, public participation, and accountability in the development of federal regulations.


DOGE


The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established via Executive Order 14158 on January 20, 2025, and formalized through EO 14218 on February 19, 2025, represents an ambitious experiment in fixing the federal bureaucracy's transparency problems, as well as overseeing an administrative restructuring that aims at achieving a $1 trillion reduction in federal spending.


In May, Elon Musk announced his plans to leave DOGE after a 130-day tenure. The Babylon Bee captured the moment with this relevant news headline:
















Impact


As of May 26th, DOGE claimed an estimated $28.8B in regulatory savings, the cancellation of 10,871 contracts resulting in $32 billion in savings, with an overall total of $175 billion in savings.


...an overall total of $175 billion in savings.

While it is hard to fault DOGE for not doing more, critics point out that the pace lags Musk’s goal of $1 trillion in savings and reducing the federal government by nearly 75%.


Still, the DOGE efforts remain overall positive among voters.


  • While only 23% of Americans in a YouGov poll say that Musk should stay at DOGE, and while a new poll shows that only 34% of respondents believe that Musk has done more to "help the country," other polling shows that DOGE maintains a significant level of support for the idea of DOGE. 

  • An April survey revealed that 41% of respondents approve of DOGE, while 39% disapprove, and 20% remain undecided. This suggests a slight net positive sentiment toward DOGE during that period.


It remains to be seen how Musk's announcement that he would begin scaling back the time he spends at DOGE may affect its operations.


More worrying, and especially for those who see in DOGE an opportunity to transform government, DOGE continues to face heavy legal and political opposition.


  • As one striking example, a Rasmussen Report published in May found that nearly 71% of Democrats support a hypothetical law to imprison Musk for his role in DOGE.


71% of Democrats support a hypothetical law to imprison Musk for his role in DOGE.

Lawfare 2025



The suits against DOGE are part of a larger story about the unprecedented legal challenges to the President in his second term.


  • According to Just Security's litigation tracker, there have been 251 lawsuits against the Trump administration as a whole.

  • Reuters puts the overall number of lawsuits at 328.


At this pace, combining various lawsuits and multistate actions, there are now on average 2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.


2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.

Where is Congress?


Leaving aside the question of whether DOGE can meet its targets, and leaving aside the issue of whether its means are appropriate, Americans remain skeptical of whether DOGE should be leading the way - or whether Congress should be doing it.


  • As we reported last month, 58% believe that it is the responsibility of Congress to lead the way in cutting spending and the size of government.


Federal Register


Meanwhile, the Trump administration has added an average of 857 pages each week to the federal register for a total of 17,140 pages for the year to date.


This includes 387 proposed rules and 625 final rules.






As of May 31, 2025, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has reviewed several proposed rules submitted in May 2025. 


Among these, at least eight have been designated as "economically significant," indicating they are expected to have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. 


Here are a few worth highlighting:


  • Department of Energy (DOE): Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting. The DOE, under the Trump administration, has initiated a "Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting" approach. The policy mandates that existing energy-related regulations include expiration dates, compelling agencies to periodically reassess their relevance and effectiveness. The goal is to reduce regulatory burdens and promote energy production by eliminating outdated or unnecessary rules. This initiative is part of a broader effort to streamline regulations and encourage domestic energy development.

  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have proposed updates to the OPPS and ASC payment systems for Calendar Year (CY) 2026. These updates aim to adjust payment rates to reflect changes in healthcare delivery costs and to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to outpatient services. The proposed rule includes adjustments to payment rates and policies affecting hospitals and surgical centers.

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Repeal of Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants. The EPA has proposed repealing existing carbon pollution standards for coal- and gas-fired power plants. The agency argues that the current regulations exceed its statutory authority and that the repeal will promote energy affordability and reliability. Critics express concern that this rollback could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and hinder efforts to combat climate change. 

  • Repeal of Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The EPA is considering repealing recent amendments to the NESHAPs, which set limits on hazardous air pollutants from industrial sources. The proposed repeal aims to reduce regulatory burdens on industries such as oil refineries and chemical plants. However, environmental groups warn that this action could lead to increased emissions of harmful pollutants, posing risks to public health.

  • Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. The EPA is evaluating updates to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, specifically addressing a backlog of small refinery exemption requests. The proposed changes aim to streamline the exemption process and provide clarity to stakeholders. Adjustments to the RFS could impact the biofuel industry and the agricultural sector, influencing the production and use of renewable fuels.


Below, we include an updated list of agencies with the most regulatory and deregulatory actions at the advanced state (currently under review):

















For more on regulations and how they affect American federalism, see our Regulations primer here


  • Brookings has a regulatory tracker that provides limited analysis of a few select regulatory and deregulatory changes made by the Trump administration. View the tracker here.



Congress



As of writing (May 26th), there are at least 6,405  bills and resolutions currently before Congress. Of these bills and resolutions, 180 had a significant vote in one chamber recently, giving them a "greater than zero" probability of passing.


  • In May, 9 bills were enacted.

  • There were at least 41 passed resolutions.

    • 98 resolutions were introduced under the CRA to overturn Biden-era regulations, with 9 enacted.


This brings the current total of enacted bills to 20 for this session, compared to 614 in total last session.


20 enacted bills for this session, compared to 614 in total last session

Federalism Implications


Among the resolutions and bills more likely to pass (with more than a zero percent chance of becoming law), here are a few with federalism implications:


  • H.R. 1: A provision included in the Reconciliation Bill would preempt state laws governing AI and automated decision-making systems. Critics worry that, if enacted, it could halt nearly 600+ AI legislative efforts across 45 states.


  • H.R.3347: Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) introduced a legislative package of four bills aimed at abolishing specific federal agencies and transitioning their functions to state authority. The bills, part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending and bureaucracy, were announced on May 13. If enacted, the bill would target the elimination of EPA, FEMA, BOP, and DOE.


  • H.R. 3040: Several legislative efforts have been initiated at both federal and state levels to eliminate or restrict the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in the United States. A new bill has been introduced that would prohibit the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in federal elections.



Judiciary


In May, the Supreme Court heard 1 case, decided 8 emergency applications, and issued 5 opinions.



Cases Decided (with Federalism Implications)


  • Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond: In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court split 4-4 in a case involving a proposed Catholic charter school, thereby affirming the Oklahoma State Supreme Court’s ruling that the school violated both federal and state law. Because the Court was evenly divided, the decision sets no national precedent, leaving open the possibility that the issue of religious-based charter schools could return to the Court in the future. The tie vote was largely due to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s decision not to participate, with some speculating that her close personal connections to individuals involved in the case prompted her recusal. Decision issued on May 22.


  • A.A.R.P v. Trump: In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court granted an injunction to detainees held under the Alien Enemies Act, finding that the administration’s expedited removal process denied them a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation. The Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, directing it to establish procedures that adequately protect the detainees’ due process rights. Decision issued on May 16.


Cases Heard


  • Trump v. CASA Inc.: This case challenges nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump’s executive order to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary immigrants. The potentially landmark case tests the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the scope of judicial power to issue broad injunctions. This case was heard May 15 and is still waiting a decision.


Upcoming:


The Supreme Court typically ends hearing oral arguments in April (with the rare exception of the Trump v. CASA Inc. case).


  • A number of orders and opinions are expected to be handed down over the next two months, usually on Mondays and Thursdays, respectively.

  • A complete calendar can be found here.


Shadow Docket:


The shadow docket refers to decisions and orders issued by the U.S. Supreme Court outside its normal process of full briefing and oral argument—typically through emergency rulings, unsigned orders, and summary decisions.


  • Libby v. Fecteau: This case centers on a dispute between two Maine lawmakers: Representative Lauren Libby and House Speaker Ryan Fecteau. After Rep. Libby posted a social media message criticizing Maine’s policy on transgender athletes, she was asked to take it down. She refused. In response, the Maine House narrowly voted 75–70 to censure her, effectively stripping her of floor voting and speaking rights. Rep. Libby filed suit in federal court, arguing the censure violated her constitutional rights and seeking restoration of her legislative privileges. Both the District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals initially denied her request for emergency relief, though the appellate court scheduled expedited oral arguments for June 5. On May 20, the U.S. Supreme Court granted her emergency application for an injunction, temporarily restoring her right to vote and speak on the House floor while her appeal proceeds.

  • Noem v. National TPS Alliance: This case involves around 300,000 Venezuelan nationals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The Supreme Court, in the order, proceeded to allow the government to end the protected status, temporarily pausing a lower court ruling that had blocked the change. The Court’s order allows the legal challenge to continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has scheduled arguments for mid-July. The decision does not prevent individual Venezuelan nationals from pursuing their own legal claims.

  • United States v. Shilling: This case involves a group of transgender individuals serving in the military. A policy by the Trump administration, issued in February, generally bars those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who have undergone related medical treatments from serving, citing concerns about military readiness. A group of transgender military members challenged the policy in federal court, where a judge ruled it unconstitutional. The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court asking for them to stay the order. On May 6, the Supreme Court issued their order, allowing the Department of Defense to enforce their policy prohibiting most transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, pausing a lower court order that had blocked the policy nationwide. The case will proceed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

  • Trump v. Wilcox: This case concerns the removal of two federal officials—one from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the other from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Both individuals sued the federal government, arguing that their removal violated legal protections established for members of independent agencies. They relied on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), in which the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s authority to place limits on the president’s power to remove certain agency officials. In a brief, unsigned two-page opinion, the Court issued an emergency order allowing President Trump to proceed with the removals while the legal challenges continue in the lower courts.



State Supreme Courts


State supreme courts have issued over 3,352 opinions in 2025. That is the equivalent of roughly 23 opinions per day.


These cases cover a variety of topics, including:


 



Get in Touch!


What issues matter to you most? What policies are you watching in your state? What did we miss?


  • Let us know by following us on X, Instagram, or Facebook or by using the "Let's Chat" button on the bottom right of your screen!


Authors: Andrew Bibby, Johana Linford, and Noah Farnsworth

bottom of page