Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
A divided Tenth Circuit panel on Monday ruled in Mukantagara v. Mullin that an Immigration and Nationality Act jurisdiction-stripping provision does not bar judicial review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determinations that an individual did not meet the definition of a refugee when admitted to the United States—a prerequisite for terminating refugee status. The court had previously vacated and invited re-argument following the Supreme Court’s June decision in Mullin v. Doe, which held that a similar INA provision barred judicial review of nonconstitutional challenges to the termination of Temporary Protected Status designations. But ultimately, Judge Gregory A. Phillips wrote, “we’ve landed about where we started.” (Opinion.)
The First Circuit on Monday heard arguments in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government’s appeal of Judge Allison D. Burroughs’ (D. Mass.) decision finding the government’s funding freeze and grant terminations unlawful on First Amendment, Title VI, and APA grounds and permanently enjoining similar retaliatory withholdings, which restored more than $2.6 billion in grants. (AP.) (Boston Globe.) The government sought to characterize the grant terminations as a contracts dispute, arguing that Harvard’s challenge should have been channeled to the Court of Federal Claims and that the court lacked jurisdiction to order “specific performance” of the grants. (Brief.) (Oral Argument.)
President Trump announced on Truth Social on Monday that his super PAC would take over paying for his previously taxpayer-backed personal advertising campaign, though he described paying for them with ‘U.S.A. money” as a “rather standard thing to do.” (Truth Social.) CBS). (WSJ.) The ads had been funded through a $20 million contract administered by the Department of Homeland Security. (NYT). For background on the ads, see a previous Roundup.
Jack Goldsmith argued that two recent reports issued by the inspectors general of the Department of Defense and the Federal Reserve demonstrate that inspectors general “can be consequential, even in the unitary executive.” (Executive Functions.)
Ilya Somin argued that Trump’s recent efforts to use Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to impose importation bans will be constrained by many of the same legal principles that guided Learning Resources and other recent decisions invalidating presidential tariffs. (Lawfare.)
Steve Vladeck argued that statistics from the October 2025 Term show that “the emergency docket is producing as many significant, non-unanimous rulings as the merits docket,” and that, consistent with every recent term, “the divisions on the emergency docket were, once again, homogeneously ideological.” (OneFirst.)
Bruce Swartz, Harry Seavey, and Cara Barazia argued that President Trump’s promise to pay Americans $5,000 apiece if the Republican Party retains control of Senate and House in the 2026 midterm elections “potentially [violates] multiple federal criminal statutes” that prohibit buying votes and is not protected by the First Amendment or presidential immunity. (Just Security.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. Kingdom: The government filed an application to the Supreme Court on September 28 seeking a stay of the district court’s August 26 order barring enforcement of the Bureau of Prisons’ 2026 policy ending hormone therapy, “sex-trait-modification surgery,” and social accommodations for inmates with gender dysphoria. The Chief Justice requested a response to the application by 4 p.m. on October 8.