Christina Gatti

The justices blocked a lower court order that temporarily halted the ban's enforcement.

It's not easy to bring such cases. That's because the federal government is generally immune from being sued, except in certain circumstances set out by Congress.

President Trump issued an executive order on day one of his administration that sought to limit birthright citizenship. That idea is widely considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago, and that decision has never been disturbed.

The Supreme Court ordered the administration to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly taken to El Salvador and remains in custody there.

The Supreme Court's stay, which allows the administration to execute the firings for now, while it litigates in federal court, does not mean the terminations were lawful.

The order marks a win for the Trump administration, even if temporary, and it could well be a harbinger of things to come as the administration continues to clash with federal courts.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices allowed the administration to freeze millions of dollars in grant funding for diversity and instructional programs at public and private universities.

Per Congress' directive, the occupant of the position can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

At the center of legal challenges against Trump's executive actions is whether he's telling federal agencies to violate a key legal standard established nearly 80 years ago.