The Supreme Court is signaling fading confidence that the Trump administration will act in good faith in response to judicial decisions limiting its immigration agenda, a sign that the courts are growing as frustrated with President Trump as he is with them.

The dynamic came into focus as the Supreme Court mulled Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions and swift deportation efforts, while lower courts have also expressed a creeping doubt that the government can be trusted to abide by their decisions.

The divide could become a test on whether judges will maintain their long-standing deference to the government’s representations in court. However, it’s not always clear-cut, as the justices proved Monday when they sided with Trump by allowing him to strip nearly 350,000 Venezuelans’ temporary legal protections.

Trump has charted an ambitious course to carry out his promised immigration agenda — from attempting to redefine birthright citizenship to employing rarely used legal authorities for mass deportations — that has fueled a barrage of litigation.

Perhaps most notably, he has looked to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which permits swift deportations in certain circumstances.

Previously, presidents have only leveraged the law during declared wars. But it can also be invoked during an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” which Trump claims enables him to quickly send to El Salvador the Venezuelans whom the administration alleges are members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

The Supreme Court has declined to resolve that question yet, but its emergency decisions so far reveal an apparent 7-2 split over whether to trust the government’s assurances.

The latest battle emerged after the American Civil........

© The Hill