Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them
Trump Pursues Rare Supreme Court Rehearings Amid Unprecedented Legal Maneuvers
Trump seeks do overs at a Supreme – President Donald Trump has emerged as an advocate for second chances within the nation’s highest judicial body. Following the conclusion of the Supreme Court’s term last week, which featured numerous significant rulings, Trump and his legal advisors have proposed utilizing an uncommon procedural mechanism. This approach would enable the justices to revisit several of their recent determinations—a process that has proven unsuccessful in over half of its historical attempts.
A Dual Strategy for Judicial Review
Trump’s legal representatives have already submitted formal requests for the Court to reconsider its refusal to hear an appeal concerning a $5 million judgment against the president. This verdict established that Trump had both sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, a prominent magazine columnist. Simultaneously, on Wednesday, Trump publicly committed to challenging the Court’s recent decision that invalidated his executive order attempting to terminate automatic birthright citizenship.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” Trump declared on his social media platform. “I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”
According to Supreme Court regulations, parties possess a twenty-five-day window following any decision to submit rehearing petitions. However, judicial practice demonstrates that such requests receive approval primarily when substantial new information emerges after the original ruling, rather than merely because the unsuccessful party disagrees with the outcome.
The Birthright Citizenship Challenge
On June 30, the Court delivered a 6-3 vote invalidating Trump’s attempt to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship through executive authority. Five justices determined that the order contravened the citizenship provisions contained within the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided additional reasoning, concluding that while the order remained constitutionally sound, it was nonetheless prohibited by existing federal immigration legislation.
The most recent instance of the Supreme Court considering a rehearing request for an argued appeal occurred in 1965. That matter, known as Maryland v. US, concerned a 1958 aviation collision between a commercial aircraft and a Maryland National Guard training flight. The central question involved whether plaintiffs could pursue damages against the federal government. The Court determined in 1965 that the pilot served as a Maryland state employee rather than a federal government worker. However, plaintiffs contended that lower courts had examined only the pilot’s liability, excluding government air traffic controllers. Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted this distinct issue to proceed through lower judicial channels.
Historical Precedents for Reconsideration
Nearly ten years before the Maryland case, the Court granted a rehearing petition regarding a military tribunal that had convicted two civilian wives for killing their military husbands abroad—one in England and another in Japan. Upon reconsideration, the Court determined that these women could not face trial through court-martial proceedings. This remains the sole occasion when the Supreme Court has reheard a case and subsequently reversed its original position.
“It is extremely rare for the court to grant reconsideration,” explained Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. “When it does so, it is typically because some vital information was not before it originally,” Dorf told CNN. “Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail.”
Looking Ahead
The Department of Justice has yet to address questions regarding Trump’s commitment to pursuing a rehearing. Based on historical patterns, Trump’s prospects appear marginally improved in the Carroll matter, though success remains unlikely. The president’s attorneys recently urged the Supreme Court to revisit its decision denying his appeal of the $5 million Carroll verdict. They have also petitioned lower courts to postpone the payment while the justices evaluate this request.
Trump has indicated plans to appeal a separate Carroll-related case and has suggested the Supreme Court should consolidate both matters for consideration. However, his legal team previously made this recommendation in correspondence with the Court last month. Despite this, the Court denied the appeal last week without any dissenting votes. Carroll’s attorneys declined to provide commentary for this report.
Reconsiderations of decisions to deny appeals occur more frequently than reexaminations of final judgments, though they almost invariably involve substantial changes in circumstances since the Court’s original action. The most recent instance of the Supreme Court granting such relief occurred slightly over a year ago in a dispute concerning federal anti-doping regulations for the horseracing sector. In that matter, the Supreme Court returned the controversy to a federal appeals court for further examination after a different appeals court had reached an opposing conclusion regarding the law’s constitutionality.
In asking for reconsideration, Trump’s legal team is betting on the Court’s willingness to engage with novel arguments and potentially reconsider its interpretation of executive authority in matters of citizenship and legal accountability.
