The Supreme Court intervened this week in a number of cases involving President Donald Trump’s efforts to dramatically transform the government, maintaining legal guardrails for deportations while also allowing the administration to continue with mass firings of federal workers.

In all, the high court took action in four pivotal cases, while another federal appeals court gave the green light to more federal layoffs.

Here’s a look at the biggest legal developments of the last week:

Mixed ruling in Alien Enemies Act case

In a ruling Monday, the Supreme Court threw out a judge’s nationwide decision temporarily blocking the removal of people alleged to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump and his allies had complained bitterly about U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s temporary restraining order last month barring deportations under the rarely used wartime law, even going as far as suggesting the judge should be impeached.

Boasberg had issued the order after the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case had argued some of those being sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador weren’t gang members at all, and were being whisked away without any due process.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling said legal challenges should be heard in the districts where the individual detainees are being held, an argument the government had made, but also said that the detainees must be given due process moving forward.

“AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs,” the court wrote in its unsigned majority opinion.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her colleagues shouldn’t have blocked Boasberg’s order and should not reward the administration for having disregarded the initial deportees’ due process rights.

“The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.

Order to ‘facilitate’ return of mistakenly deported man

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the Justice Department has acknowledged was mistakenly sent to the El Salvador prison on March 15.

“The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal,” the ruling said.

Despite the government’s acknowledgement, it has not disclosed any efforts to return him to the U.S. or to move him to another country, maintaining he was out of its control now that he’s in El Salvador.

The administration has alleged that Garcia, who grew up in El Salvador, is a member of the gang MS-13, an allegation his attorneys have denied. They’ve also noted that he has no criminal record in the U.S. or El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis last week ordered Garcia to be returned to the U.S. by Monday night — a decision that the high court paused while it reviewed the case.

At a hearing before Xinis on Friday, a lawyer for the Justice Department said he had no information about what efforts the administration had made to get Garcia back, and no information about his current whereabouts.

“This is extremely troubling,” the judge said.

She ordered the government to give her daily updates. The attorney for the Justice Department, Drew Ensign, said he anticipated having some answers for her by April 15.

You’re fired, again 

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court halted a federal judge’s ruling requiring several federal agencies to reinstate around 16,000 probationary workers the Trump administration had sought to fire.

William Alsup, a federal judge in California, last month ordered the administration to reinstate the probationary workers — generally employees with less than two years on the job or workers who were recently promoted to new positions.

Alsup found the administration hadn’t followed proper procedures for mass layoffs and had falsely claimed the workers were canned due to performance issues.

“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee, and say it was based on performance, when they know good and well, that’s a lie,” Alsup said, calling the move “a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

The Supreme Court, however, found Alsup’s ruling lacked the proper legal footing.

“The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing,” the ruling said.

The decision said other claims in the case can move forward, but paused Alsup’s order reinstating the workers until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fully hears and weighs in on the issue.

Appeals court green-lights thousands more firings

On Wednesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted a similar but broader order in a Maryland case where the government had been directed to rehire around 24,000 probationary workers.

“The Government is likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims,” the 2-1 ruling by the appeals court said, staying an order last month that the workers be rehired at least temporarily.

The panel said it was pausing U.S. District Judge James Bredar’s ruling until it decides the government’s full appeal.

Bredar had ordered the employees to be reinstated after finding “the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advanced notice. It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons. On the record before the Court, this isn’t true.”

Supreme Court temporarily allows two more firings

This week, the Supreme Court also temporarily blocked two other federal employees from being rehired — whether that decision stands could have widespread implications.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday issued an administrative stay — essentially a temporary pause — of orders reinstating Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Trump fired Wilcox and Harris, both Biden appointees serving multiyear terms, during the first weeks of his second term. Both officials challenged their removals by pointing to laws that essentially say they can only be fired for malfeasance or neglect of duty.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Trump has the power to fire them regardless.

Both Wilcox and Harris are involved in independent agencies that hear disputes over fired workers. Legal experts have said that if their firings are upheld, it could pave the way for Trump to seek to fire members of the Federal Reserve, which traditionally operates independently of the White House.

The court will decide what next steps to take in the case after hearing from lawyers for the two ousted officials, Roberts order said.