President Donald Trump is pursuing an unlikely legal strategy: asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider decisions it just handed down, a move that history shows rarely succeeds. In the days following the end of the court’s term, Trump and his legal team have signaled plans to seek rehearings on two major rulings—one involving his executive order on birthright citizenship and another concerning a $5 million verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case.
On Wednesday, Trump announced on social media his intention to request a rehearing of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that struck down his executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship. The court ruled on June 30 that the order violated the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, with a five-justice majority finding it unconstitutional and Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurring on separate statutory grounds. Trump called the ruling a “miscarriage of justice” and vowed to seek immediate reconsideration.
Supreme Court rules allow parties to file for a rehearing within 25 days of a decision, but such requests are rarely granted. The court typically only reconsiders when significant new information emerges after a ruling, not simply because the losing party disagrees. The last time the Supreme Court granted a rehearing in an argued appeal was in 1965, in the case Maryland v. US, which involved a 1958 airplane crash. The only instance where the court reversed itself on rehearing was nearly a decade earlier, in a case concerning the court martial of two civilian wives who killed their military husbands overseas.
Trump’s legal team has already filed for a rehearing of the court’s decision to deny an appeal over the $5 million verdict finding that he sexually abused and defamed columnist E. Jean Carroll. On Wednesday, Trump vowed to also seek a rehearing of the birthright citizenship ruling, which he called a “miscarriage of justice.” The court ruled 6-3 on June 30 that his executive order violated the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court rarely grants such requests. The last time it entertained a rehearing in an argued appeal was in 1965, and the only time it reversed itself on rehearing was in the 1950s. “It is extremely rare for the court to grant reconsideration,” said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. “Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail.”
Trump’s odds may be slightly better in the Carroll case, where the court denied his appeal without dissent. His lawyers have cited about a dozen cases since 1940 where the court reconsidered such denials, but legal experts note that these typically require a significant change in circumstances. A federal judge has already ordered the release of funds to Carroll, and an appeals court denied immediate relief.
