Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them
Trump Pursues Rare Supreme Court Rehearings Amid Unlikely Success Odds
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 their recent determinations—a process that has proven unsuccessful in over fifty percent of attempts during the past half-century.
Legal representatives for the president have already submitted formal requests for reconsideration regarding the court’s refusal to hear an appeal connected to a $5 million judgment. That verdict established that Trump had both sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, a magazine columnist. Additionally, on Wednesday, Trump announced his intention to challenge the court’s ruling that terminated his executive order concerning 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.”
The Mechanics of Supreme Court Rehearings
According to technical regulations, parties possess a twenty-five-day period following any decision to submit rehearing petitions. However, practical application reveals that the court typically approves such motions only when substantial new information emerges after a ruling, rather than when the defeated party merely disagrees with the result.
On June 30, the justices cast a 6-3 vote to nullify Trump’s attempt to abolish automatic birthright citizenship through executive action. Five members of the court determined that the order contravened the citizenship provision contained within the Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while finding the order constitutionally permissible, concluded that federal immigration legislation nonetheless prohibited it.
The most recent instance of the Supreme Court considering a rehearing request for an argued appeal occurred in 1965. That matter, designated Maryland v. US, centered on a 1958 aviation collision between a commercial aircraft and a Maryland National Guard training flight. The central question involved whether plaintiffs could pursue compensation from the federal government.
The court ultimately determined in 1965 that the pilot functioned as a Maryland state employee rather than a federal government worker. Plaintiffs contended that lower courts had examined only the pilot’s liability while overlooking government air traffic controllers. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued a concise order permitting this distinct issue to proceed through lower judicial channels.
Historical Precedents for Judicial Reconsideration
Nearly ten years prior to the Maryland case, the court approved a rehearing petition concerning the court-martial proceedings of two civilian women who had killed their military spouses abroad—one in England and another in Japan. Upon reconsideration, the justices determined that these women could not face trial through court-martial procedures. This remains the singular 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 informed CNN. “Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail.”
The Department of Justice provided no response when questioned about Trump’s commitment to pursuing a rehearing. Based on historical patterns, Trump’s prospects appear marginally improved in the Carroll matter, though success remains improbable. His legal team recently urged the Supreme Court to revisit its decision declining his appeal of the $5 million Carroll verdict. Furthermore, they have petitioned lower courts to postpone the payment while the justices evaluate this request.
Trump has indicated plans to file a separate appeal concerning Carroll and has suggested the Supreme Court should consolidate both cases for consideration. However, his attorneys previously made this same proposal in correspondence with the court last month. Despite this earlier suggestion, the court denied the appeal last week without any dissenting votes. Carroll’s legal representatives declined to provide commentary for this report.
Reconsiderations of appeal denials occur more frequently than reexaminations of final decisions, though they nearly always involve meaningful changes in circumstances since the court’s original action. The most recent instance of such relief occurred slightly over twelve months ago in a dispute involving federal anti-doping legislation applicable to the horseracing sector. In that matter, the Supreme Court returned the controversy to a federal appeals court for further examination after another federal appeals court had reached an opposing conclusion regarding the law’s constitutionality.