This public resource tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions. If you think we are missing anything, you can email us at lte@justsecurity.org. Special thanks to Just Security Student Staff Editors Rick Da and Jeremy Venook.
The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions
Due to pressing demand, we are publishing the Tracker in its present form. It will soon be available as an interactive table.
Table of Contents
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
1. Birthright citizenship (5 cases)
2. Punishment of sanctuary cities and states
3. “Expedited removal”
4. Discontinuation of CBP One app
STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT/PERSONNEL
5. Reinstatement of Schedule F for policy/career employees (2 cases)
6. Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (4 cases)
7. Solicitation of information from career employees
GOVERNMENT GRANTS, LOANS AND ASSISTANCE
8. “Temporary pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs (2 cases)
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS
9. Housing of transgender inmates
10. Immigration enforcement against places of worship
11. Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
1. Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order)
(1) Case Name: New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump
Plaintiffs: New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support; League of United Latin American Citizens; Make the Road New York
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The ACLU sued the Trump administration on behalf of individuals in New Hampshire who would have their childrens’ citizenship revoked. The ACLU argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update-1: On Jan. 23, 2025, responding to State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
(2) Case Name: O. Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc; La Colaborativa v. Donald J. Trump et al
Plaintiffs: O. Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc.; La Colaborativa
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” A group of pregnant women whose children would not receive citizenship sued; the plaintiff identified as “O. Doe” lives in Massachusetts and has temporary protected status in the United States. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update-1: On Jan. 23, 2025, responding to State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
(3) Case Name: State of New Jersey et al v. Donald J. Trump et al
Plaintiffs: State of New Jersey; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of California; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; District of Columbia; State of Hawai’i; State of Maine; State of Maryland; Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Nevada; State of New Mexico; State of New York; State of North Carolina; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; State of Wisconsin; City and County of San Francisco
Complaint (Jan. 21, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The attorneys general of 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship under the executive order. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update-1: On Jan. 23, 2025, responding to State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
(4) Case Name: Casa v. Donald Trump
Plaintiffs: CASA, Inc; Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project; Maribel; Juana; Trinidad Garcia; Monica; Liza
Complaint (Jan. 21, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The plaintiffs, including immigrant rights organizations CASA and ASAP, as well as individual immigrant parents, argue that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), both of which guarantee citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. The complaint asserts that the executive order exceeds presidential authority and causes irreparable harm by stripping constitutionally protected rights from children born to immigrants (e.g., the right to remain in the United States, access public benefits, and participate fully in civic life) and destabilizes their families, potentially leaving children stateless and separating them from their parents.
Update-1: On Jan. 23, 2025, responding to State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
(5) Case Name: State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al
Plaintiffs: State of Washington; State of Arizona; State of Illinois; State of Oregon
Complaint (Jan. 21, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Four states sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship under the executive order. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update-1: On Jan. 23, 2025, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
2. Executive Action: Immigration policy — punishment of sanctuary cities and states
Plaintiffs: Organized Communities Against Deportation; Brighton Park Neighborhood Council; Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Raise the Floor Alliance
Complaint (Jan. 25, 2025)
Case Summary: Acting Attorney General Benjamine Huffman issued policy guidance that, among other immigration-related policies, instructs the Civil Division of the Department of Justice “to identify state and local laws, policies, and activities that are inconsistent with Executive Branch immigration initiatives and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws.” The plaintiffs, Chicago-based immigrant-advocacy organizations, allege that the guidance, and subsequent raids “specifically for the purpose of ending the Plaintiffs’ Sanctuary City advocacy and movement building,” violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the Department of Justice’s guidance.
3. Executive Action: Immigration Policy – “Expedited Removal” (Executive Order)
Case Name: Make the Road New York v. Benjamine Huffman (Acting Secretary of Homeland Security) et al
Plaintiff: Make the Road New York
Complaint (Jan. 22, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand the use of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include noncitizens located anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have been continuously present for more than two years. The plaintiff, Make the Road New York (MRNY), argues the rule violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the INA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by subjecting individuals to summary deportation without adequate procedural safeguards. The suit claims the rule is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, and disregards legal and constitutional protections against wrongful removal.
4. Executive Action: Immigration Policy – Discontinuation of CBP One app (Executive Order)
Case Name: Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiffs: Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center
Complaint (June 12, 2024); Motion for TRO (Jan. 23, 2025)
Case Summary: The Trump administration executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to cease operation of the CBP One app, which was created by the Biden administration to enable asylum seekers to schedule appointments to request asylum. The Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the ACLU had previously sued to challenge a Biden administration rule that limited asylum access to those presenting at a port of entry or falling under another narrow exception. In response, the government argued that the CBP One app remained as a pathway by which asylum-seekers could request appointments. In light of the discontinuation of the CBP One app, Las Americas, et al, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and requested an immediate status conference and leave to file supplemental briefings to address the government’s position.
STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT/PERSONNEL
5. Executive Action: Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order)
(1) Case Name: National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump et al
Plaintiff: National Treasury Employees Union
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. The National Treasury Employees Union sued to block implementation of the order on behalf of the union’s members. The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates laws Congress passed to provide civil-service protections to the vast majority of civil servants, with only limited exceptions for Senate-confirmed political appointees.
(2) Case Name: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Donald Trump et al
Plaintiff: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Complaint (Jan. 28, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. PEER, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Democracy Forward, sued to enjoin implementation of the executive order. The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and deprives civil servants of due process by stripping them of protections guaranteed under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
6. Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order)
(1) Case Name: Public Citizen Inc et al v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget
Plaintiffs: Public Citizen, Inc.; State Democracy Defenders Fund; American Federation of Government Employees
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Two advocacy organizations and the American Federation of Government Employees sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements.
Plaintiffs: Jerald Lentini; Joshua Erlich; National Security Counselors, Inc.
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. The advocacy organization National Security Counselors, Inc., sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements.
Plaintiffs: American Public Health Association; American Federation of Teachers; Minority Veterans of America; VoteVets Action Fund; The Center for Auto Safety, Inc.; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Several advocacy organizations sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements.
(4) Case Name: Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget
Plaintiff: Center for Biological Diversity
Complaint (Jan. 20, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Office of Management and Budget under the Freedom of Information Act, demanding records related to communications between OMB and DOGE’s leadership or those acting on its behalf.
7. Executive Action: Solicitation of information from career employees
Case Name: Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management
Plaintiffs: Jane Does 1-2
Complaint (Jan. 27, 2025)
Case Summary: The Office of Personnel Management announced it was testing a new system to email all civilian federal employees from a single email address, HR@opm.gov. Individuals claiming to be OPM employees subsequently posted online that the emails were being stored on an unsecure server at OPM. Plaintiffs, employees of executive-branch agencies who received “test” emails from HR@opm.gov requesting information, sued. The lawsuit alleges that the new procedure violates the E-Government Act of 2002 and asks the court to require the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting any data from
GOVERNMENT GRANTS, LOANS AND ASSISTANCE
8. Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs
(1) Case Name: National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget
Plaintiffs: National Council of Nonprofits; American Public Health Association; Main Street Alliance; SAGE
Complaint (Jan. 28, 2025)
Case Summary: The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The plaintiff organizations, represented by Democracy Forward, are small businesses and nonprofits that receive federal funds. The suit sought a temporary restraining order to allow the Court “an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions,” alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.
Update-1: On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government.
Update-2: On Jan. 29, 2025, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
(2) Case Name: New York et al v. Donald J. Trump et al
Plaintiffs: State of New York; State of California; State of Illinois; State of Rhode Island; State of New Jersey; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of Arizona; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; The District of Columbia; State of Hawai’i; State of Main; State of Maryland; State of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Nevada; State of North Carolina; State of New Mexico; State of Oregon; State of Vermont; State of Washington; State of Wisconsin
Complaint (Jan. 28, 2025)
Case Summary: The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the policy. The suit alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.
Update-1: On Jan. 28, 2025, responding to National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government.
Update-2: On Jan. 29, 2025, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
Update-3: On Jan. 29, 2025, Judge Jack McConnell said he intends to issue a new restraining order on the ground that the rescission memo was undercut by the statement of the White House Press Secretary.
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS
9. Executive Action: Housing of transgender inmates (Executive Order)
Case Name: Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al
Plaintiff: Maria Moe
Complaint (Jan. 26, 2025)
Case Summary: Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiff, Maria Moe, is a transgender female federal inmate who was placed in a Special Housing Unit to await transfer to a men’s facility. The suit seeks to enjoin the Executive Order on the basis that it violates the 5th Amendment by discriminating against transgender individuals on the basis of sex and gender identity; the 8th Amendment by subjecting Moe to risk to life and dignity; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate Moe’s gender dysphoria; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
10. Executive Action: Immigration enforcement against places of worship (Policy Memo)
Plaintiffs: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; New England Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; Baltimore Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Inc.; Adelphi Friends Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; and Richmond Friends Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Complaint (Jan. 27, 2025)
Case Summary: On January 20, 2025, the Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas, which designated churches and other “structure[s] dedicated to activities of faith,” among other places such as schools and hospitals, as protected areas from which ICE and CBP enforcement is restricted. Under the new policy guidance, immigration enforcement in such areas would only be subject to the enforcement officers’ “common sense.” The plaintiffs, a coalition of Quaker congregations, seek to enjoin enforcement of this policy change and request a court declaration that any government policy permitting immigration enforcement based solely on subjective common sense is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment. Their complaint also claims that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
11. Executive Action: Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order)
Case Name: Nicolas Talbot, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al.
Plaintiffs: Nicolas Talbott; Erica Vandal; Kate Cole; Gordon Herrero; Dany Danridge; Jamie Hash; Koda Nature; Cael Neary
Complaint (Jan. 28, 2025)
Case Summary: On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. This order categorically prohibits both enlistment and continued service, deeming transgender individuals incompatible with military standards of “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” The plaintiffs are a group of active duty transgender service members and prospective or current enlistees. They argue that the categorical exclusion of this class of individuals from military service violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the policy is arbitrary and lacks a legitimate government interest.