The trend marks a sharp departure from historical norms. Since 1995, the federal government filed only 23 such briefs, averaging fewer than one per year. In contrast, the Trump administration has submitted five since March 2025, plus two additional briefs on the interim docket, all without waiting for an invitation from the justices.
The strategy appears focused on issues central to the administration's second-term priorities, including religious freedom, public funding for private religious schools, and opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This contrasts with cases where the Court traditionally invites the government's views, which often involve technical questions like bankruptcy, employee benefits, and trademark law.
The administration's intervention has yielded significant results. In four of the five cases where it filed briefs supporting petitions for review since January 2025, the Supreme Court granted three petitions and summarily reversed the lower-court decision in the fourth. The Court also granted requests to pause lower-court orders in two congressional redistricting disputes involving New York and Texas.
In Hamm v. Smith, the administration supported Alabama's petition to overturn a ruling that a defendant was intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for execution. The government proposed a specific legal question regarding the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores, which the Court adopted when it granted review, rather than the narrower questions presented by the state.
In Goldey v. Fields, the administration urged the Court to summarily reverse a Fourth Circuit ruling that allowed an inmate to bring a Bivens claim for excessive force. The government avoided asking the Court to overrule Bivens entirely, likely to preserve credibility, and instead sought a narrower holding. The Court followed this recommendation in a unanimous decision on June 30, 2025.
The administration is currently involved in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case involving a Catholic preschool in Colorado challenging its exclusion from the state's universal preschool program. The preschool argues Colorado discriminated against it by refusing to exempt it from rules requiring admission of LGBTQ children and children with LGBTQ parents.
While the preschool's petition asked the Court to consider overruling Employment Division v. Smith, the Trump administration's brief asked the Court to consider only whether Colorado's law qualifies as neutral and generally applicable under that precedent. The administration argued the Court need not overrule Smith to resolve the dispute.
Legal observers note that increasing uninvited filings carries risks, including diluting the impact of individual briefs and compounding the workload of the Solicitor General's office. However, the administration appears willing to accept these risks to influence both the grant of review and the framing of the legal questions before the Court.