Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency

This article is about federal lawsuits during Donald Trump's second presidency. For the legal affairs in his personal and business life, see Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump. For his first presidency, see Legal affairs of the first Trump presidency.

Donald Trump began his second presidential term in office on January 20, 2025.

President Donald Trump signing executive orders

Upon taking office, Trump signed a series of executive orders. Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action.^[1] He issued more executive orders on his first day than any previous president.^[2] In the administration's first two months, 127 lawsuits were filed against it, according to data at New York University.^[3] In his first weeks, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars.^[4][5][6]

Many cases have been brought in response to Executive Order 14158, establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).^[7][8] Trump identified billionaire and tech CEO, Elon Musk, as leading DOGE, although he did not hold the office of DOGE Administrator.^[9] Musk began federal cost-cutting measures, including layoffs, shutting down departments and agencies, ending aid, and removing programs, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.^[10]

The Trump administration has claimed that they have wide powers to bypass Congressional oversight,^[11] while many others believe these actions to be unconstitutional.^[12] By mid-July, a Washington Post analysis found he defied judges and the courts in roughly one third of all cases against him, actions which were described by legal experts as unprecedented for any presidential administration.^[13] His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis.^[14]

Federal judges found many of the administration's actions to be illegal.^[15] By August 2025, several grant terminations and spending freezes were found by judges and the Government Accountability Office as being illegal and unconstitutional.^[16][17][18] His attempt to remove birthright citizenship was called "blatantly unconstitutional" by Reagan-appointed Judge John C. Coughenour,^[19] and judges have also described other actions to be unconstitutional such as his unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers as part of his wider actions targeting political opponents and civil society.^[20][21][22]

Multiple analyses conducted by academic scholars and The New York Times found that both Republican and Democratic judicial appointees have found numerous constitutional and statutory flaws with Trump administration policies.^[23]

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions cannot be issued by a federal district court. Following this decision, preliminary injunction may only provide relief for a plaintiff and may not block the implementation of the orders nationwide.^[24]

Color Key

•   Ruled in favour of plantiff
•   Ruled in favour of Trump administration
•   Preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order granted
•   Preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order denied
•   Ongoing
•   Voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the court

Actions against law firms and lawyers

Main article: Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00716[25] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5241[26]	March 11, 2025	On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14230, barring the federal government from using the services of law firm Perkins Coie and suspending security clearances.[27] On May 2, the court granted summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP and on June 30, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.[28]	Summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP Appeal is ongoing
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00917[29] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5277[30]	March 28, 2025	On March 27, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14250, ending contracts with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr clients. The executive order cited their ties to Robert Mueller who led the Mueller special counsel investigation.[31] On May 27, the court declared the executive order unconstitutional and on June 6, the firm amended the judgement, seeking to extend it to all federal agencies, not just the ones named in the complaint. On July 28, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.[32]	Summary judgement for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Appeal is ongoing
Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00916[33] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5265[34]	March 28, 2025	On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14246, suspending security clearances for the employees of Jenner & Block, restricted their access to federal buildings, and directed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. It cited the firm's prior association with Andrew Weissmann who was involved in the Mueller special counsel investigation.[35] On May 23, the court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment. On July 22, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.	Summary judgement for Jenner & Block Appeal is ongoing
Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01107[36] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5310[37]	April 11, 2025	On April 9, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14263, suspending Susman Godfrey LLP's security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and directing agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. The court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment.[38] On August 26, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.	Summary judgement for Susman Godfrey LLP Appeal is ongoing
Doe 1 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01124[39]	April 15, 2025	Three law students filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the government's investigation against the law firms violated their reasonable expectation of privacy.[40]	Ongoing
American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01263[41]	April 23, 2025	The American Bar Association (ABA) alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully terminating grants to the ABA Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence.[42]	Preliminary injunction granted Ongoing
Zaid v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01107[43]	May 5, 2025	On March 22, 2025, Presidental Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum, rescinding security clearances and access to classified information to a number of lawyers, including Mark Zaid.[44]	Ongoing
American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01888[45]	June 16, 2025	The American Bar Association alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and separation of powers by targeting law firms such as suspending their security clearances and cutting off federal contracts.[46]	Ongoing

Actions against political opponents and civil society

See also: Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
Baraka v. Habba (D.N.J.), 2:25-cv-06846[47]	June 3, 2025	Further information: Newark immigration detention center incident On May 9, 2025, Newark mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing after protesting against the opening of a new immigration detention facility.[48] Baraka was released on bail and the charges were dropped.[49] After the charges were dropped, Baraka announced that he was suing for damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution and accused the prosecutor, Alina Habba of defamation for comments that she had made about the arrest on X (formerly known as Twitter).[50]	Ongoing
Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission (D.D.C) 1:25-cv-01959[51]	June 23, 2025	Media Matters for America filed a lawsuit over an FTC investigation into the organization organizing an advertiser boycott of Twitter under Elon Musk.
American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03553[52]		See also: 2025 United States federal government shutdown

Conditions of imprisonment

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
Taylor v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01161[53]	April 16, 2025	37 former death row inmates who had their sentence commuted to life without parole by the Biden administration are suing the Trump administration for bypassing statutorily-required procedures for reassignment of prisoners, by using Executive Order 14164 to move them to ADX Florence, despite the Federal Bureau of Prisons determining that they were not suitable for transfer to ADX Florence.[54]	Preliminary injunction denied

Department of Government Efficiency

Executive orders 14158, 14210, 14219, and 14222

Main articles: Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency and Department of Government Efficiency § Related executive orders

Disclosure of personal and financial records

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00313[55]	February 3, 2025	Federal employee unions sued the Treasury Department for granting DOGE access to sensitive financial data without legal justification, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act.[56]	Preliminary injunction denied
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00339[57]	February 5, 2025	The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations are suing the Department of Labor for allowing DOGE access to confidential agency records. The court denied the plaintiff's preliminary injunction and stated that they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.[58]	Preliminary injunction denied
State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01144[59] Appealed to 2nd Cir., 25-1860[60]	February 7, 2025	19 states, led by New York sued President Donald Trump and the United States Department of the Treasury claiming that they unlawfully expanded access to Treasury financial systems to DOGE, risking unauthorized data use and potential misuse of federal funds. On 21 February, a preliminary injunction was granted, barring the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE.[61] On April 11 the judge allowed one DOGE staffer access, and on May 27 allowed four more DOGE staffers and cleared the way for the entire DOGE team to get access.[62]	Preliminary injunction granted
University of California Student Association v. Carter (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00354[63]	February 7, 2025	The University of California Student Association sued over the United States Department of Education's decision to allow DOGE to access student financial records, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Internal Revenue Code and the Privacy Act. Judge Randolph D. Moss denied the plaintiff's TRO, stating that access to view data did not create irreparable injury and on April 8, the plaintiffs dropped the case.[64]	Voluntarily dismissed
National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00380[65]	February 9, 2025	The National Treasury Employees Union allege that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's sharing of personnel records with DOGE violated privacy laws.[66]	Ongoing
American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00430[67]	February 10, 2025	The plaintiffs alleged that the United States Department of Education had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. The court issued a TRO on February 24 and a preliminary injunction on March 24. On April 7, the Fourth Circuit granted the government's motion to stay.[68]	Preliminary injunction granted, then stayed by 4th Circuit
American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01237[69]	February 11, 2025	Current and former employees allege that the Office of Personnel Management had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. The court granted injunctive relief prohibiting any further disclosure of OPM records.[70]	Preliminary injunction granted
Morris v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00435[71]	February 11, 2025	Deborah Morris filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, declaring that the creation and actions of DOGE were in violation of the Privacy Act and the False Claims Act. The court dismissed it the following day, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing as she was not personally involved in the claims made.[72]	Dismissed by court
Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00407[73]	February 11, 2025	Five federal employees filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Office of Personnel Management, claiming that they had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification.[74]	Ongoing
Gribbon v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00422[75]	February 12, 2025	Six individual plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit stating that DOGE unlawfully accessed their personal information. On May 15, they voluntarily dropped their case.[76]	Voluntarily dismissed
Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00457[77]	February 17, 2025	The Center for Taxpayer Rights challenges DOGE's access to taxpayer information stored by the Internal Revenue Service.[78]	Ongoing
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.), 1:25-cv-00255[79]	February 17, 2025	The Electronic Privacy Information Center alleges a mass data breach of federal employee and taxpayer information, citing screenshots of confidential Treasury payments. The court stated that they had not met the burden for a TRO or preliminary injunction.[80]	Preliminary injunction denied
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00596[81]	February 21, 2025	The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alleged that the Social Security Administration's gave sensitive data to DOGE personnel. The court granted a temporary restraining order on March 7 and on April 1, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by the defendant. On April 15, the District court granted a preliminary and on April 30, the Fourth Circuit denied a motion to stay. On May 2, a request for an administrative stay was appealed to SCOTUS, which was granted on June 6.[82]	TRO granted, then stayed by SCOTUS
American Civil Liberties Union v. Social Security Administration (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01217[83]	April 21, 2025	The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Social Security Administration and United States Department of Veterans Affairs for denying their Freedom of Information Act requests to information regarding DOGE’s access to sensitive personal data.[84]	Ongoing

Establishment of DOGE

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00167[85] (consolidated with Public Citizen v. Trump)	January 20, 2025	The plaintiffs challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On February 18, it was consolidated into Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump.[86] On May 12, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.[87]	Voluntarily dismissed
Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00166[88] (consolidated with Public Citizen v. Trump)	January 20, 2025	The plaintiff challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On February 4, it was consolidated into Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump.[89]	Ongoing
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00164[90] (consolidated with Lentini v. DOGE and American Public Health Association v. OMB)	January 20, 2025	The plaintiff challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On March 3, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.[87]	Voluntarily dismissed
State of New Mexico v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00429[91] Petitioned to D.C. Circuit, In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072[92] (consolidated with Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk)	February 13, 2025	14 states challenges Elon Musk's role in DOGE, asserting that he is performing governmental duties without official nomination by the President or confirmation by the Senate.[93]	TRO denied
J. Does 1–26 v. Musk (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00462-TDC[94] Appealed to 4th Cir., 25-1273[95]	February 26, 2025	26 anonymous plaintiffs, current and former employees of the United States Agency for International Development alleged that the broad scope of DOGE was in violation of the Appointments Clause and separation of powers, since Elon Musk was never confirmed by the Senate. On March 18, a preliminary injunction was granted, prohibiting the defendants from taking further action to shut down USAID, however, a stay was issued by the Fourth Circuit on March 28.	Ongoing
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00612[96]	March 3, 2025	The Center for Biological Diversity allege that the creation of DOGE violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that several federal agencies had failed to respond to FOIA requests.[97]	Ongoing
Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00643[98] (consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk)	March 5, 2025	The plaintiffs allege that DOGE overstepped its authority when cutting federal spending, terminating government employees and dismantling government agencies. On March 20, it was consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk.[99]	Consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk)

Freedom of Information Act and record-keeping requirements

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00165[100]	January 20, 2025	The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit seeking Trump presidential transition and DOGE records regarding environmental related issues such as air and water quality, climate change, public land and imperiled plants and wildlife.[101]	Ongoing
American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00409[102]	February 11, 2025	The American Oversight organization filed a lawsuit against DOGE, requesting communication between Elon Musk and his staff after the Office of Management and Budget failed to issue a determination within the required time for FOIA requests.[103]	Ongoing
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00511[104] In re: U.S. DOGE Service (D.C. Cir.), 25-5130[105] U.S. Doge Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (U.S. Supreme Court), 24A1122[106]	February 20, 2025	The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington allege that the United States Digital Service and DOGE wrongfully withheld documents relating to DOGE and its activities. On March 10, the court partially awarded a preliminary injunction and on April 15, ordered limited discovery into DOGE's activities. After being denied a stay by the D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the discovery order had to be narrowed, but left the rest of the discovery order intact.[107]	Preliminary injunction granted
Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00527[108]	February 21, 2025	The Project on Government Oversight alleges that the Trump administration's recordkeeping practices are subject to the Federal Records Act and that they have unlawfully designated their records as presidential to avoid transparency obligations. On June 17, the court denied a preliminary injunction.[109]	Preliminary injunction denied
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00684[110]	March 7, 2025	The Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit after being denied a FOIA request regarding communication between DOGE, government agencies and the White House.	Preliminary injunction denied
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00749[111]	March 14, 2025	The Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit after several FOIA requests related to communications between the United States Marshals Service and federal judges about cases relating to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, potentially following direction from DOGE.[112]	Ongoing
The Intercept v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02404[113]	March 24, 2025	The Intercept alleges that DOGE and the United States Digital Service wrongfully withheld information regarding emails between Elon Musk and staffers that were subject to a FOIA request on the erroneous assertion that they are not subject to FOIA.	Ongoing
Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01768[114]	April 8, 2025	In December 2024, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a FOIA request related to DOGE to a number of government agencies and did not hear back from any of them.[115]	Ongoing

Large-scale reductions in force

• American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00977^[116]
• American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01780,^[117] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-1677,^[118] and Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees (Supreme Court), 24A904^[119]
• American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-03698,^[120] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3030 and 25-3293^[121]
• Elev8 Baltimore, Inc. v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md), 1:25-cv-01458^[122]
• Jackson v. Kennedy (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01750^[123]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00420^[124] (voluntarily dismissed)
• Pueblo of Isleta v. Secretary of the Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00696^[125]
• State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.),1:25-cv-01363^[126]
• State of Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00748,^[127] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1248^[128]

Dismantling of agencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

• Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Vought (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00458^[129]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00381,^[130] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5091^[131]

Executive order 14217, pertaining to the U.S. African Development Foundation

• Brehm v. Marocco (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00660^[132]

Executive order 14217, pertaining to actions against the U.S. Institute of Peace

• Pippenger v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01090^[133]
• U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00804,^[134] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5185^[135]

Executive order 14238, pertaining to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

• American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Goldstein (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03072^[136]
• American Library Association v. Sonderling, 1:25-cv-01050^[137]
• State of Rhode Island v. Trump (D.R.I.), 1:25-cv-00128^[138]

Executive order 14238, pertaining to the U.S. Agency for Global Media

• Abramowitz v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00887,^[139] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5145^[140]
• Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. United States (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00966,^[141] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5150^[142]
• Open Technology Fund v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00840^[143]
• Radio Free Asia v. United States (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00907,^[144] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5151^[145]
• RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00799,^[146] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5158^[147]
• Widakuswara v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01015^[148] (transferred from S.D.N.Y., 1:25-cv-02390^[149]), appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5144^[150]

Executive order 14242, pertaining to the U.S. Department of Education

• American Educational Research Association v. Department of Education (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01230^[151]
• Association for Education Finance and Policy, Inc. v. McMahon (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00999^[152]
• Carter v. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00744^[153]
• Morgan v. McMahon (W.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00416^[154]
• NAACP v. United States of America (D.Md.), 8:25-cv-00965^[155]
• State of New York v. McMahon (D.Mass), 1:25-cv-10601,^[156] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1500^[157]
• Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10677^[158] (consolidated with State of New York v. McMahon)
• Victim Rights Law Center v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11042^[159]

Head Start

• Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program v. Kennedy (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00781^[160]

Department of Health and Human Services

• State of New York v. Kennedy (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00196^[161]

Job Corps

• Cabrera v. U.S. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01909^[162]
• National Job Corps Association v. U.S. Department of Labor (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-04641^[163]

National Endowment for the Humanities

• American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03657^[164]
• The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03923^[165] (case consolidated with American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald)

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

• National Nurses United v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01538^[166]

Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility

• National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (D. D.C.), 1:25-cv-01683^[167]

Dear colleague letter

• American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00628^[168]
• NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01120^[169]
• National Education Association v. US Department of Education (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00091^[170]

Executive orders 14151, 14168 and 14173, pertaining to a ban on DEIA initiatives and transgender rights in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees

• American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00702,^[171] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1281^[172]
• Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-02005^[173]
• Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (E.D.Va.), 1:25-cv-00300,^[174] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1527^[175]
• Doe v. Collins (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00760^[176]
• Erie County New York v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00783^[177] (voluntary dismissal^[178])
• National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00333,^[179] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1189^[180]
• National Urban League v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00471^[181]
• Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00079^[182]
• San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump (D.D.C.), 4:25-cv-01824^[183]
• Southern Education Foundation v. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01079^[184]
• State of California v. U.S Department of Education (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10548,^[185] appealed to the First Circuit, 25-1244,^[186] appealed to the Supreme Court as Department of Education v. California, 24A910^[187]
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-12162^[188]
• FreeState Justice v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-02482^[189]

Executive orders 14168, 14185 and 14190, pertaining to the removal of books from school libraries

• E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity (E.D. Va.), 1:25-cv-00637^[190]
• King County v. Turner (W.D. Wa.), 2:25-cv-00814,^[191] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3664^[192]

Election law: Executive order 14248

• Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00952^[193]
• League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00946^[194]
• League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00955^[195]
• State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10810^[196]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wa.), 2:25-cv-00602^[197]

Democratic National Committee v. Trump, League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump have been consolidated and proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

Environment

Alligator Alcatraz

• Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem (S.D. Fla.) 1:25-cv-22896^[198]

Executive Order 14148

• Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska), 3:25-cv-00038^[199]

Executive Order 14156

• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00869^[200]

Opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing

• Kāpaʻa v. Trump (D. Haw.) 1:25-cv-00209^[201]

Presidential Memorandum halting federal approvals of wind-energy development

• State of New York v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11221^[202][203]

Reconsideration of the endangerment finding

• Environmental Defense Fund v. United States Department of the Interior (D.D.C) 1:25-cv-00871^[204]
• Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12249^[205]

Wind energy

• Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02999^[206]
• Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D. Md.) 1:24-cv-03111^[207]

Executive control over independent agencies

• Cook v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-02903^[208]
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01305^[209]

Executive Order 14215

• Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00587^[210] (dismissed)

Removal of independent agency heads

• Aviel v. Gor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00778,^[211] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5105^[212]
• Boyle v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01628^[213]
• Brown v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01764^[214]
• Dellinger v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00385,^[215] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5025^[216] / 25-5028^[217] / 25-5052,^[218] appealed to the Supreme Court, Bessent v. Dellinger, 24A790^[219] (case closed after petitioner withdrew it)
• Grundmann v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00425,^[220] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5165^[221]
• Harris v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00412,^[222] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5055^[223] and 25-5037,^[224] appealed to the Supreme Court, Bessent v. Harris (consolidated with Trump v. Wilcox)
• LeBlanc v. U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00542,^[225] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5197^[226]
• Perlmutter v. Blanche (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01659^[227]
• Primus v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03521^[228]
• Samuels v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01069^[229]
• Slaughter v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00909^[230]
• Wilcox v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00334,^[231] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5057,^[232] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. Wilcox, 24A966^[233]

Federalism

See also: 2025 deployment of federal forces in the United States

Federalizing the California National Guard

• Newsom v. Trump^[234][235] (N.D.Ca.), 3:25-cv-04870,^[236] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3727^[237]

Federalizing the Illinois National Guard and deploying the Texas National Guard to Illinois

• State of Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-12174,^[238] appealed to the 7th Cir., 25-2798^[239]

Federalizing the Oregon National Guard and deploying the National Guard from other states to Oregon

• State of Oregon v. Trump (D. Ore.), 3:25-cv-01756,^[240] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-6268^[241]

Rescission of approval New York City's congestion pricing plan

• Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01413^[242]

Takeover of Washington, D.C. metropolitan police department

• District of Columbia v. Donald J. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-02678^[243]
• District of Columbia v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03005^[244]

Freedom of Information Act, records retention and online information removal

• America First Legal Foundation v. Roberts (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01232^[245]
• American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00883^[246]
• American Oversight v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01585^[247]
• Cato Institute v. U.S. Special Operations Command (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01719^[248]
• Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01131^[249]
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01020^[250]
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01051^[251]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00586^[252]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00567^[253]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00940^[254]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01535^[255]
• Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00617^[256]
• Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology v. Customs and Border Protection (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-01732^[257]
• Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01529^[258]
• Protect Democracy Project v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01111^[259]

Freedom of the press

Executive order 14172

Main article: Executive Order 14172

Associated Press v. Budowich

The Associated Press has sued three members of the White House Office for banning them from press pool events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One, in response to the organization's continued references to the Gulf of Mexico instead of the "Gulf of America", the name promulgated in Executive Order 14172.

• Associated Press v. Budowich (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00532,^[260] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5109^[261]

Executive Order 14290

Main article: Executive Order 14290

• National Public Radio, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01674^[262]
• Public Broadcasting Service v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01722^[263]

Force used against reporters

• Chicago Headline Club v. Noem (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-12173^[264]

Gender identity

Executive order 14168

Main article: Executive Order 14168

Executive order 14168, pertaining to the housing of transgender inmates

• Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00286^[265] (retitled Doe v. Bondi), appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5213^[266]
• Jones v. Trump (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00401^[267] (retitled Jones v. Bondi), appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5101^[268]
• Kingdom v. Trump (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00691^[269]
• Moe v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10195^[270]

Executive order 14168, pertaining to the passport policy for transgender people

• Orr v. Trump (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10313,^[271] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1579^[272]
• Schlacter v. U.S. Department of State (D.Md), 1:25-cv-01344^[273]

Executive order 14168, pertaining to the removal of information on gender-related topics from federal websites

• Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00322^[274]
• Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10595^[275]

Executive orders 14168 and 14187, pertaining to the ban on gender affirming care for individuals under the age of 19

• PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00337^[276]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash), 2:25-cv-00244^[277]

Executive orders 14168 and 14201, pertaining to the ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports

• State of California v. U.S. Department of Justice (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-04863^[278]
• State of Maine v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Me.), 1:25-cv-00131^[279] (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice)
• Tirrell v. Edelblut (D.N.H.), 1:24-cv-00251^[280]
• United States v. California Interscholastic Federation (C.D. Cal.), 8:25-cv-01485^[281]

Executive order 14183, pertaining to the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military

• Ireland v. Hegseth (D. N.J.), 1:25-cv-01918^[282]
• Shilling v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-00241,^[283] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-2039^[284] (retitled Shilling v. United States), appealed to the Supreme Court, United States v. Shilling, 24A1030^[285]
• Talbott v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00240^[286]

Government personnel

Disclosure of civil servant personnel records

• Comans v. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00624^[287]

Executive order 14147, pertaining to Department of Justice review of FBI personnel involved in January 6 investigations

• Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00325^[288]
• Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00328^[289]

Executive order 14171, pertaining to the reinstatement of schedule F

See also: Schedule F appointment § Reinstatement

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00264^[290]
• Government Accountability Project v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00347^[291]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00170^[292]
• Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00260^[293]

Federal deferred resignation program ("Fork in the Road" memo)

Main article: 2025 U.S. federal deferred resignation program

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10276^[294]

Rescission of collective bargaining

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Noem (W.D. Wa.), 2:25-cv-00451,^[295] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5157^[296]
• American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 4:25-cv-03070^[297]
• American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01030^[298]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00935^[299]

Removal of inspectors general

• Storch v. Hegseth (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00415^[300]

Solicitation of information

• Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00234^[301]

Grants, loans, and assistance

Denial of grants

• American Association of Physicians for Human Rights v. National Institutes of Health (D.Md.), 8:25-cv-01620^[302]
• American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10787^[303]
• City of New York v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01510^[304]
• Climate United Fund v. Citibank (D.D.C.), 1:24-cv-00698^[305]
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kennedy (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10814^[306]
• Harris County, Texas v. Kennedy (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-01275^[307]
• Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Mass), 3:25-cv-30041,^[308] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1368^[309]
• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00279^[310]
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass),1:25-cv-11116^[311]
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02990,^[312] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1424^[313]

Executive orders 14154, 14151 and 14222, regarding impoundment of allocated energy- and environment-related funds

• Butterbee Farm v. United States Department of Agriculture (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00737^[314]
• California Infrastructure and Economic Development v. Citibank (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00820^[315] (consolidated with Climate United Fund v. Citibank)
• State of Washington v. United States Department of Transportation (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00848^[316]
• Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.), 2:25-cv-02152,^[317] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1575^[318]
• Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture (D.R.I.), 1:25-cv-00097^[319]

Executive order 14188 and Title VI, regarding revocation of university grants in response to alleged antisemitism

See also: Education policy of the second Donald Trump administration

• American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02429^[320]
• American Association of University Professors - Harvard Faculty Chapter v. U.S. Department of Justice (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10910^[321]
• President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services (D.Mass), 1:25-cv-11048^[322]

Reduction of the indirect cost reimbursement rate for research institutions

• Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10340,^[323] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1344^[324]
• Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-11231^[325]
• Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Defense (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-11740^[326]
• Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Energy (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10912^[327]
• Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10346,^[328] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1345^[329]
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10338,^[330] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1343^[331]

Temporary pause in grants, loans, and assistance

• California v. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12118^{[332][333][334]}
• California v. McMahon (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00329^[335]
• California v. United States Department of Agriculture (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-06310^[336][337]
• Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth, Inc. v. DHHS (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00605^[338] (case dismissed by joint stipulation^[178])
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00740^[339]
• National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00239,^[340] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5148^[341]
• National Endowment for Democracy v. United States of America (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00648^[342]
• National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01265^[343][344]
• Shapiro v. U.S. Department of the Interior (E.D. Pa.), 2:25-cv-00763^[345]
• State of California v. United States Department of Transportation (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00208^[346]
• State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00206^[347]
• State of New York v. National Science Foundation (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-04452^[348]
• State of New York v. Trump (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00039,^[349] appealed to the First Circuit, 25-1236^[350]
• Inclusiv, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00948^[351]
• New Jersey v. Department of Justice (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00404^[352]
• State of New York v. Department of Energy (D. Ore) 6:25-cv-01458^[353]
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.R.I) 1:25-cv-00345^[354]
• State of New York v. United States Department of Justice (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00499^[355]

Termination of grants

• American Association of Physics Teachers v. National Science Foundation (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01923^[356]
• American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01263^[357]
• Child Trends, Incorporated v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01154
• City Of Chicago v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-05462^[358]
• City of Chicago v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-05463^[359]
• Shapiro v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (M.D.Pa.), 1:25-cv-00998^[360]
• State of Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D .R.I.), 1:25-cv-00121^[361]
• State of Washington v. United States Department of Education (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-01228^[362]
• Thakur v. Trump (N.D.Cal.), 3:25-cv-04737^[363]
• VERA Institute of Justice v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01643^[364]

Gun control

• State of New Jersey v. Bondi (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-01807^[365]

Health

• American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11916^[366]
• City of Columbus v. Kennedy (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-02114^[367]
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11913^[368]
• The Family Planning Association of Maine v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00364^[369]

Immigration, detention, deportation and citizenship

Actions related to unaccompanied minors

• Angelica S. v. Department Of Health And Human Services, 1:25-cv-01405^[370]
• Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (N.D. Ca.), 3:25-cv-02847,^[371] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-2358^[372] and 25-2808^[373]
• L.G.M.L. v. Kristi Noem (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02942^[374]

Actions in California

• Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem (C.D. Cal.) 2:25-cv-05605^[375][376]

Alligator Alcatraz

• C.M. v. Noem (S.D. Fla.) 1:25-cv-23182^[377]

Biometric information

• Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Department of Homeland Security ( D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00943,^[378] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5152^[379]

Closure of oversight offices

• Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01270^[380]

Department of Homeland Security revocation of temporary protected status

• CASA, Inc. v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00525^[381]
• Haitian Americans United Inc. v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10498^[382]
• Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump (E.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01464^[383]
• National TPS Alliance v. Noem (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01766,^[384] appealed to 9th Cir., 25-2120,^[385] appealed to the Supreme Court, Noem v. National TPS Alliance, 24A1059^[386]

Deportation of the family of an alleged hate-crime perpetrator

• Dvortsin v. Noem (D. Tex.), 5:25-cv-00664^[387] (transferred from D. Colo., 1:25-cv-01741)

Deportation to imprisonment in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01774^[388]

Deportation to a third country and torture prohibition

• D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10676,^[389] appealed to the First Circuit, 25-1311^[390] and 1393,^[391] appealed to the Supreme Court as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on application of stay) and Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on motion for clarification), 24A1153^[392]
• Quintero Chacon v. Dickerson (also known as E.D.Q.C. v. Stewart Detention Facility) (M.D. Georgia), 4:25-cv-00050^[393]

Detention and removal of a U.S. citizen child in connection with deportation of non-citizen family members

• V.M.L. v. Harper (W.D. La.), 1:25-cv-0055^[394] (voluntarily dismissed)

Executive Order 14159

Main article: Executive Order 14159

Access of lawyers to immigrants in detention

• Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00298^[395]

Expedited removal

• Make the Road New York v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00190^[396]

Funding freeze for immigration services

• Solutions In Hometown Connections v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00885^[397]

Sanctuary cities

• City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01350^[398]
• City of Chelsea v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10442^[399]
• Organized Communities Against Deportations v. Donald Trump (N.D.Ill.), 1:25-cv-00868 (case dismissed without prejudice)^[400]
• Pineros y Campesinos Unidos Del Noreste v. Noem (D. Ore.), 6:25-cv-00699^[401]

Executive order 14160, pertaining to birthright citizenship

Main article: Executive Order 14160 § Legal challenges

See also: Birthright citizenship in the United States

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The executive order argues that the children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.

New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H.) Case No. 1:25-cv-00038

On January 20, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump Administration, citing the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as affirming birthright citizenship, on behalf of New Hampshire Indonesian Community, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Make the Road Work.^[402][403]

On February 10, 2025, Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction.^[404]

O. Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc; La Colaborativa v. Donald J. Trump et al (D. Mass.) Case No. 1:25-cv-10135-LTS

In Massachusetts, a plaintiff, going by "O. Doe", along with a group of pregnant women whose children would not receive citizenship, if birthright citizenship were to be rescinded due to Executive Order 14160, sued^[405] Donald J. Trump et al.,^[406] citing the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

On February 13, 2025 Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction^[407] blocking enforcement of the Executive Order.

Case list

• Barbara v. Trump (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00244^[408]
• CASA Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00201-DLB,^[409] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1153,^[410] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. Casa Inc., 24A884^[411]
• County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 5:25-cv-00981^[412]
• Doe v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10135-LTS,^[406] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1169^[413] (consolidated with State of New Jersey v. Trump, 25-1170, at the appellate level)
• Franco Aleman v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-00163-JCC^[414] (consolidated with State of Washington v. Trump in the district court)
• Le v. Trump (C.D. Cal.), 8:25-cv-00104^[415]
• New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00038,^[402] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1348^[416]
• New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01309^[417]
• OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00287^[418]
• State of New Jersey v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10139,^[419] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1158,^[420] 25-1170,^[421] 25-1200,^[422] and 25-1898,^[423] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. State of New Jersey, 24A886^[424]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-00127-JCC,^[425] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-674 and 25-807,^[426] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. State of Washington, 24A885^[427]

Note: the Supreme Court consolidated Trump v. Casa Inc., Trump v. State of New Jersey, and Trump v. State of Washington.

Executive orders 14161 and 14188, pertaining to speech-related revocation of green cards and visas

See also: Activist deportations in the second Trump presidency, Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Detention of Mohsen Mahdawi, Detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, Deportation of Rasha Alawieh, and Education policy of the second Donald Trump administration

• American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10685^[428]
• Chung v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02412^[429]
• Khalil v. Joyce (D.N.J.), 2:25-cv-01963 (formerly S.D.N.Y. case number 1:25-cv-01935),^[430] appealed to the 3rd Circuit, 25-2162^[431] and 25-2357^[432] (these two appeals were consolidated) and 25-8019^[433]
• Mahdawi v. Trump (D. Vt.), 2:25-cv-00389,^[434] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1113^[435]
• Ozturk v. Hyde (D. Vt.), 2:25-cv-00374 (formerly D. Mass. case number 1:25-cv-10695),^[436] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1019^[437]
• President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-11472,^[438] appealed to the 1st Circuit, 25-1627^[439]
• Suri v. Trump (E.D. VA), 1:25-cv-00480,^[440] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1560^[441]
• Taal v. Trump (N.D.N.Y.), 3:25-cv-00335^[442] (case closed after petitioner self-deported)
• Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate (D. Colo.), 25-cv-00881^[443]

Executive order 14163, pertaining to suspension of the US refugee admissions program

• Pacito v. Trump (W.D. Wash), 2:25-cv-00255,^[444] appeals to the 9th Cir., 25-1313^[445] and 25-1939^[446]
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. U.S. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00465^[447]

Executive order 14165

Pertaining to the discontinuation of CBP One app

• Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:24-cv-01702^[448]

Pertaining to the IRS data sharing for immigration enforcement purposes

• Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00677,^[449] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5181^[450]

Executive Order 14165, pertaining to the termination of categorical parole programs

• Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10495,^[451] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1384,^[452] appealed to the Supreme Court, Noem v. Doe, 24A1079^[453]

Health data

• California v. HHS (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-05536^[454]

Memorandum pertaining to immigration enforcement against places of worship and schools

• Denver Public Schools v. Noem (D. Colo.), 1:25-cv-00474^[455]
• Mennonite Church USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00403,^[456] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5209^[457]
• Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00243,^[458] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1512^[459]

Memorandum pertaining to migrant transfers to Guantanamo

• Espinoza Escalona v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00604^[460] (voluntarily dismissed)
• Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00418^[461]
• Perez Parra v. Castro (D. N.M.), 1:24-cv-00912^[462] (case dismissed after the petitioners were deported)

Proclamation 10888, prohibiting non-citizens from invoking asylum provisions

• Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00306^[463]

Proclamation 10903, pertaining to the Alien Enemies Act

Main article: J.G.G. v. Trump

See also: March 2025 Venezuelan deportations and W.M.M. v. Trump

J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) is a class action and habeas corpus lawsuit brought by five Venezuelan men in immigration custody, contesting Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in presidential proclamation 10903 and the attempt to deport Venezuelan citizens in the US who are alleged to be members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The district court judge granted temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs and then, after certifying the class, granted another temporary restraining order for the class. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which denied the appeal, and then to the Supreme Court, which vacated the temporary restraining orders, stating that any challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought as a habeas corpus petitions, which requires that the petition be filed in the district where a petitioner is detained, and since the petitioners were detained in Texas, their petition in the District of Columbia had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.^[464] The court did not reach whether the use of the AEA to deport the men was constitutional, nor whether it applied to the plaintiffs.^[464] It added that the government had to give anyone it sought to deport under the AEA enough notice that they could file habeas complaints challenging their removal.^[465] Related cases were then filed in other districts.

• Agelviz-Sanguino v. Noem (S.D. Tex.), 4:25-cv-02116,^[466] appealed to the Fifth Circuit, 25-20203^[467] (voluntary dismissal)
• A.S.R. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.), 3:25-cv-00113^[468]
• Darwin Antonio Arevalo Millan v. Trump (C.D. Ca.), 5:25-cv-01207^[469]
• D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.), 1:25-cv-01163^[470]
• G.F.F. v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02886^[471]
• J.A.V. v. Trump (S.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00072,^[472] appealed to the 5th Cir., 25-40400^[473]
• J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00766,^[474] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5067^[475] and 25-5068^[476] (cases consolidated and voluntarily dismissed after Supreme Court ruling), and Trump v. J.G.G. (Supreme Court), 24A931;^[477] second appeal to the D.C. Cir., 25-5124,^[478] third appeal to the D.C. Cir., 25-5217^[479]
• J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.), 8:19-CV-01944,^[480] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1519^[481]
• M.A.P.S. v. Garite (W.D. Tex.), 3:25-cv-00171^[482]
• Sanchez Puentes v. Garite (W.D. Tex.), 3:25-cv-00127^[483]
• W.J.C.C. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.), 3:25-cv-00153^[484]
• W.M.M. v. Trump (N.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00059,^[485] appealed to the 5th Cir., A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 25-10534,^[486] and Supreme Court, 24A1007^[487]
• Y.A.P.A. v. Trump (M.D. Ga.), 4:25-cv-00144^[488]
• Zacarias Matos v. Venegas (S.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00057^[489] (case dismissed without prejudice)^[178]

Profiling and warrantless detention of US citizen despite evidence of citizenship

• Venegas v. Homan (S.D. Ala.), 1:25-cv-00397^[490]

Removal despite "withholding of removal" status due to fear of persecution

Main article: Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

• Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00951,^[491] first appeal to the Fourth Cir., 25-1345,^[492] and Noem v. Abrego Garcia (Supreme Court), 24A949,^[493] second appeal to the Fourth Cir.: Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1404;^[494] related district court case, Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-02780^[495]

Removal under Operation Return to Sender

• United Farm Workers v. Noem (E.D. Cal.), 1:25-cv-00246^[496]

Termination of F-1 student visa status

• Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (N.D. Ga.), 1:25-cv-01998
• Pasula v. Department of Homeland Security, (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00156^{[497][498][499]}

In addition to this class action suit, there are over 100 other suits.^[178]

International

Foreign aid

Ending agreements between the Bureau of International Labor Affairs and nonprofits

• American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01128^[500]

Executive order 14169

Main article: Executive Order 14169

See also: United States Agency for International Development § Lawsuits

• American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00352^[501]
• AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00400,^[502] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5046^[503] and 25-5098,^[504] appealed to the Supreme Court, Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, 24A831^[505]
• Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00402^[506]
• Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00469^[507]

Executive order 14203, pertaining to the International Criminal Court

• Iverson v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01353^[508] (voluntarily dismissed)
• Rona v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03114^[509]
• Smith v. Trump (D. Me.), 1:25-cv-00158^[510]

Tariffs

• Barnes v. United States (U.S. Court of International Trade), 1:25-cv-00043^[511] (dismissed for lack of standing)
• Emily Ley Paper, Inc. v Trump (N.D. Fla.), 3:25-cv-00464^[512]
• Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01248^[513]
• State of California v. Trump (N.D. Ca.), 3:25-cv-03372,^[514] appealed to the 9th Cir.,^[515]
• State of Oregon v. Trump (U.S. Court of International Trade), 1:25-cv-00077,^[516] appealed to the Federal Cir., 25-1813^[517] (consolidated with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump for the Federal Circuit ruling)
• V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (U.S. Court of International Trade), 1:25-cv-00066,^[518] appealed to the Federal Cir., 25-1812^[519]
• Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mont.), 4:25-cv-00026^[520]

See also

• Legal affairs of the first Donald Trump presidency
• Shadow docket