Photo via The Straits Times

At the Supreme Court, Trump aims to cut the power of judges again

Read the original at The Straits Times ↗
Cite

The Straits Times. (2026, November 14). At the Supreme Court, Trump aims to cut the power of judges again. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/world/at-the-supreme-court-trump-aims-to-cut-the-power-of-judges-again

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

The Straits Times · collected 2026-11-14 · by The Straits Times

Quick Summary

President Trump's administration is seeking to further restrict judicial power by urging the Supreme Court to limit judges' ability to halt federal agency regulations entirely. The appeal, filed by the Justice Department, argues that courts should only provide relief to the specific plaintiffs in a case rather than invalidate rules universally. This move aims to protect Trump’s policy agenda from broad legal challenges, potentially allowing agencies to enforce rules broadly despite judicial rulings against them. The case, which stems from a challenge to federal rules implementing a statute signed by Trump, could be considered by the Supreme Court early next year.
Written by AI on 2026-11-14, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).
See how they differ ↓

AI analysis

Story summary

The Supreme Court has agreed to review President Donald Trump's executive order from January 2025 that suspends asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. The order effectively bars nearly all legal migration across the southern border. The Trump administration argues it has the authority to categorically deny asylum to migrants covered by the order and is under no obligation to accept applications that would be denied. However, immigration attorneys from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigrant Justice Center contend that the executive order is unconstitutional, as federal law enacted by Congress outlines specific procedures for asylum seekers. The case will determine the extent of presidential power over immigration policies and could further limit judicial oversight of such directives.

Written for “Supreme Court Reviews Trump Asylum Ban” on 2026-11-15, grounded in this article and the 11 other(s) covering the same event.

How they differ

9 outlets covered “Supreme Court Reviews Trump Asylum Ban”.

What each outlet says

One AI summary per outlet of its latest article on this story, written from that article alone and checked against it. Open the article for the outlet's own words.

The Straits TimesThis outlet14 Nov

President Trump's administration is seeking to further restrict judicial power by urging the Supreme Court to limit judges' ability to halt federal agency regulations entirely. The appeal, filed by the Justice Department, argues that courts should only provide relief to the specific plaintiffs in a case rather than invalidate rules universally. This move aims to protect Trump’s policy agenda from broad legal…

At the Supreme Court, Trump aims to cut the power of judges again (this article)3 articles from The Straits Times on this story
Just the News13 Nov

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider a legal challenge regarding President Donald Trump's executive order that suspends asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Trump administration is suing to overturn lower court rulings that declared the ban illegal, arguing the president has the authority to categorically deny asylum to migrants covered by the order. Immigration attorneys from the ACLU and National…

Supreme Court to consider Trump's executive order suspending asylum access at U.S.-Mexico border →2 articles from Just the News on this story
NBC News13 Nov

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Trump administration has the authority to ban asylum claims at the southern border following a proclamation issued on January 20, 2025. This case centers on a policy that allows for the immediate removal of individuals crossing without paperwork, a move the administration argues is supported by inherent and delegated presidential powers to exclude aliens…

Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s asylum ban →
CBS News13 Nov

The Supreme Court will decide on a legal challenge regarding President Trump’s directive that suspends asylum access and legal protections for migrants crossing the southern border illegally. Following a federal judge's ruling that the administration exceeded its authority, a three-judge panel also found the proclamation unlawful before the Supreme Court agreed to review the cases by late June or early July. The…

Supreme Court takes up case over asylum access at border →
The Guardian13 Nov

The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider whether Donald Trump's executive order banning asylum applications at the US-Mexico border is legal. The Trump administration argues the ban is a necessary measure to address an influx of migrants caused by years-long processing times, while immigration attorneys from the ACLU and National Immigrant Justice Center argue the order unilaterally eviscerates legal…

US supreme court agrees to consider Trump’s ban on asylum at US-Mexico border →
Show 3 more outlets
Los Angeles Times13 Nov

The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on President Trump’s January 2025 ban on asylum claims at the southern border. The case centers on a conflict between the administration's claim that the ban was necessary to manage a system overwhelmed by eight million illegal encounters over four years and advocates' arguments that the right to seek asylum is a protected legal right. While a three-judge panel previously ruled…

Supreme Court agrees to rule on Trump's asylum ban at the southern border →
Washington Examiner13 Nov

The Supreme Court will hear the case of Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services to determine the legality of President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order. This order, a signature immigration policy implemented last year, largely prohibits individuals from applying for asylum at the southern border. The court will specifically evaluate if the policy is lawful and whether a…

Supreme Court takes up challenge to Trump’s southern border asylum ban →
Reason14 Nov

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case challenging Donald Trump's January 2025 executive order that bars nearly all legal migration across the southern border, citing an "invasion" under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause. Trump’s administration argues that illegal migration, drug smuggling, and public health risks constitute an "invasion," allowing the president to suspend legal migration indefinitely. The…

Supreme Court Will Review Case Challenging Donald Trump's "Invasion" Executive Order →

Where they agree and split

Framing

How the first headlines put it

Stated as fact8
The headlines (8)

Supreme Court will consider Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border Toronto Star · stated as fact

Supreme Court will weigh Trump's asylum restrictions at US-Mexico border The Straits Times · stated as fact

Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s asylum ban NBC News · stated as fact

Supreme Court takes up case over asylum access at border CBS News · stated as fact

Supreme Court to consider Trump's executive order suspending asylum access at U.S.-Mexico border Just the News · stated as fact

US supreme court agrees to consider Trump’s ban on asylum at US-Mexico border The Guardian · stated as fact

Supreme Court agrees to rule on Trump's asylum ban at the southern border Los Angeles Times · stated as fact

Supreme Court takes up challenge to Trump’s southern border asylum ban Washington Examiner · stated as fact

The full story: what happened, how it changed, and all 12 articles →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans strongly right and hedges 13% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
The Straits Times
Leans strongly right Hedges 5 of 40 claims Outlet record 64/100
Daily Mail
Hedges 2 of 24 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different topics related to the Supreme Court, with Article A focusing on Justice Samuel Alito's remarks about challenges to the court, and Article B discussing Trump's efforts to restrict judicial power.”
NBC News
Leans left further left than this Hedges 6 of 21 claims Outlet record 77/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of legal challenges related to President Trump's immigration policies but describe separate events and judicial actions.”
The Guardian
Leans left further left than this Hedges 0 of 12 claims Outlet record 65/100
Just The News
Centre further left than this Hedges 0 of 6 claims Outlet record 94/100
Reason
Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 3 of 21 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles discuss different Supreme Court cases involving President Trump's actions: one about judicial power restrictions and another about an executive order on migration.”
Fox News
Hedges 6 of 47 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of President Trump's relationship with the Supreme Court, not the same specific event.”
New York Post
Leans right further left than this Hedges 1 of 15 claims Outlet record 66/100
“The articles refer to different aspects of judicial independence and power but describe distinct events and timelines.”
Toronto Star
Leans left further left than this Hedges 0 of 2 claims Outlet record 64/100
“Article A discusses the Supreme Court considering Trump's executive order on asylum, while Article B talks about a broader challenge to judicial authority, indicating different specific legal actions.”
The Straits Times
Leans left further left than this Hedges 3 of 19 claims Outlet record 64/100
“Article A discusses the Supreme Court considering the legality of Trump's asylum restrictions, while Article B refers to a broader challenge to judicial authority aimed at further insulating Trump's agenda, indicating different but related legal actions.”

Story

Supreme Court Reviews Trump Asylum Ban
Politics · 12 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
39
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
13%
5 of 39 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans strongly right
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
64/100
The Straits Times's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
12
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-11-14 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

The Straits Times · 5174 article(s) · 7 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 7 correction(s)

Who wrote this

The Straits Times
3557 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
Until recently, Senate Republicans had routinely approved Trump’s nominees for lifetime seats on district and appeals courts during his second term, confirming 57 so far and helping him cement a conservative imprint on the judiciary that will outlast his presidency.
"On Tuesday and Wednesday I will be in Brussels for the meeting with my fellow (defence) ministers," Oprea said. "
Until recently, Senate Republicans had routinely approved Trump's nominees for lifetime seats on district and appeals courts during his second term, confirming 57 so far and helping him cement a conservative imprint on the judiciary that will outlast his presidency. But as the White House and Senate Republican leaders press ahead with judicial nominees during the lame-duck session, a handful of Republicans have blocked or cast doubt on three nominees selected for their home states.
"No party owns them," said John Della Volpe, director of polling at Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics, arguing Democrats could keep some, if not all, of their gains if they deliver tangible policy results.
Pope Leo will traverse the length of Peru on Sunday, the penultimate day of his South America tour, visiting a southern Andes Mountains city that was once the center of the Inca Empire and an eastern gateway to the Amazon rainforest.
Spain's Territorial Policy Minister Angel Victor Torres will visit El Hierro on Sunday to discuss the surge in migrant arrivals.
This dual squeeze would further isolate Gulf oil producers from their main shipping routes.
Neves, who was prime minister for 15 years and became president in 2021, is from Cape Verde's oldest political party, the African Party for the Independence of Cape Verde (PAICV), which won 37 out of 72 seats in legislative elections in May, allowing Francisco Carvalho to become prime minister.
2026-11-15 · assertive framing · Cape Verde votes for president with emigration in focus
Both said they will work with authorities in the investigation.
But at the 2026 global climate conference – the first since the United Nations said the 1.5 deg C threshold would be missed – nations appear unsure how to take the news.
Also by The Straits Times
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 3557 articles by The Straits Times →

Topics

Justice Department Republican University of Virginia the Supreme Court the US Supreme Court

Subjects

Trump PERSON · 11× the Supreme Court ORG · 4× Bamzai PERSON · 2× Aditya Bamzai PERSON · 1× Donald Trump PERSON · 1× Justice Department ORG · 1× Republican NORP · 1× Texas GPE · 1× University of Virginia ORG · 1× the US Supreme Court ORG · 1×

Narrative

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and his allies have castigated judges who have impeded his policies — deriding some as radical or corrupt — even as he tests the limits of presidential powers. At the Trump administration's behest, the Supreme Court in June 2025 clamped down on nationwide — or "universal" — injunctions that can block the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, not just the challengers who sued.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-11-14
Now Trump is taking aim at that tool as well in another challenge to judicial authority that could further insulate his far-reaching agenda against broad legal attacks.
2026-11-14 · The Straits Times
At the Supreme Court, Trump aims to cut the power of judges again · assertive framing

Claims (39 extracted, 5 hedged)

At the Supreme Court, Trump aims to cut the power of judges again Nov 14 - asserted
Trump → aim → judges
When President Donald Trump's administration convinced the US Supreme Court last year to restrict the ability of federal judges to block his actions nationwide — a major boost to his power — the ruling left untouched a separate tool that some of them have used to stymie presidential policies. asserted
some → convince → policies
Now Trump is taking aim at that tool as well in another challenge to judicial authority that could further insulate his far-reaching agenda against broad legal attacks. uncertain
that → take → attacks
An appeal filed by Trump's Justice Department now pending before the Supreme Court urges the justices to curtail the longstanding ability of judges to halt the actions of federal agencies that hold immense power to carry out the Republican president's policy priorities. asserted
that → file → priorities
According to the administration, courts should not be able to shut down an agency's regulation entirely, instead limiting any relief granted only to the specific plaintiffs in a given case. uncertain
courts → accord → case
Aditya Bamzai, a University of Virginia expert in administrative law, said a win for Trump in the case could let the US government continue to enforce rules broadly on all but the plaintiffs in a given case, potentially for years as litigation plays out, even after judges have deemed them unlawful. uncertain
them → say → years
Siding with Trump "would give more flexibility to the executive branch," Bamzai said. asserted
Bamzai → side → branch
"Whether you like or dislike that flexibility can perhaps depend on whether you like or dislike a particular administration's policies," Bamzai added. asserted
Bamzai → like → policies
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and his allies have castigated judges who have impeded his policies — deriding some as radical or corrupt — even as he tests the limits of presidential powers. At the Trump administration's behest, the Supreme Court in June 2025 clamped down on nationwide — or "universal" — injunctions that can block the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, not just the challengers who sued. asserted
who → return → anyone
Judges had increasingly deployed these orders in a wide array of cases against Trump, including those alleging violations of the US Constitution. asserted
Judges → deploy → Constitution
The new appeal arises from a challenge by Texas medical providers to federal rules implementing a statute Trump signed into law during his first term in office to limit unexpected medical bills. asserted
Trump → arise → bills
The appeal forms part of the administration's concerted push to make it harder for the judiciary to impede executive actions. asserted
judiciary → form → actions
The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to take up the case early next year. asserted
Court → expect → case
The kinds of lawsuits targeted by Trump's administration are brought under a 1946 US law called the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which governs the way federal agencies operate including how regulations are implemented. asserted
regulations → target → way
Judges and appeals courts have long claimed the power under this statute to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency regulations they deem illegal, invalidating them on a universal basis. asserted
they → claim → basis
Since Trump returned to office, his administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits challenging his aggressive moves to limit immigration, pursue mass deportation, end diversity initiatives and curtail transgender rights, among other actions, that have pushed the boundaries of presidential authority. asserted
that → return → authority
Various plaintiffs have sued by invoking the APA in numerous cases including to fight the termination of humanitarian legal status for hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the United States, major cuts to research grants related to racial minorities or LGBT people, and the use of a mass voter verification system to conduct sweeping citizenship checks. asserted
plaintiffs → sue → checks
Proponents, including numerous state governments that regularly sue the federal government, say this judicial tool is an essential bulwark against executive overreach. asserted
tool → include → overreach
Others say the APA is important to maintain uniform regulations applied equally to everyone. asserted
APA → say → everyone
"When an agency adopts a rule that has been held to be unlawful, sometimes the only sensible solution is to wipe it off the books," said law professor Ronald Levin of Washington University in St. Louis. asserted
Levin → adopt → Louis
"You can't have a food-safety rule that applies only to some. asserted
that → have → some
You can't have an auto-safety manufacturing rule that applies only to some manufacturers," Levin said. asserted
Levin → have → manufacturers
"It's a tool they (judges) should have — not one they should use in every case, but ... there are some cases where the need for it is compelling." asserted
need → have → it
The court's 2025 ruling restricting the power of judges came in litigation over Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, a right long recognized in the United States. asserted
ruling → restrict → States
That ruling addressed judicial power, not the legality of Trump's birthright citizenship directive. asserted
ruling → address → directive
Though Democratic President Joe Biden's administration also had asked the Supreme Court to rein in universal injunctions as lower courts hindered many of his key initiatives, the 2025 ruling proved to be a major victory for Trump. asserted
ruling → ask → Trump
The justices issued a separate 6-3 ruling last June on the legality of Trump's birthright citizenship policy, rejecting it as unconstitutional. asserted
justices → issue → it
'SURPRISE' MEDICAL BILLS The administration wants to extend the constraints that the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling placed on injunctions to similar orders judges may issue to invalidate policies under the APA. uncertain
judges → surprise → APA
The regulation at issue in the case being appealed by the administration sought to constrain "surprise" medical bills from hospitals and health providers outside a patient's health insurance network. asserted
regulation → appeal → network
A Texas association of medical doctors, air-ambulance providers, and other plaintiffs argued that the regulation violated the APA and artificially deflated their insurance reimbursement rates. asserted
regulation → argue → rates
The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals voided parts of the rule nationwide in August on the grounds of an APA violation. asserted
Court → base → violation
The Trump administration's appeal is not challenging the 5th Circuit's decision about the regulation's legality. asserted
appeal → challenge → legality
Rather it seeks to prevent the judicial use of the APA to stop a policy nationwide. asserted
it → seek → policy
The administration contends, as it did in its case against universal injunctions, that the APA does not grant courts such sweeping authority, instead allowing them to block a regulation's enforcement at most against the specific plaintiffs who challenged it in a particular case. asserted
who → contend → case
The Supreme Court "should return the lower courts to their proper role under the APA," the Justice Department said in its filing. asserted
Department → return → filing
If the Supreme Court agrees, Levin said, "it would take longer for challengers to get unlawful regulations removed from the books." Biden's administration also tried in 2023 to convince the Supreme Court to limit the use of this power by judges in a case in which Republican attorneys general from Texas and Louisiana challenged an immigration policy. asserted
general → agree → policy
The justices did not take up the invitation and backed Biden in that case on other grounds. asserted
justices → take → grounds
Trump's administration may face pushback from a broad array of opponents on its new effort. uncertain
administration → face → effort
Texas, Florida and some other states, mostly Republican-led, had urged the 5th Circuit not to "neuter" the APA's effectiveness, calling the law important for maintaining the balance of power between states and the federal government. "The APA is a critical tool ... to curb federal overreach and incursions into state sovereignty by executive-branch agencies," these states said. asserted
states → lead → agencies
Give feedback · no sign-in needed

No sign-in needed for now. Your note is sent without a name, so it cannot be answered.

History Support