Lower-court judges have already blocked several Trump's policies including an asylum ban at the US-Mexico border.

Washington — The Supreme Court spent much of its most recent term responding to a fire hose of requests for emergency relief sought by the Trump administration, as President Trump's efforts to implement key aspects of his second-term agenda were stymied by lower courts on several fronts.

The majority did not explain its decision in the brief, unsigned order. The court's three liberal justices opposed the order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority handed Trump the power to repeal laws passed by Congress “by firing all those necessary to carry them out.”

Seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures.

In last week’s Supreme Court ruling, the justices allowed federal agencies to proceed with their reduction-in-force, or RIF, plans, putting on hold a lower court order that had temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from taking those steps without approval from Congress.

The U.S. Department of Justice argues the Missoula complaint is asking for a solution that is beyond the courts to provide.

Scholars and practitioners examine the Court’s most important regulatory decisions of this past term.