ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The court is not being asked to render a final decision but rather to set the rules of the road while the case makes its way through the courts.

The justices have issued orders in 14 cases so far. The Trump administration has won more than it has lost, including on Monday when the high court allowed the resumption of swift removals of migrants to countries other than their homelands.

Among the administration's other victories was an order allowing it to enforce the Republican president's . Among its losses was a prohibition on using an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act to alleged to be gang members to .

Here are some of the appeals still before the high court.

The Education Department has laid off nearly 1,400 employees

A federal judge in Boston has ordered the employees reinstated and also blocked action on Trump's plan to dismantle the department, one of his top campaign pledges.

In his order last month, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun wrote that the layoffs “will likely cripple the department.� The federal appeals court in Boston rejected the administration's emergency request to put Joun's order on hold.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Joun overstepped his authority and was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration.

The layoffs help put in the place the “policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration’s view, are better left to the states,� Sauer wrote.

Massachusetts school districts, education groups and Democratic-led states sued over Trump's plan.

The court could act at any time.

Another judge blocked plans to downsize the federal workforce

Sauer recently renewed the administration's request for the high court to clear the way for , while a lawsuit filed by labor unions and cities proceeds.

The high court filing came after an appeals court refused to freeze a California-based judge’s halting the cuts, which have been led by the . The appeals court found that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation’s food-safety system and health care for veterans.

In her ruling last month, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump’s administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce.

The administration initially asked the justices to step in last month, but withdrew its appeal for technical, legal reasons.

The court could act at any time.

Trump wants to change citizenship rules in place for more than 125 years

Several judges quickly blocked an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office that would to children who are born to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

The administration appealed three court orders that prohibit the changes from taking effect anywhere in the country.

Earlier in May, the justices took the rare step of in an emergency appeal. It's unclear how the case will come out, but the court seemed intent on while looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders.

One possibility advanced by some justices was to find a different legal mechanism, perhaps a class action, to accomplish essentially the same thing as the nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's citizenship order.

Nationwide injunctions have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts to remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.

Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump in January, Sauer told the court during the arguments.

The court could act anytime, but almost certainly no later than early summer.

___

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .