Firings
The administration has summarily fired or put on leave thousands of federal employees. Court orders have reversed the firings of two government watchdog officials.
One of these cases, Dellinger v. Bessent, was the first legal challenge that the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. In that appeal, the Supreme Court initially issued a preliminary ruling siding against the administration. The case was later dismissed with a ruling that the president was within his rights to fire the officials.
In another case, a federal judge temporarily halted the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to shield people from fraud and abuse by lenders and financial firms.
Board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting who received emails stating President Trump had fired them are suing the administration, asserting that the president does not have the power to terminate them.
- Appeal · March 31 National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought
After the Trump administration moved to fire hundreds of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees, consumer advocates and the bureau’s union sued, saying only Congress has the authority to close the bureau. A judge ordered a temporary halt to the agency’s dismantling that the Trump administration has appealed.
- Appeal · March 5 Harris v. Bessent
President Trump fired Cathy Harris from an independent agency that oversees federal employment disputes and whistleblower protections. Ms. Harris is suing for wrongful termination. Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, blocked her firing. The Trump administration is appealing the decision.
- American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
The Office of Personnel Management ordered federal agencies to fire tens of thousands of federal employees. A coalition of unions sued, saying the terminations violated the law and the Constitution. A judge temporarily reversed the firings, and later directed six agencies to reinstate any probationary employees who had been terminated improperly.
- Storch v. Hegseth
Shortly after taking office, President Trump fired the inspectors general for several federal agencies and departments, in defiance of a law that requires presidents to give Congress 30 days’ notice before removing any inspector general, along with reasons for the firing. Eight of the fired independent watchdog officials sued, saying their removals were illegal.
- American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump
- Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- State of New York v. Kennedy
- National Nurses United v. Kennedy
- Grundmann v. Trump
- Samuels v. Trump
Budget freezes
The administration’s attempt to freeze as much as $3 trillion in federal funding has stalled in several cases.
An effort to gut the United States Agency for International Development is on hold after the Supreme Court sided with a district judge, who ordered funding restored to the agency.
An order to slash “overhead” at research labs funded through the National Institutes of Health is similarly blocked by a district judge.
Judges have ordered the administration to unfreeze funds, but the administration has exploited various legal loopholes to keep funds jammed up.
Twice, judges have issued “motions to enforce” because the government failed to promptly heed their initial orders.
- Appeal · April 28 New York v. Trump
After the Trump administration sought to enact a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states, more than twenty sued the Office of Management and Budget, saying the freeze was unlawful. A judge later found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unfreeze the funds.
- Appeal · Feb. 24 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump
President Trump issued executive orders seeking to ban diversity practices at certain educational institutions. A group of college diversity officers sued, saying the orders usurp Congress’s power and violate the Constitution. A judge blocked the administration from freezing any current funding obligations, and the administration has appealed the ruling.
- Temporary restraining order · Feb. 10 Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health
The Trump administration planned to cut $4 billion in federal funding for research at universities, cancer centers and hospitals. University associations and major research centers sued, arguging that the freeze would “devastate medical research.” A judge issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the plan nationwide.
- State of Illinois v. FEMA
The Department of Homeland Security issued new rules requiring states and cities that receive grants for disaster preparation and recovery to adhere to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda or face the possibility of losing billions of dollars. A coalition of 20 state attorneys general sued the department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, saying the requirements are illegal and will cause irreparable harm.
- State of California v. U.S. Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation announced that it would require states that receive its grants to adhere to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Twenty states sued, saying that the administration’s requirements are unconstitutional and that “more people will die” if billions in federal transportation funding are withheld.
- Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium v. U.S. Department of Education
- Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation
- City of Chicago v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Oregon Council for the Humanities v. DOGE
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty v. Lake
Birthright citizenship
On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to stop treating as U.S. citizens any children born in the United States after a certain date whose parents are undocumented or who are in the country legally but temporarily. Several judges have issued temporary orders stopping the move.
- Appeal · March 4 New Jersey v. Trump
After President Trump instructed the government to stop recognizing children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents as citizens, several states sued, saying the administration’s actions were unconstitutional. A judge blocked the order from taking effect, and the administration has appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
- Appeal · Feb. 11 CASA v. Trump
An immigrant advocacy group is suing, saying the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional. Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction that protects the right to U.S. citizenship for children born on U.S. soil. The administration is appealing the decision.
- Appeal · Feb. 7 Washington v. Trump
President Trump instructed the government to stop recognizing as citizens children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents. In a suit brought by four state attorneys general, Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, indefinitely blocked the order from taking effect. The administration appealed, but the appeals court declined to reverse the order.
- Doe v. Trump
- County of Santa Clara v. Trump
- OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio
- Aleman v. Trump
- Le v. Trump
- New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump
DOGE
At the heart of much of the action is Elon Musk’s initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency, which has amassed extraordinary power, ostensibly to cut costs and reorder the government.
- Preliminary injunction · March 10 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DOGE
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-profit organization, sued Elon Musk’s cost-cutting effort, known as the Department of Government Efficiency, arguing that its internal emails are subject to public disclosure laws. A judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering DOGE to release the emails.
- American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald
- Aviel v. Gor
- Child Trends v. U.S. Department of Education
- American Oversight v. DOGE
- American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration
- Pippenger v. DOGE
- Brehm v. Marocco
- Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk
Immigration
Opponents are challenging immigration policies, including the administration’s efforts to authorize immigration agents to enter houses of worship, speed up and broaden the scope of deportations, withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities and make it harder for refugees to claim asylum in the United States.
The administration’s efforts to cancel a longstanding refugee program have been temporarily blocked. The move to authorize immigration raids in houses of worship has been blocked, but the protection is limited to the groups suing.
After thousands of international students were notified that their legal status in the United States was being rescinded, scores of them sued the Trump administration. In April, the administration abruptly restored the students’ legal statuses, and the government moved to dismiss many of the suits, saying immigration officials were working on a new system for reviewing and terminating international students’ records.
One of the most closely watched immigration cases concerns a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who in March was deported to a prison in El Salvador without a hearing — and despite a court order that expressly forbid authorities to send him to the county. The Trump administration accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of having ties to MS-13, though he has never been charged with being a gang member or any other crime.
- Preliminary injunction · April 4 Abrego Garcia v. Noem
Three courts, including the Supreme Court, have told the Trump administration to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was deported to a prison in El Salvador without a hearing and despite a court order. A federal judge has suggested that the government is stonewalling in failing to return the man to the United States and ordered an inquiry into whether the White House violated the Supreme Court’s order.
- S. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
The Trump administration has increased the amount of biometric data and documentation that sponsors, including family members, of children who enter the United States alone are required to give to authorities. With a nonprofit law firm, a group of children in immigration custody sued, saying the new policy is illegal and has delayed their timely release.
- Ozturk v. Hyde
In March, a Turkish graduate student who co-wrote an essay criticizing Israel in a student newspaper was arrested outside her Massachusetts home by masked federal agents. The student, Rumeysa Ozturk, sued, saying the government had detained her in unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. After Ms. Ozturk spent six weeks in detention, a judge ordered her to be released while her case continues.
- Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
President Trump issued a memo directing the government to expand the migrant operations center at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay. Ten non-citizens in U.S. custody, who were described in court documents as being at “at imminent risk of transfer” to the base, sued the government, calling the transfers unconstitutional.
- Khalil v. Joyce
In March, federal immigration authorities detained Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who had recently graduated from Columbia University, where he played a prominent role in pro-Palestinian student demonstrations. The Trump administration asserts Mr. Khalil threatens its foreign policy goal of halting the spread of antisemitism, and lawyers for Mr. Khalil say he has been targeted for constitutionally protected speech. An immigration judge in Louisiana found that Mr. Khalil could be deported, but a federal judge in New Jersey has ordered the government not to remove Mr. Khalil from the country while he considers the case.
- CASA v. Trump
- Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- G.M.G. v. Trump
- American Gateways v. D.O.J.
- Suri v. Trump
Trans rights
Several lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s moves to prohibit recognizing transgender Americans according to their gender identity.
Among the Trump administration policies challenged in various suits are efforts to place transgender women who are federal prisoners in men’s housing, end gender-transition medical treatments for inmates, bar trans people from the military, withhold federal funding from hospitals that offer gender-related treatment to patients younger than 19 and prevent transgender people from reflecting their gender identities on U.S. passports.
The move to freeze federal funding to hospitals that provide gender treatment to minors was blocked from taking hold in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado, which sued the administration. Separately, a judge blocked the administration’s attempt to place transgender women who are federal prisoners into men’s prisons.
- Doe v. Bondi
President Trump issued an executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to house transgender women with male inmates and stop medical treatment related to gender transitions. Three transgender women in prison sued, saying they had a right to essential medical care and to be kept safe while incarcerated. A judge temporarily blocked the order, and the Trump administration has appealed the case.
- PFLAG v. Trump
With their parents and advocacy groups, six transgender people between the ages of 12 and 18 sued to block President Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict medical treatments for trans youths, arguing that it violated the Constitution. A judge temporarily ordered the administration to continue federal funding for hospitals that offer transition care for people under the age of 19, a decision the Trump administration has appealed.
- Jones v. Bondi
- Brown v. Trump
- Schlacter v. U.S. Department of State
- Minnesota v. Trump
- Kingdom v. Trump
- Moe v. Trump
- Shilling v. Trump
- Talbott v. Trump
Jan. 6 Capitol riot
Hoping to head off what they fear is a looming purge, F.B.I. agents and employees have sued to block Mr. Trump from releasing the names of agents and staff members who helped investigate the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
Congestion pricing
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is suing the Trump administration for halting New York City’s congestion pricing program, which charges tolls when cars enter the most crowded parts of Manhattan.
- Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy
The M.T.A. lawsuit argues that the administration’s actions are politically motivated, arbitrary and unlawful. The authority says that congestion pricing has already been successful in reducing traffic, improving air quality and increasing ridership on public transit.
Climate policy
Upon returning to office, President Trump said he was revoking several Biden-era environmental policies, including protections against drilling in certain areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic.
- New York v. Trump
On the first day of his second term, President Trump issued a memorandum that would halt all leasing of federal lands and waters for new wind farms pending a government review, and direct federal agencies to stop issuing permits for all wind farms. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the order was outside the president’s authority and contrary to existing laws such as the Clean Air Act.
- State of Washington v. Trump
- State of Washington v. U.S. Department Of Transportation
- Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of Transportation
- Power Forward Communities v. Citibank, N.A.
- Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of Interior
- The Sustainability Institute v. Trump
- Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. U.S.D.A.
- Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S.D.A.
Public health data
A left-leaning advocacy group is suing the administration after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down online information about environmental justice, H.I.V. treatments, fertility clinics and recruiting diverse populations for clinical trials. The plaintiffs claim that taking down the information violates the Administrative Procedure Act and will slow down medical research.
- Preliminary injunction · Feb. 11 Doctors for America v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
President Trump signed an executive order banning any reference to race, gender identity or sexual orientation in all executive departments and agencies, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take down some pages on its website. Doctors for America sued the Trump administration, and Judge John D. Bates of the D.C. Federal District Court issued a temporary restraining order, requiring the C.D.C. to temporarily restore the pages.
Federal access restrictions
The White House has used its power over access to federal property to single out certain organizations for punishment, prompting legal action.
The administration is barring Associated Press reporters from official press events because the news agency continues to use the name Gulf of Mexico in its articles, rather than change to “Gulf of America.”
- Zaid v. Executive Office of the President
- Larrabee v. Trump
- Doe 1 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President
- Associated Press v. Budowich
- Jenner & Block v. D.O.J.
- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v. Executive Office of the President
- Decided · May 2 Perkins Coie v. D.O.J.
In March, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to punish the law firm Perkins Coie for working for Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign. The order sought to strip its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings and officials. In May, a federal judge ruled that the order was unconstitutional and permanently blocked the administration from enforcing it.
Federal Election Commission
President Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 18 blocking any federal employee from expressing a legal opinion that diverges from his and the attorney general’s. That would include members of the Federal Election Commission, whose job is to administer federal campaign finance laws.
- Democratic National Committee v. Trump
In its lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee alleges that the order undermines the independence of the F.E.C., which is supposed to be bipartisan and not subject to direct presidential control.
Tariffs
State officials, small businesses and political groups have sued the Trump administration over its tariff policy, contending that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. In one case, a group of 12 states sued Mr. Trump in the U.S. Court of International Trade, asking for the tariffs to be declared unlawful.
Other suits
- Federal Education Association v. Trump
- Fidelity National Financial v. Bessent
- King County v. Trump
- Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- North America’s Building Trades Unions v. Department of Defense
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget
- American Foreign Service Association v. Trump
- American Library Association v. Sonderling
- Washington v. Trump
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump
link
More Stories
Trump administration further clarifies telework expectations
Management Technician for Military & Veteran Services & New Student Orientation
Business of Home