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, and to Matthew Fouracre and Nour Soubani.
The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions
The Tracker was first published on Jan. 29, 2025 and is continually updated. Last updated Feb. 6, 2025.
| Topic | Executive Action | Case Name | Complaint | Date Filed | Case Summary | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | O. Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc; La Colaborativa v. Donald J. Trump et al (D. Mass.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | State of New Jersey et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (D. Mass.) | Complaint | Jan. 21, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | Casa v. Donald Trump (D. Md.) | Complaint | Jan. 21, 2025 | 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. 27, 2025, Franco Aleman v. Trump (complaint) was consolidated with this case. Update-2: On Feb. 5, 2025, Judge Deborah Boardman issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the birthright citizenship Executive Order. | 2025-02-05 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (W.D. Wash.) | Complaint | Jan. 21, 2025 | 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. Update-2: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Coughenour issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the Executive Order. Update-3: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Coughenour issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction enjoining implementation of the Executive Order. | 2025-02-03 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Marco Rubio et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 30, 2025 | Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and for the children of parents on lawful temporary visas on the basis that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. OCA sued Marco Rubio and the heads of other departments and agencies on behalf of at least two pregnant women expected to give birth to children denied citizenship by the order. Both women reside in the United States on lawful, temporary, nonimmigrant visas. OCA argues that the order violates the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The suit identifies an injured “subclass” of “Targeted Children” denied the privileges and public benefits afforded to U.S. citizens, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order) | County of Santa Clara v. Trump, et al (N.D. Cal.) | Complaint | Jan. 30, 2025 | Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and for the children of parents on lawful temporary visas on the basis that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The County of Santa Clara sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship or whose U.S.-born children will not receive citizenship and to prevent administrative burdens and loss of tax revenues associated with that prospective loss of citizenship. Santa Clara argues that the order violates the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Immigration policy — punishment of sanctuary cities and states | Organized Communities Against Deportations et al v. Benjamine Huffman (Acting Secretary of Homeland Security) et al (N.D. Ill.) | Complaint | Jan. 25, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Immigration Policy – “Expedited Removal” (Executive Order) | Make the Road New York v. Benjamine Huffman (Acting Secretary of Homeland Security) et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 22, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Proclamation Prohibiting Non-Citizens from Invoking Asylum Provisions” (Proclamation) | Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Feb. 3, 2025 | Trump’s proclamation bars immigrants who arrive after the date of the proclamation from invoking provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would permit them to remain in the United States while pursuing asylum claims. The plaintiffs, three nonprofit organizations in Texas and Arizona providing legal services and assistance to undocumented individuals or asylum seekers, argue that the order violates the following statutory and constitutional provisions: 1. the Asylum Statute in the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (by barring noncitizens from applying for asylum in direct contradiction to congressional protections); 2. the Withholding of Removal Statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (by preventing noncitizens from seeking protection from persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion); 3. the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (by depriving noncitizens of a meaningful opportunity to present CAT claims and shielding them from potential torture); 4. the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D) (by denying unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries their statutory right to regular removal proceedings); 5. the INA’s procedural protections for removal, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1229a, 1225(b) (by overriding mandated removal proceedings and eliminating procedural protections, including credible fear screenings); 6. the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (by implementing policies that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law) and § 706(2)(D) (by failing to follow the required rulemaking process before enacting sweeping changes to statutory protections); and 7. the constitutional separation of powers (by exceeding presidential authority and unlawfully overriding congressionally enacted immigration protections). The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the proclamation is unlawful and an injunction stopping its implementation. | 2025-02-04 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Immigration Policy – Discontinuation of CBP One app (Executive Order) | Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.) | Complaint Motion for TRO (Jan. 23, 2025) | June 12, 2024 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Immigration and Citizenship | Executive Action: Access of Lawyers to Immigrants in Detention (Executive Order) | Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 31, 2025 | In 2024, Congress appropriated funds for two immigration programs, the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH). On Jan. 22, 2025, the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a stop-work order that halted funding for four programs providing legal resources to unrepresented people facing deportation. The EOIR action was taken purportedly to “audit” the programs pursuant to the Trump administration executive order. Nine advocacy and immigrant legal services organizations sued, arguing that terminating funding for the programs is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); violates the Appropriations Clause in the case of the LOP and ICH; and violates the First Amendment by denying the plaintiffs access to courthouses and immigration detention centers. The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and to enjoin the government from stopping the programs, refusing to spend appropriated funds, preventing the plaintiffs from accessing immigration courts houses and detention centers, and removing materials and posters the plaintiffs have posted in those locations. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order) | National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order) | Government Accountability Project v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.) | Complaint (Feb. 6, 2025) | Feb. 6, 2025 | Case Summary: On Jan. 27, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued Guidance implementing the president’s executive order, which aims 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. Plaintiffs—independent nonprofits representing whistleblowers, federal employees, retirees and their survivors—allege that the OPM Guidance did not go through proper procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act, violates the Civil Service Reform Act’s protections for career employees, and violates civil servants’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. They seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order and the OPM Guidance are unlawful and an injunction enjoining the administration from implementing the executive order and the OPM Guidance. | 2025-02-06 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order) | Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Donald Trump et al (D. Md.) | Complaint | Jan. 28, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order) | American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and American Federation of State, County And Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Donald Trump et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 29, 2025 | On Jan. 27, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued guidance implementing the president’s executive order, which aims 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 AFGE and AFSCME – labor organizations representing federal, state and local employees – assert that the Trump administration failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedural Act in issuing the order, which renders “inoperative or without effect” existing regulations, 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(3), 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(4), and 5 C.F.R. § 302.601-603. The plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect, as well as an injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the order without first complying with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order) | Public Citizen Inc et al v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order) | Jerald Lentini, Joshua Erlich, and National Security Counselors v. Department of Government Efficiency, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Executive Office of the President, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Russell Vought, Scott Kupor, and Donald Trump (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order) | American Public Health Association et al v. Office of Management and Budget, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order) | Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 20, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Solicitation of information from career employees | Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 27, 2025 | 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 | 2025-01-31 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE | Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott Bessent et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Feb. 3, 2025 | The Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs sued on behalf of members whose records may have been transmitted from the Treasury Department to DOGE employees, thus allegedly depriving the members of privacy. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and declaratory relief, as well as a temporary restraining order, for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and actions in excess of legal authority under the Privacy Act. Update-1: On Feb. 6, 2025, the parties in the suit mutually proposed an order that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly adopted. It limits access to Treasury Department payment records and systems to two (Musk-affiliated) Special Government Employees in the Department (“read-only” access), other employees who need to access the record to perform their duties, or individuals who are already entitled to access the records under statute. | 2025-02-05 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE | AFL-CIO v. Dep’t of Labor (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Feb. 5, 2024 | On February 5, 2025, DOGE sought access to internal information systems at the Department of Labor. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE’s attempt to direct the agency and access internal information systems are an unlawful exercise of power beyond its authority; and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as a prohibited personnel practice, violation of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, violation of the Privacy Act, rulemaking without proper procedure, and arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. They seek temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Department of Labor from granting access to DOGE, from taking adverse action against employees who refuse to cooperate with DOGE, and from providing any person with non-public Department of Labor information regarding that person’s business interests or direct competitors. On the same day as the complaint was filed, judge John Bates issued an Order which stated, “Defendants represented to the Court that DOL [Department of Labor] will not allow DOGE access to any DOL data until after this Court rules on the TRO motion on Friday.” | 2025-02-05 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: “Fork Directive” deferred resignation offer to federal employees (OPM Directive) | American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass) | Complaint | Feb. 4, 2025 | Case Summary: On January 28, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to career federal employees presenting what it described as a deferred resignation program, an offer to receive compensation until September 30, 2025 if they resign now (“Fork Directive” email). A deadline for the offer was set for February 6, 2025. Plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is “arbitrary and capricious” and not in accordance with the Antideficiency Act. They seek a declaratory judgment that the directive violates the APA and that the directive be vacated; they also seek an preliminary and permanent injunction of the February 6, 2025 deadline and an order that OPM submit for court approval a corrected communication for all employees who received the directive. Update 1: On Feb. 5, 2025, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order and that within 24 hours of the TRO, the Government provide written notice of the TRO to all federal employees who have received the directive. Update-2: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge George O’Toole issued an order to pause the program and extend the deadline until Monday when a hearing is scheduled. | 2025-02-05 |
| Structure of Government/Personnel | Executive Action: Removal of independent agency leaders | Gwynne A. Wilcox v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint (Feb. 5, 2025) | Feb. 5, 2025 | Case Summary: This case challenges President Trump’s removal of Gwynne A. Wilcox from her position on the National Labor Relations Board. The suit alleges the removal is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), which allows the president to remove Board members only in cases of neglect of duty or malfeasance and only after notice and hearing. The Plaintiff is seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, to establish that she remains a rightful member of the Board and that the President lacks authority to remove her. She also seeks an injunction against the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, who oversaw the termination. | 2025-02-05 |
| Government Grants, Loans and Assistance | Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs | National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 28, 2025 | 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.” Update 3: On Feb. 3, 2025, Judge Alikhan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the OMB from implementing its funding freeze, finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the directive was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and that the post-complaint rescission of the memorandum was “disingenuous” and still causing irreparable injury. The order directed the OMB to release the frozen funds, notify agencies of this TRO, and file a status report on compliance by Feb. 7, 2025. | 2025-02-04 |
| Government Grants, Loans and Assistance | Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs | New York et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.R.I.) | Complaint | Jan. 28, 2025 | 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 January 31, 2025, Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow the states to file their motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McConnell’s order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims." | 2025-01-31 |
| Government Grants, Loans and Assistance | Executive Action: Dismantling of USAID (Executive Order 14169) | American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) | Complaint (Feb. 6, 2025) | Feb. 6, 2025 | Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order including a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance,” and the Secretary of State then issued stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants. Later, Secretary of State Rubio was named as acting USAID Administrator and USAID contractors were laid off or furloughed. On Feb. 3, Elon Musk posted that he had spent the previous weekend “feeding USAID to the woodchipper,” and USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C. was closed. On Feb. 4, a message was posted on the USAID website that all directly-hired USAID staff would be placed on administrative leave as of 11:59pm EST on Friday, Feb. 7, 2025. Plaintiffs sued, arguing executive actions either to dissolve USAID or merge it with the State Department are unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause; and unlawful under of the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding statutory authority, violating the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, and involving arbitrary and capricious abuses of discretion. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the administration’s actions are unlawful and unconstitutional; a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing the administration to halt efforts to shut down the agency, including by appointing an independent administrator, restoring grant funding, recalling furloughs, and halting efforts to place more employees on administrative leave, among other actions. Plaintiffs also seek court supervision, and a permanent injunction barring the administration from taking action to dissolve USAID absent congressional authorization. | 2015-02-06 |
| Civil Liberties and Rights | Executive Action: Housing of transgender inmates (Executive Order) | Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al (D. Mass.) | Complaint | Jan. 26, 2025 | 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. Update 1: On Jan. 26, the judge reportedly issued a temporary restraining order requiring prison officials to maintain Moe's medical care and not to transfer her from the general population of the women's facility. | 2025-02-03 |
| Civil Liberties and Rights | Executive Action: Housing of transgender inmates (Executive Order) | Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 30, 2025 | 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 plaintiffs are three transgender women federal inmates, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are housed in female facilities. All have been informed that they will be transferred imminently to men’s facilities. The suit seeks a declaratory judgement that the executive order violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the 5th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex; the 8th Amendment by failure to protect through exposing plaintiffs to risk of serious harm and by cruel and unusual punishment by refusing necessary medical care; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate plaintiffs’ gender dysphoria and disability discrimination; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the government from carrying out the executive order and requiring it to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing and medical treatment consistent with the status quo prior to the order. Update-1:On Feb. 4, 2025, Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order and enjoined the government blocking it from transferring the plaintiffs or from discontinuing the plaintiffs’ medical care. | 2025-02-04 |
| Civil Liberties and Rights | Executive Action: Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order) | Nicolas Talbot, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Jan. 28, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Civil Liberties and Rights | Executive Action: Ban on gender affirming care for individuals under the age of 19 (Gender Ideology Executive Order; Denial of Care Executive Order) | PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.) | Complaint | Feb. 4, 2025 | Case Summary: On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order prohibiting the federal government from expending federal funds to promote “gender ideology,” the idea that gender identity can differ from biological sex. On January 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care.PFLAG and other plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the orders constitute unconstitutional presidential action in excess of Article II authority; discriminate on the basis of sex and disability in violation of statutes; violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and substantive due process guarantees; and abridge the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Plaintiffs seek to have the orders declared unconstitutional and unlawful, and asking for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief. | 2025-02-04 |
| Civil Liberties and Rights | Executive Action: Immigration enforcement against places of worship (Policy Memo) | Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.) | Complaint | Jan. 27, 2025 | 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. | 2025-01-31 |
| Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility | Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors (Executive Order; Contracting Executive Order) | Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump (D. Md.) | Complaint | Feb. 3, 2025 | On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On January 21, 2025, the administration issued another executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiffs argue the first order is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and the 5th Amendment’s due process guarantee for vagueness. They argue the second order unconstitutionally violates 5th Amendment due process for vagueness; the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause; and the separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgments that both orders are unlawful and unconstitutional, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against both. | 2025-02-04 |
| Removal of Information from Government Websites | Executive Action: Removal of information from HHS websites under Executive Order on “Gender Ideology Extremism” (Executive Order; Policy Memo) | Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management et al (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Feb. 4, 2025 | On January 31, 2025, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed health-related data and other information from publicly-accessible websites in response to an Office of Personnel Management memorandum enforcing Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Plaintiffs, suing on behalf of doctors and scientists who rely on the data, allege that the removal constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and fails to comply with notice requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. They seek declaratory judgments that the OPM memorandum is unlawful and that the relevant agencies have violated the law; injunctions on further removal of information from agency websites; notice of any further modifications to webpages; and restoration of previously publicly-available datasets. | 2025-02-04 |
| Actions Against FBI/DOJ Employees | Executive Action: Department of Justice review of FBI personnel involved in January 6 investigations (Executive Order on Weaponization) | John and Jane Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Feb. 4, 2025 | After President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, the Department of Justice terminated employees who were involved in investigations into the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. On February 2, FBI leadership, pursuant to a directive from the acting deputy attorney general, instructed agents to fill out a survey identifying their specific roles in those investigations. Plaintiffs in this class action suit, employees or agents of the FBI who participated in the investigations and expect to be terminated for their roles, allege that such termination would violate protections against political retaliation under the Civil Service Reform Act, First Amendment protections for political expression, and Fifth Amendment Due Process protections. Plaintiffs also allege that publication or dissemination of the surveys regarding their roles in the investigations would violate the Privacy Act and place them at risk of serious harm. They seek an injunction against “the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination” of information identifying FBI personnel involved in the relevant investigations. The plaintiffs also requested a temporary restraining order to stop the defendants from “aggregating and disseminating information” to any person not subject to the Privacy Act, including the President, Vice President, and members of their staff. Update-1: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Jia Cobb ordered consolidation of this case and Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association v. Department of Justice. Update-2: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Cobb granted an administrative stay in the case, ordering that that the Justice Department not disclose any information outside the department pending a hearing on a temporary restraining order. | 2025-02-04 |
| Actions Against FBI/DOJ Employees | Executive Action: Department of Justice review of FBI personnel involved in January 6 investigations (Executive Order on Weaponization) | Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association; John Does 1-4; Jane Does 1-3 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) | Complaint | Feb. 4, 2025 | On January 31, 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove issued a memo ordering the resignation or firing of FBI agents who had participated in the investigations into the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. On February 2, 2025, FBI leadership, pursuant to a directive from Bove, instructed agents to fill out a survey identifying their specific roles in those investigations. Plaintiffs, the union that represents FBI agents and several agents who worked on investigations related to January 6, allege that the Department of Justice intends to use this survey for public disseminate identifying information about the FBI personnel and/or for firing and demoting agents who participated in the investigations, violating the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, First Amendment protections, and Fifth Amendment Due Process protections. They seek injunctive relief against “any further collection or dissemination” of personally identifiable information and a writ of mandamus as necessary to compel rescission of any unlawful termination orders. The plaintiffs also requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the public disclosure of the identities of the FBI agents. Update-1: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Jia Cobb ordered consolidation of this case and John and Jane Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice. Update-2: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Cobb granted an administrative stay in the case, ordering that that the Justice Department not disclose any information outside the department pending a hearing on a temporary restraining order. | 2025-02-04 |