Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Review on Defamation, Immigration, and Data Access Cases

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decisions on immigration policy, particularly concerning the detention of non-citizens apprehended domestically, could have implications for federal immigration enforcement operations within Tennessee. Additionally, rulings on access to government data from agencies like the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could affect transparency for residents and watchdog groups in the state.

---

The federal government has requested the Supreme Court review an $83.3 million defamation judgment against President Donald Trump in a case brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll. Trump's legal team contends the president made the statements as part of his official duties, entitling him to immunity. The government's petition for review supports this position, arguing the government, not Trump, should be the defendant in Carroll's case. Several other petitions for review from the Trump administration await Supreme Court consideration this summer. These include challenges to immigration policy, the Second Amendment, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and various other legal issues. The administration also anticipates filing a petition concerning transgender military service by the end of August. Justices will likely review many of these petitions at their "long conference" on September 28. ### Immigration Detention Policy One petition, *Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos*, addresses the administration's policy of detaining non-citizens apprehended within the United States without bond hearings. Introduced in July 2025, this policy has led to numerous lawsuits and a disagreement among federal courts of appeals, known as a "circuit split." The administration's detention guidelines rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which states non-citizens "shall be detained" for removal proceedings if an examining officer determines they are "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted" to the U.S. Historically, officials applied Section 1225 primarily to non-citizens at the border. Non-citizens already in the U.S. were typically held under Section 1226, which allows for release on bond. By applying Section 1225 to non-citizens apprehended domestically, the Trump administration seeks to detain them without bond. Federal judges have issued over 9,300 rulings against these mandatory detention guidelines since their implementation. However, appeals courts have split on the policy. Six circuits, including the 9th and 7th Circuits, have ruled against the administration, while the 5th and 8th Circuits have sided with the government. These latter circuits determined non-citizens who entered the country without authorization are considered applicants for admission under Section 1225 and are not entitled to a bond hearing. In *Lopez-Campos*, the administration appeals a May ruling from the 6th Circuit that found detaining challengers under Section 1225 unlawful. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer's June petition highlights the circuit split, asking the Supreme Court to resolve whether Section 1225 applies to non-citizens present in the U.S. without admission and if they must be detained during removal proceedings. Sauer stated that a definitive answer would reduce the burden of litigation on district courts and U.S. Attorney’s Offices. In late July, the administration filed a second petition, *Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha*, challenging a 2nd Circuit ruling that also found Section 1226 governs detention of non-citizens apprehended domestically. The government asked the justices to consider *Lopez-Campos* first and hold the newer petition. ### Access to Government Data Another petition involves the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established in January 2025 to improve governmental efficiency. Watchdog groups raised concerns about DOGE's access to personal data and its role in mass layoffs, leading to legal challenges. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for DOGE's internal communications and messages with federal agencies. DOGE argued it did not qualify as a federal agency under FOIA. A federal district judge in Washington granted many of CREW's discovery requests. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which declined to pause the order, and then to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket. On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, granted a stay, citing "separation of powers concerns" and judicial deference in discovery regarding Executive Branch communications. The Court returned the dispute to the D.C. Circuit. Both the district court and D.C. Circuit have since ruled that DOGE must provide information on staff, directives, and efforts to access federal agency data, after CREW narrowed its discovery request. In its petition for review in *U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia*, the administration argues the lower courts disregarded the Supreme Court's June 2025 order. It urges the justices to address the scope of appropriate discovery orders in disputes over government information access. Sauer stated allowing the decision to stand and "far-reaching discovery to proceed would sow mischief in countless future cases." ### GVR Requests The Trump administration has also submitted two petitions requesting a "GVR" – that the Supreme Court grant the petition, vacate the lower court's decision, and return the case for reconsideration based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. *United States v. Hembree* involves 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute, which prohibits individuals with certain felony convictions from possessing firearms. The 5th Circuit ruled Section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Charles Hembree, who had a single prior conviction for methamphetamine possession. The administration did not ask the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split on this statute. Instead, it requested the petition be held until the Court decided *United States v. Hemani*, a separate Second Amendment challenge, and then sent back for reconsideration in light of that ruling. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch clarified that *Hemani* did not address Section 922(g)(1)'s provision on disarming individuals convicted of felonies. The justices have denied three other government petitions on the felon-in-possession statute this year. The second GVR request is in *Mullin v. National TPS Alliance*, a dispute over the administration's efforts to end deportation protections for Venezuelan and Haitian nationals under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. A federal district judge in California twice blocked the administration from terminating these protections, and the 9th Circuit twice declined to pause those decisions regarding Venezuelan nationals. The Supreme Court later paused the district court's orders on its emergency docket, allowing the administration to proceed with deportations of Venezuelan nationals while litigation continued. A 9th Circuit panel then affirmed the district court's decision preventing the administration from ending TPS for Venezuelan and Haitian nationals. The panel rejected the administration's argument that courts lack authority to review TPS designations and found then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem exceeded her statutory authority. In its petition for review, the government asks the justices to order the 9th Circuit to reconsider the case in light of *Mullin v. Doe*, a June 25 Supreme Court ruling that held federal law generally bars courts from reviewing government decisions on TPS designations. The government's petition states a GVR would allow the 9th Circuit to reconsider its holding with the benefit of the Court's guidance. A response is due on August 12. ### Upcoming Petitions The Trump administration expects to file another significant petition later this month. On July 16, officials informed the D.C. Circuit of their intent to appeal its ruling, which prevents the administration from applying its policy disqualifying individuals with a history of gender dysphoria from military service against the transgender troops involved in the lawsuit. Last year, the Supreme Court considered the policy on its emergency docket and paused a broader federal judge's order that prevented the policy's implementation nationwide. The Court's three Democratic appointees indicated they would leave the order in place but did not provide a rationale.