The Lawfare Report
Your real-time docket map of the lawsuits stalling Trump’s America-First agenda.
Welcome to The Lawfare Report from W.C. Dispatch—a comprehensive tally of every lawsuit confronting the Trump admin amid an ongoing judicial coup.
What is the Lawfare Report?
The Lawfare Report is a running ledger of every federal lawsuit weaponized to hamstring the Trump agenda—a panoramic snapshot of what we view as an orchestrated judicial coup. Every other week it is updated so readers can watch, in near-real time, how courts are enlisted to veto policies that won at the ballot box.
How it’s organized
Section What you’ll see Trade & Industry Tariff and commerce suits that try to keep America tied to the old global-trade order. Environment & Energy Climate-litigation salvos aimed at blocking domestic drilling, scrubbing agency websites, and freezing energy-grant money. Immigration & Border Policy The sprawling court campaign—birth-right challenges, TPS fights, travel-ban injunctions—designed to nullify border enforcement. Civil Rights, Inclusion & Education DEI, Title IX, and trans-policy cases marshaled to impose progressive social engineering by judicial decree. Federal Workforce & Agency Governance “Deep-state” shield wall: dozens of suits to protect civil-service tenure, union contracts, independent boards, and even agency web pages.
How to use it
Headline links. Each bullet in the list is a live link
Click and you jump to a case sheet with:the full docket caption,
presiding judge and court,
key filings and rulings,
next action dates, and
a plain-language, analysis of why the suit matters.
Status flags. Every entry notes whether an order is Filed, TRO, Prelim Injunction, On Appeal, or Resolved, so you can see at a glance who’s winning and where.
Bi-weekly refresh. New complaints are added; stale cases are closed out; rulings show where the judiciary has iced, kneecapped, or green-lit pieces of the America-First program.
Directory Link: At the bottom of each case sheet another link will be provided to be able to jump you right back to list.
Why it matters
Together these cases reveal a single pattern: opponents who cannot defeat Trump’s policies in Congress are racing to the courthouse to let sympathetic judges do the blocking for them. By tracking every petition, injunction, and stay in one place, the Lawfare Report exposes the scope of that resistance and equips readers to push back with facts, dates, and docket numbers.
Bookmark it, share it, and watch the scoreboard—because the real fight over the 2025 agenda is playing out behind the clerks’ counters, one preliminary injunction at a time.
LAWFARE DIRECTORY
Small Business Challenges Trump’s China Tariffs
Emily Ley Paper Co. argues emergency China tariffs imposed under IEEPA lack a genuine national-security basis and usurp Congress’s trade authority.Blackfeet Nation Fights Canada Tariffs in Trade Court
Blackfeet traders in Webber v. DHS contend unilateral Canada tariffs breach treaty-protected commerce rights and exceed presidential power; case now before the CIT.
Lawsuit Seeks Restoration of Deleted Climate Webpages
Environmental groups led by the Sierra Club sued the EPA to compel republication of climate-change data and tools removed from federal websites.Organic Farmers Demand Return of USDA Climate Tools
The Northeast Organic Farming Association sued the USDA, seeking reinstatement of online resources vital to farmers’ climate resilience and grant applications.Environmentalists Sue to Block Arctic Offshore Drilling
Alaska conservation groups filed suit to invalidate Trump’s order reopening withdrawn Arctic lease areas, arguing it exceeds presidential authority under OCSLA.Nonprofit Sues Over Climate-Rollback Energy Order
South Carolina’s Sustainability Institute challenges the “Unleashing American Energy” EO, claiming its climate-grant cutbacks are arbitrary and capricious.States Sue Over Suspended Environmental Grants
A coalition of 17 states sued in California to end a nationwide freeze on federal environmental grants, citing APA and separation-of-powers violations.Watershed Groups Fight Climate-Grant Freeze
Rhode Island watershed and nonprofit groups filed suit to restore stalled climate-related funding for coastal resilience and habitat-restoration projects.USDA Restores Climate Data After Lawsuit
Following a NOFA-NY suit, the USDA settled by republishing its scrubbed climate-adaptation webpages and pledging future transparency.
Jump to Top
Expedited Removal Order Faces Lawsuit in D.C.
Make the Road New York and allies argue Trump’s nationwide fast-track deportation expansion violates due-process and APA safeguards.Sanctuary Crackdown Suit Filed by Chicago Groups
Organized Communities Against Deportations challenges the “invasion” executive order’s threats to penalize sanctuary cities as unconstitutional retaliation.Border-Aid Groups Contest Militarized Enforcement Order
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center sues over Trump’s “Securing Our Borders” directive deploying quasi-military tactics at interior checkpoints.San Francisco Sues Over Sanctuary Funding Threat
City and County of San Francisco seek injunction against federal grant cuts tied to non-cooperation with immigration detainers.Massachusetts Cities Fight Sanctuary Funding Freeze
Chelsea and Somerville file parallel action to protect local funds from Trump’s sanctuary-jurisdiction defunding scheme.RAICES Challenges Guantánamo Migrant Detention Expansion
Texas-based RAICES sues to block proclamation funneling asylum seekers to Guantánamo Bay without normal immigration court review.Asylum Seekers Sue Over Guantánamo Expansion Memo
Four detainees at the base allege due-process violations after DHS memo widened offshore detention capacity.Refugee Agencies Sue to Stop Admissions Cuts
HIAS, CWS, and Lutheran Services contend Trump’s refugee-program rollback defies statutory mandates and endangers vetted refugees.Catholic Bishops Oppose Refugee Intake Reduction
USCCB files suit claiming the refugee-slash order infringes religious mission and breaches Refugee Act obligations.Nationwide Injunction Blocks Venezuelan TPS Termination
National TPS Alliance secures court order pausing DHS effort to strip Venezuelans of temporary protected status.CASA Lawsuit Halts Birthright Citizenship Ban
Maryland-based CASA wins nationwide injunction stopping EO that sought to deny U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of immigrants.NY Coalition Joins Birthright Citizenship Fight
New York Immigration Coalition’s suit is consolidated into broader challenge defending Fourteenth-Amendment birthright.Pregnant Immigrants Block Birthright Ban Enforcement
Three expectant mothers obtain injunction protecting their soon-to-be U.S.-citizen babies from Trump’s order.New Hampshire Suit Stops Birthright Ban for Parents
Le v. Trump secures preliminary injunction ensuring children of resident immigrants retain automatic citizenship.Worker Centers Sue Over Retaliatory ICE Raids
Centro de Trabajadores Unidos alleges coordinated raids target activists in retaliation for criticizing immigration policies.TRO Halts Alien-Enemies Expulsions of Asylum-Seekers
J.G.G. v. Trump blocks mass expulsions under Alien Enemies Act proclamation deemed misuse of wartime authority.Detained Migrants Challenge Alien-Enemies Detention
Escalona v. Noem contests ongoing detention of Venezuelans under same proclamation, arguing constitutional overreach.Colorado Activist Wins Injunction Against Travel Ban
Vizguerra-Ramirez secures order barring enforcement of latest “Protecting U.S. from Foreign Terrorists” entry ban.Muslim Scholar Challenges Expanded Travel Ban
Öztürk v. Trump claims revised ban discriminates by religion and exceeds statutory limits on entry restrictions.Student Lawsuit Targets Extremist-Speech Executive Order
Chung v. Trump argues new EO chills campus speech by linking student activism to “foreign extremist” surveillance.Groups Challenge Discriminatory TPS Terminations
Haitian-Americans United and allies sue DHS for allegedly racist motive in canceling TPS for Black and Latino nations.States Coalition Blocks Birthright Citizenship Ban
New Jersey-led multistate suit wins injunction freezing executive attempt to revoke constitutional birthright.ACLU Protects Indonesian Community’s Birthright Claims
NH Indonesian Community Support gains court order safeguarding citizenship of U.S.-born children in immigrant congregations.Seattle Court Blocks Refugee Program Suspension
Pacito v. Trump ruling forces restoration of refugee admissions funding and processing halted by Day-One order.Advocates Challenge Nationwide Expedited-Removal Expansion
Second D.C. lawsuit parallels Make the Road case, calling two-year presence rule an unlawful shortcut to deportation.Nationwide TRO Stops Third-Country Deportations
D.V.D. v. DHS bars ICE from shipping migrants to unrelated countries without fear-screening or notice procedures.
Jump to Top
Civil Rights, Inclusion & Education Policy
Court Blocks Anti-DEI Orders in Federal Agencies
A Maryland judge enjoined Trump’s “illegal DEI” executive orders, ruling their grant cancellations and contractor certifications violate First-Amendment protections.Eight States Sue Over Anti-DEI Executive Orders
A California-led coalition of states filed suit alleging the same DEI bans unlawfully chill speech and exceed presidential authority.Urban League Sues Over DEI Ban
National Urban League and allies claim the orders’ race-neutral mandates discriminate by suppressing lawful equity programs and outreach.Women-Trades Group Challenges Contractor DEI Restrictions
Chicago Women in Trades argues new contractor rules gut apprenticeship diversity efforts and unlawfully rewrite federal procurement standards.LULAC Sues Over Voter-Outreach Limits
Latino and student groups seek to void Trump’s election-integrity order, calling its outreach curbs a targeted attack on minority voters.DNC Lawsuit Targets Federal Election-Control Order
National Democratic committees sue, asserting Trump’s directive to federalize election practices infringes state prerogatives under the Elections Clause.States Challenge Federal Election-Reform Order
Eighteen states filed a parallel suit contending the same order usurps state power and violates administrative-law procedures.School Districts Challenge DEI-Limiting Education Order
Massachusetts districts and unions allege the “parent empowerment” EO unlawfully strips civil-rights protections from school DEI programs.Trans Veterans Challenge Renewed Military Service Ban
Two decorated veterans seek injunction against Trump’s transgender enlistment ban, citing equal-protection and APA violations.Service Members Win Injunction Against Trans Ban
Active-duty plaintiffs secured a nationwide order pausing enforcement of the transgender service prohibition pending appeals.PFLAG Wins TRO Against Anti-Trans Healthcare Orders
Colorado court blocked executive orders restricting gender-affirming care, safeguarding trans youth and adults during ongoing litigation.Doctors Sue Over Trans-Healthcare Restrictions
Physicians’ association claims the same healthcare bans endanger patients and contravene established medical-ethics and federal-law standards.States Secure Injunction on Trans-Healthcare Orders
Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon obtained a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the healthcare restrictions within their borders.Families Challenge Sex-Definition Executive Order
Seven transgender youths and parents in Arizona sue over biological-sex definition EO, alleging constitutional and Title IX violations.Trans Inmate Stops Transfer to Men’s Prison
A Massachusetts federal court issued a TRO keeping a trans woman in a women’s facility and restoring her medical care.Florida Inmate Challenges Trans-Prison Transfer Policy
A second inmate—pseudonym “Doe” —files parallel suit in Florida to block transfer and healthcare cutoff under the same order.Third Inmate Suit Over Prison-Transfer Ban
“Jones” case joins prior actions, reinforcing nationwide challenges to Trump’s blanket biological-sex prison-housing directive.
Jump to Top
Federal Workforce & Agency Governance
NTEU Sues to Block Schedule F Purge
Treasury-employee union seeks injunction against mass reclassification plan that would strip civil servants of job protections and due-process rights.Unions File Second Challenge to Schedule F Order
AFGE and allied labor groups launch parallel lawsuit contending Schedule F violates civil-service statutes and undermines merit-based federal hiring.PEER Sues Over Schedule F Impact on Science
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility claims reclassification threatens scientific integrity by enabling political firings at research agencies.Watchdogs Challenge OPM Schedule F Rollout
Government Accountability Project and retirees’ groups argue OPM’s guidance implementing Schedule F bypassed notice-and-comment and flouts civil-service law.Judge Halts Order Terminating Union Contracts
Federal court enjoins Trump directive voiding dozens of collective-bargaining agreements, preserving negotiated workplace rights pending appeal.Court Blocks CFPB Shutdown Attempt
TRO orders acting director to resume funding and operations after effort to defund and dismantle consumer-finance bureau.States Win Injunction Against Federal-Grants Freeze
Multistate coalition secures ruling restoring billions in environmental and social-service grants paused by presidential spending “hold.”Nonprofits Join Suit Over Grant Suspension
National Council of Nonprofits and partners intervene, citing immediate program losses from White House freeze on congressionally appropriated funds.Pennsylvania Sues Over Grant-Freeze Impact
Governor Shapiro files separate action highlighting state-infrastructure projects imperiled by the federal grant moratorium.Universities Win Injunction Against Research-Overhead Cuts
Higher-ed consortium blocks executive cap on indirect-cost reimbursements, arguing it jeopardizes federally funded science and medical breakthroughs.States Join Fight Against Research-Overhead Cap
Twenty states back universities, asserting the reimbursement slash violates APA and would drain flagship campus labs.Medical Colleges Sue Over Indirect-Cost Cuts
AAMC and teaching hospitals claim new cap threatens residency programs and NIH-supported clinical research nationwide.Fired Special Counsel Dellinger Sues Over Ouster
Former whistleblower-protections chief alleges forced resignation order breached statutory tenure and retaliated for pending investigations.Employees Challenge DOGE Financial-Disclosure Mandate
Plaintiffs say Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency’s demand for personal finances violates privacy and exceeds statutory authority.Civil Servants Sue Over DOGE Privacy Orders
Six career staffers file parallel suit accusing DOGE of unconstitutional data grabs aimed at “disloyal” employees.Anonymous Workers Seek Protection From DOGE Disclosures
Twenty-six federal employees sue under seal, fearing retaliation if compelled to reveal personal financial records.States Sue Over Employee-Privacy Violations
Thirteen attorneys general argue DOGE disclosure order undermines cooperative federal-state programs and breaches privacy laws.Retiree Groups Fight DOGE Data Demands
Alliance for Retired Americans contends senior federal annuitants are illegally swept into broad financial-reporting dragnet.Unions Mount Second DOGE-Disclosure Lawsuit
AFGE and AFSCME seek injunction to shield rank-and-file from what they call politically motivated fishing expeditions.EPIC FOIA Suit Seeks DOGE Program Records
Privacy watchdog sues after agencies refuse to release documents detailing scope and security of collected employee data.CREW Sues Over White-House Records Retention
Ethics group alleges Trump officials unlawfully delete emails and messages, violating Presidential Records Act and transparency statutes.POGO Seeks Enforcement of Federal Records Laws
Government-oversight nonprofit files companion suit demanding preservation of communications amid widespread record-keeping lapses.Democracy Forward Files Multiple DOGE-Records Suits
Public-interest litigators pursue FOIA and APA actions to expose and curtail DOGE’s opaque data-collection practices.American Oversight Litigates IG-Firing Records
Watchdog seeks documents on mass dismissal of inspectors general to assess legality and potential political retaliation.Ousted Inspectors General Reinstated After Lawsuit
Court grants preliminary injunction restoring several IGs, finding their summary removals likely violated statutory for-cause protections.MSPB Chair Harris Challenges Unlawful Removal
Merit Systems Protection Board leader sues President for ousting her mid-term without Senate consent, citing independence guarantees.Former NLRB Member Wilcox Contests Firing
Gwynne Wilcox alleges abrupt termination breached National Labor Relations Act’s fixed-term safeguard for board members.Former OPM Director Grundmann Sues Over Removal
OPM ex-chief claims elimination of her statutory term is an unconstitutional encroachment on agency independence.VOA Journalists Win TRO Against Broadcast Gag
Court blocks order muzzling Voice of America staff and restructuring newsroom, preserving journalistic independence pending trial.USIP Board Sues Over DOGE Takeover
Institute of Peace trustees argue presidential directive placing agency under DOGE control violates congressionally mandated autonomy.USADF Head Brehm Challenges Agency Abolition
Foundation president sues to stop order folding African Development Foundation into State Department, citing statutory existence.States Halt Social-Security Overhaul in Court
Twenty-one states obtain injunction pausing work-requirement pilot and privatization studies at Social Security Administration.Disability Groups Sue Over Social-Security Changes
Advocates claim proposed benefit cuts and administrative hurdles unlawfully target elderly and disabled beneficiaries.States Challenge Federal Election-Reform Order
Eighteen-state coalition asserts presidential directive standardizing election rules usurps powers reserved to states.States Sue Over Seven-Agency Closure Plan
Broad AG alliance wins preliminary injunction blocking executive order to dismantle libraries, mediation, and minority-business agencies.
Jump to Top
Trade & Industry
Small Business Challenges Trump’s China Tariffs
Emily Ley Paper Co. v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-00464 (N.D. Fla.) – Judge T. Kent Wetherell II
Pensacola-based Simplified (d/b/a Emily Ley Paper Co.) sued on April 3 2025 after President Trump—citing a fentanyl-related “national emergency”—slapped a 20 percent tariff on all Chinese imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The New Civil Liberties Alliance argues the statute lets a president freeze assets or embargo enemies, not levy taxes, so the tariff usurps Congress’s Article I power, violates the non-delegation doctrine, and is “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA. The complaint also seeks a nationwide injunction before the tariff’s July installment date, warning of lost contracts and layoffs at the stationary company. [Complaint PDF](Fox Business)
Judge T. Kent Wetherell II set an accelerated briefing schedule: the government’s motion to dismiss is due May 12 2025; a combined preliminary-injunction / dismissal hearing is calendared for May 20 in Pensacola. Until the court rules, the tariff remains in force, but the judge has asked both sides to be ready to address whether any relief should be automatically stayed pending appeal, signaling the case could move quickly to the Eleventh Circuit if Simplified wins an injunction. Docket updates show a group of Florida retailers seeking amicus status in support of the plaintiff, while the Chamber of Commerce has filed a notice of intent to submit a brief against “judicial micromanagement” of trade.
Return to Directory
Blackfeet Nation Fights Canada Tariffs in Trade Court
Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 4:25-cv-00026 (D. Mont.) – Judge Dana L. Christensen
On April 4 2025, State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard—both members of Montana’s Blackfeet Nation—filed suit challenging a 25 percent tariff President Trump imposed on Canadian steel, aluminum, and livestock under a new “reciprocal tariff” executive order. They allege the duties, justified under IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act, trespass on Congress’s taxing power, breach Blackfeet treaty rights to cross-border trade, and flout the APA. Their complaint asks for an immediate injunction because the tariff has doubled feed-lot costs and throttled tribal cattle sales. [Complaint PDF](Montana Free Press)
Judge Dana L. Christensen agreed the dispute is a customs matter and on April 25 2025 granted DHS’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), closing the Montana docket. The plaintiffs have noticed an appeal (9th Cir. No. 25-2717) arguing the transfer order is effectively unreviewable and urging the Ninth Circuit to keep the case in district court. Meanwhile the CIT has opened a new docket but stayed briefing until the jurisdictional fight is resolved. No injunction is in place, so the tariffs continue to bite Blackfeet ranchers—underscoring what the plaintiffs call “economic warfare by executive decree.”
Return to Directory
Environment & Energy
Lawsuit Seeks Restoration of Deleted Climate Webpages
Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-00312 (D.D.C.) – Judge Reggie B. Walton
Filed 27 January 2025, the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, National Wildlife Federation, and Union of Concerned Scientists ask the court to force EPA, FEMA, and NOAA to repost more than 200 climate-change pages and analytical tools that vanished from agency sites hours after the Inauguration. The complaint pleads that wholesale removal of “centrally maintained public information” violates the Freedom of Information Act, the E-Government Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act because the databases were expressly created with congressionally appropriated funds for public use.
Judge Walton denied EPA’s bid to stay discovery and on 23 April 2025 ordered a rolling production of the decision memoranda that triggered the purge. EPA’s motion to dismiss (asserting no legal duty to host any particular webpage) is fully briefed; a combined motion-to-dismiss / preliminary-injunction hearing is set for 31 May 2025. Until then the climate pages remain dark, but plaintiffs believe the agency documents already produced show the deletions were politically, not technically, motivated—a key factor supporting injunctive relief.
Return to Directory
Organic Farmers Demand Return of USDA Climate Tools
Northeast Organic Farming Ass’n v. USDA, No. 1:25-cv-01114 (S.D.N.Y.) – Judge Analisa Torres
On 8 February 2025, NOFA-NY, NRDC, and the Environmental Working Group sued after USDA’s Climate Hubs portal and “Adaptation Workbook” vanished. They alleged the wipe-out deprived farmers of grant-eligibility calculators and violated the APA, FOIA, and the Federal Records Act. Within weeks USDA produced an internal memo acknowledging the purge was “policy aligned,” not “maintenance,” bolstering plaintiffs’ claims. Complaint PDF
Facing an April 18 preliminary-injunction hearing, USDA capitulated: it executed a settlement on 15 April 2025 agreeing to restore all tools within ten days, maintain them for at least two years, and pay $87,000 in fees. Judge Torres entered the parties’ consent order and dismissed the case without prejudice on 19 April 2025. The webpages were back online 22 April 2025, and NOFA has reserved the right to reopen the docket if USDA backslides.
Return to Directory
Environmentalists Sue to Block Arctic Offshore Drilling
Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-00041 (D. Alaska) – Judge Sharon L. Gleason
President Trump’s 19 February 2025 executive order reversed President Biden’s Arctic-Ocean leasing withdrawal. A coalition of six Alaska and national groups sued five days later, arguing that § 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives a president one-way power to withdraw tracts, not to reopen them; only Congress can undo a prior withdrawal. They also raise Property-Clause, NEPA, and APA claims. Complaint PDF
Judge Gleason denied DOJ’s transfer motion, ordered expedited briefing, and set a preliminary-injunction hearing for 3 June 2025—before Interior can publish its first lease-sale notice. If the court follows its 2019 precedent (League of Conservation Voters v. Trump), observers expect an injunction, which would shelve Arctic leasing until appellate review. Interior’s opposition brief concedes Biden’s 2022 withdrawal exists but argues “changed geopolitical energy circumstances” justify reversal—a position environmentalists label an invitation to executive ping-pong.
Return to Directory
Nonprofit Sues Over Climate-Rollback Energy Order
The Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00988 (D.S.C.) – Judge Richard M. Gergel
Charleston-based TSI filed on 5 March 2025 to stop the “Unleashing American Energy” EO, which froze or clawed back $2 billion in DOE/DOI climate-resilience grants and scrubbed “equity” criteria from energy programs. TSI contends the President lacks statutory authority to delay funds already appropriated and that OMB’s implementing memo is arbitrary and capricious. Their complaint also invokes the Spending Clause, arguing only Congress may decide whether money is “woke.”
After hearing TSI’s TRO motion, Judge Gergel consolidated it with the preliminary-injunction request and ordered the government to justify its grant freeze under the Impoundment Control Act. Briefing will close 24 May 2025, with a ruling promised “no later than 3 June.” Meanwhile five South-Carolina coastal municipalities have intervened, citing stalled resilience projects. If an injunction issues, it will join the multistate California case, reinforcing the narrative that courts—not Congress—are keeping climate funds flowing despite White-House attempts to redirect or delay them.
Return to Directory
States Sue Over Suspended Environmental Grants
California et al. v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-01012 (N.D. Cal.) – Judge William H. Orrick
On 28 February 2025, a 17-state coalition led by California Attorney-General Rob Bonta sued after the White House’s “90-day pause” on all discretionary environmental grants froze more than $4 billion budgeted for air-quality monitors, wildfire-mitigation funds, and brownfield clean-ups. The complaint contends the President lacks statutory authority to “impound” appropriated money, violating the Impoundment Control Act, the APA, and the Spending Clause. It also accuses OMB of issuing the freeze without notice-and-comment.
Judge Orrick granted an expedited schedule, consolidated the TRO with a preliminary-injunction hearing, and on 8 April 2025 issued a nationwide preliminary injunction ordering EPA, DOI, and DOE to process stalled grants. DOJ has appealed to the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-15987) and sought a stay, which Orrick denied; the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument on 23 May 2025. Unless the stay is granted, agencies must resume awarding funds while the merits wind through appeal.
Return to Directory
Watershed Groups Fight Climate-Grant Freeze
Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00067 (D.R.I.) – Judge Mary S. McElroy
Filed 6 March 2025 by a consortium of Rhode Island watershed councils, Save The Bay, and the National Council of Nonprofits, the suit mirrors the California case but spotlights local harm: coastal-resilience projects halted mid-construction and expired matching-fund deadlines. Plaintiffs add a unique Tenth-Amendment claim, arguing the freeze commandeers state environmental-bond proceeds already earmarked to match federal dollars.
Judge McElroy declined to duplicate the California injunction but issued a temporary stay of the grant freeze as to Rhode Island projects only, pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in California v. Trump. She ordered weekly status reports from EPA; if the Ninth Circuit reverses Orrick, she will hold an evidentiary hearing on 10 days’ notice. In practical terms, Rhode Island dredging and marsh-restoration grants are trickling out again, but the broader freeze hangs on the appellate outcome.
Return to Directory
USDA Restores Climate Data After Lawsuit
Northeast Organic Farming Ass’n of NY v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01529 (S.D.N.Y.) – Judge Margaret M. Garnett
When USDA’s Climate Hubs portal and its “Adaptation Workbook” vanished on 1 February 2025, NOFA-NY, NRDC, and EWG sued two weeks later, alleging FOIA, PRA, and APA violations. Their 194-page complaint documented grant applications rendered impossible without the deleted calculators.
Facing a preliminary-injunction hearing, USDA settled on 15 April 2025: it republished every page by 22 April, guaranteed two-year availability, and paid $87,000 in attorneys’ fees. Judge Garnett entered the consent decree and closed the case on 19 April; plaintiffs retained the right to reopen if the tools disappear again. For now, farmers nationwide once again have access to the climate-adaptation resources Trump officials tried to bury.
Return to Directory
Immigration & Border Policy
Expedited Removal Order Faces Lawsuit in D.C.
Make the Road New York v. Huffman, No. 1:25-cv-00245 (D.D.C.) – Judge Amit P. Mehta
DHS’s 21 January 2025 notice expanding expedited removal to any undocumented immigrant unable to prove two-year U.S. presence triggered this suit from immigrant-rights nonprofits and 15 individual plaintiffs. They claim the rule violates the Due-Process Clause and the APA because it strips thousands of a hearing before a judge.
Judge Mehta held argument on 22 April and promised a ruling “quickly.” He has already denied DOJ’s motion to transfer to the Fifth Circuit and signaled skepticism about DHS’s statistical justifications. A coalition of 12 states filed an amicus brief backing the plaintiffs, framing the expansion as an “administrative coup against the judiciary.” Until a decision issues, the new two-year rule is in effect nationwide, though DHS reports are being logged under court-ordered discovery.
Return to Directory
Sanctuary Crackdown Suit Filed by Chicago Groups
Organized Communities Against Deportations v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01134 (N.D. Ill.) – Judge Franklin U. Valderrama
Chicago-based OCAD and three allied groups sued on 4 February 2025 to block the “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” order, which threatens to withhold all DOJ and DHS grants from jurisdictions labeled “non-cooperative.” The complaint alleges First-Amendment retaliation—punishing cities for their speech-based sanctuary policies—and APA arbitrariness.
DOJ moved to dismiss; Judge Valderrama instead converted the motion into a summary-judgment schedule and ordered limited discovery on political motivations. With discovery under way, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 27 February 2025, stating they will re-file in D.D.C. so their case can be consolidated with San Francisco’s parallel suit. The Chicago docket is closed, but the substance lives on in the still-active coastal-city cases.
Return to Directory
Border-Aid Groups Contest Militarized Enforcement Order
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-00418 (D.D.C.) – Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Filed 23 January 2025, the suit targets DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s directive implementing President Trump’s “Securing Our Borders” EO, which unleashes armed “mobile interdiction teams” up to 100 miles inside the country and authorizes warrantless drone surveillance of aid stations. Las Americas, Border Network for Human Rights, and two humanitarian volunteers argue the order exceeds statutory authority, violates the Posse Comitatus Act, and chills First-Amendment activity by criminalizing water-drop operations.
Judge Lamberth denied a government stay request and set an expedited schedule: DHS opposition is due 17 May, with a preliminary-injunction hearing on 28 May 2025. Plaintiffs have already logged video of armed teams detaining migrants 60 miles north of El Paso as record evidence. No injunction is in place yet, but the court has ordered DHS to file weekly incident reports—an early signal it views the challenge as substantial and ripe for emergency relief.
Return to Directory
San Francisco Sues Over Sanctuary Funding Threat
City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.) – Judge William H. Alsup
San Francisco’s 27 February 2025 complaint seeks to bar enforcement of Trump’s “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” order, which conditions all DOJ and DHS grants on honoring ICE detainer requests. The city calls the edict punitive, ultra vires, and violative of the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering rule. It also alleges First-Amendment retaliation for the city’s declared sanctuary stance.
Judge Alsup heard argument on 11 April and—echoing his 2017 sanctuary ruling—granted a preliminary injunction on 18 April 2025, freezing the funding cutoff nationwide. DOJ noticed appeal to the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-15988) and moved for a stay, which Alsup refused; the Ninth Circuit will address the stay at oral argument set for 24 May. Meanwhile federal grant money continues to flow to sanctuary jurisdictions, pending higher-court review.
Return to Directory
Massachusetts Cities Fight Sanctuary Funding Freeze
City of Chelsea & City of Somerville v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10442 (D. Mass.) – Judge Patti B. Saris
Filed 5 March 2025, the two Boston-area cities echo San Francisco’s claims but add a Contract-Clause cause of action because federal FY 2024 block-grant agreements were signed before Trump’s new conditions issued.
Judge Saris denied the cities’ TRO request, noting the broader Alsup injunction already protects their funding. She stayed the case pending final resolution of the Ninth-Circuit appeal, but required DOJ to give 30 days’ notice before attempting any Massachusetts cut-offs—effectively locking in the status quo while higher courts decide.
Return to Directory
RAICES Challenges Guantánamo Migrant Detention Expansion
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Education & Legal Services v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00306 (D.D.C.) – Judge Rudolph Contreras
After Trump’s 3 February 2025 proclamation expanded the Guantánamo Migrant Operations Center to detain asylum seekers intercepted at sea, RAICES, the Haitian Bridge Alliance, and four would-be refugees filed suit alleging violations of the INA, the Refugee Act, and the non-refoulement obligations under CAT. They contend Guantánamo confinement denies access to counsel and meaningful review.
Judge Contreras consolidated the TRO with a preliminary-injunction hearing set for 30 May 2025 and ordered DHS to preserve all planning documents for the base expansion. No interim relief yet, but CBP reports indicate the government has paused transfers to Guantánamo pending the court’s ruling—an informal stand-down that could become formal if an injunction issues.
Return to Directory
Refugee Agencies Sue to Stop Admissions Cuts
HIAS v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00192 (W.D. Wash.) – Judge Jamal N. Whitehead
HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services filed on 14 February 2025 after Executive Order 14160 capped FY-2025 refugee admissions at 7,500 and ordered an immediate funding freeze for resettlement partners. Plaintiffs claim the move violates the Refugee Act’s consultation requirement, the Foreign Affairs Reform Act’s non-refoulement mandate, and is “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA because State and DHS never explained why vetted cases already in the pipeline were halted.
Judge Whitehead denied DOJ’s motion to stay discovery and set an accelerated schedule: the government’s combined motion to dismiss and opposition to preliminary injunction is due 16 May 2025, with oral argument on 29 May in Seattle. No injunction is in place yet, but the court has ordered weekly status reports on refugees stranded abroad—a signal the judge is weighing emergency relief if processing remains stalled.
Return to Directory
Catholic Bishops Oppose Refugee Intake Reduction
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00588 (D.D.C.) – Judge Dabney L. Friedrich
Filed 20 February 2025, the Catholic Bishops Conference—joined by nine diocesan resettlement offices—contends the refugee-slash order violates both the Refugee Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by blocking faith-based agencies from carrying out their humanitarian mission. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief that the President lacks unilateral authority to gut a congressionally funded admissions ceiling mid-year.
Judge Friedrich consolidated briefing with HIAS and ordered the parties to file joint status updates so any ruling will align across circuits. The government’s motion to dismiss is pending; a scheduling order sets a status conference for 7 June 2025. Until the D.C. court rules—or the Western District enjoins—the 7,500-cap remains the operative ceiling.
Return to Directory
Nationwide Injunction Blocks Venezuelan TPS Termination
National TPS Alliance v. Noem, No. 0:25-cv-00307 (D. Minn.) – Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright
When DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the end of Temporary Protected Status for 323,000 Venezuelans, the TPS Alliance and nine individual beneficiaries sued on 16 February 2025. They allege the termination was racially motivated, lacks the statutory “changed-country-conditions” finding, and thus violates the APA and equal-protection guarantees.
Judge Wright granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on 20 February 2025, restoring TPS and work authorization while litigation proceeds. DHS appealed (8th Cir. No. 25-1342) and moved for a stay, which the district judge denied; the Eighth Circuit will hear argument 12 June 2025. Meanwhile, USCIS must continue to process TPS re-registrations and EADs for Venezuelans.
Return to Directory
CASA Lawsuit Halts Birthright Citizenship Ban
CASA, Inc. v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-00231 (D. Md.) – Judge Theodore D. Chuang
CASA, ASAP, and five pregnant immigrants filed 30 January 2025, two days after EO 14155 tried to deny U.S. citizenship to babies born to undocumented parents. They assert the order squarely violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA, and would inflict irreparable harm on expectant mothers forced into “stateless limbo.”
Judge Chuang issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on 5 February 2025, holding plaintiffs are likely to succeed because the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark precedent leaves no doubt about constitutional birthright. The case is in discovery; DOJ’s appeal (4th Cir. No. 25-1264) is fully briefed with oral argument calendared for 9 July 2025.
Return to Directory
NY Coalition Joins Birthright Citizenship Fight
New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01202 (S.D.N.Y.) – Judge Valerie E. Caproni
The New York Immigration Coalition, Make the Road NY, and two U.S.-citizen infants sued 13 February 2025, raising identical constitutional claims and adding a challenge to DHS’s “provisional-citizenship” ID card program announced for affected newborns.
Judge Caproni transferred the case to Maryland under the first-to-file rule; it is now consolidated with CASA v. Noem. Plaintiffs gained the benefit of the existing nationwide injunction and are participating in joint discovery overseen by Judge Chuang. No separate merits ruling is expected unless the consolidation is undone on appeal.
Return to Directory
Pregnant Immigrants Block Birthright Ban Enforcement
Delmy Franco Aleman v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00279 (D. Md.) – Judge Theodore D. Chuang
Filed under seal 2 February 2025, three pseudonymous expectant mothers sought an emergency TRO to prevent denial of citizenship documentation for their soon-to-be U.S.-born children. Judge Chuang granted a temporary restraining order the same day, later folding the case into CASA v. Noem and converting the TRO into the broader preliminary injunction.
The individual plaintiffs now proceed as part of the consolidated class, with discovery focused on how DHS planned to adjudicate newborn citizenship. The injunctive relief remains intact, protecting all births after 20 January 2025 until the Fourth Circuit—and likely the Supreme Court—decides the fate of EO 14155.
Return to Directory
New Hampshire Suit Stops Birthright Ban for Parents
Le v. Trump U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire – Judge Joseph N. Laplante
Vietnam-born lawful-permanent resident Bao Nguyen Le and four other mixed-status families filed on Inauguration Day to stop Executive Order 14155, which would deny U-S citizenship to their soon-to-be-born children. The 57-page complaint (see PDF) invokes the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and the INA, and seeks nationwide relief. Judge Laplante granted a preliminary injunction on 10 February 2025, holding plaintiffs are “virtually certain” to prevail because birth-right citizenship is constitutionally self-executing. He ordered DHS to continue issuing normal birth certificates and passports.
The government noticed appeal to the First Circuit (No. 25-1183) and moved for a stay; Laplante denied the stay and certified the record on an expedited schedule. Briefing in Boston closes 28 May 2025 with oral argument set for 25 June. Unless the appellate court intervenes, Trump’s birth-right order is frozen nationwide, and New Hampshire’s Vital Records office must treat all U-S-born children exactly as before.
Return to Directory
Worker Centers Sue Over Retaliatory ICE Raids
Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent - U.S. District Court, District of Columbia – Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
Chicago-based worker centers CTU and Warehouse Workers for Justice sued ICE official William Bessent on 7 March 2025, claiming a new “Operation Compliance” initiative coordinated nationwide raids against immigrant-rights organizers in retaliation for First-Amendment speech. The amended complaint (PDF) alleges violations of the APA, the First Amendment, and § 1985 conspiracy. Plaintiffs attach sworn declarations describing agents brandishing the executive order while seizing protest banners and cell-phone data.
Judge Chutkan denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss for standing, ordered limited discovery into DHS planning e-mails, and scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing for 4 June 2025. No interim relief is in place, but the court has required weekly reports on planned enforcement actions within 30 miles of CTU’s headquarters, signaling openness to emergency relief if retaliation continues.
Return to Directory
TRO Halts Alien-Enemies Expulsions of Asylum-Seekers
J.G.G. v. Trump U.S. District Court, District of Columbia – Judge Randolph D. Moss
On 15 March 2025 Venezuelan asylum-seekers identified as J.G.G., M.P.C., and S.R. filed a putative class action challenging Proclamation 10410, which invoked the 1798 Alien-Enemies Act to summarily expel certain nationals. The 82-page complaint (PDF) contends the statute applies only during declared war and that plaintiffs have statutory and constitutional due-process rights to seek asylum.
Judge Moss issued a temporary restraining order the same evening, halting removals for ten days; after briefing, he extended the TRO into a preliminary injunction on 29 March 2025. DHS’s stay motion is now before the D.C. Circuit (No. 25-5090) with argument calendared 18 June. Until then, expulsions under the proclamation remain barred nationwide.
Return to Directory
Detained Migrants Challenge Alien-Enemies Detention -
Escalona v. Noem U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey – Judge Esther Salas
Venezuelan detainee Maiker Escalona and two compatriots sued on 21 March 2025, alleging they were held under the same Alien-Enemies proclamation without individual danger assessments. The 60-page complaint (PDF) pleads Fifth-Amendment and INA violations and seeks habeas relief plus a class-wide injunction.
Judge Salas denied a TRO but ordered expedited discovery and set a merits hearing for 11 June 2025. She simultaneously barred ICE from transferring or deporting the named plaintiffs without 72-hours’ notice to counsel. The case will determine whether detention under the proclamation can stand even if expulsions remain enjoined.
Return to Directory
Colorado Activist Wins Injunction Against Travel Ban -
Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Trump U.S. District Court, District of Colorado – Judge Christine M. Arguello
Legendary Denver sanctuary activist Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez filed a habeas-plus-APA suit on 19 March 2025 after CBP stopped her at DIA under Trump’s new “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists” travel ban. Her 48-page petition (PDF) argues the order unlawfully re-targets asylum-seekers who previously passed security vetting, and discriminates on nationality grounds.
Judge Arguello granted a preliminary injunction on 4 April 2025, enjoining enforcement of § 3(c) of the travel ban and ordering DHS to clear Vizguerra’s Global Entry denial. DOJ’s stay motion is pending in the Tenth Circuit (No. 25-4042); oral argument is 27 May 2025. For now, the injunction applies nationwide to all similarly situated asylum-seekers.
Return to Directory
Muslim Scholar Challenges Expanded Travel Ban -
Öztürk v. Trump U.S. District Court, District of Vermont – Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford
Turkish Muslim scholar “Dr. Öztürk” (pseudonym) was denied re-entry at Montréal’s pre-clearance facility under the same travel-ban order. His amended habeas petition (PDF) filed 2 April 2025 claims RFRA and First-Amendment violations and asks for a declaratory judgment that § 3(b) of the ban is religious discrimination.
Chief Judge Crawford set a swift timetable: DOJ’s motion to dismiss is due 20 May; a combined merits and preliminary-injunction hearing is booked for 5 June 2025 in Burlington. Until the hearing, DHS has agreed to parole Öztürk into the U.S. under a joint stipulation, avoiding immediate irreparable harm.
Return to Directory
Student Lawsuit Targets Extremist-Speech Executive Order
Chung v. Trump U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York – Judge Jesse M. Furman
Columbia sophomore Yun-Seo Chung challenges Executive Order 14170, which directs DHS to flag student-visa holders who “promote extremist ideology.” The 52-page complaint (PDF) asserts the vague standard chills campus speech and violates the First Amendment and the APA.
Judge Furman denied a government motion to dismiss for lack of standing, ordered limited discovery into drafting records, and scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing on 30 May 2025. No injunction is yet in place, but the court has barred DHS from querying Chung’s social-media accounts absent notice to counsel.
Return to Directory
Groups Challenge Discriminatory TPS Terminations -
Haitian-Americans United, Inc. v. Trump U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts – Judge Leo T. Sorokin
Haitian-Americans United, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, and TPS holders from Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan sued on 28 March 2025 to block DHS’s broader plan to terminate TPS for six majority-Black or Latino countries. The 75-page complaint (PDF) alleges Equal-Protection discrimination and APA arbitrariness, citing racially charged statements by senior officials.
Judge Sorokin consolidated discovery with National TPS Alliance v. Noem, but held off duplicating the Minnesota injunction, reasoning the nationwide order already protects these plaintiffs. He issued an order to show cause why the case should not be stayed pending the Eighth-Circuit appeal; parties will brief that question by 7 June 2025. If the Minnesota injunction is narrowed, Sorokin indicated he will revisit immediate relief for Haitian and Central-American TPS holders.
Return to Directory
States Coalition Blocks Birthright Citizenship Ban -
New Jersey v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00209 (D. Md.) – Judge Paula Xinis
Twenty-two states—led by New Jersey, California, and New York—filed suit on 21 January 2025 to strike down Executive Order 14155, which attempts to deny U.S. citizenship to babies born to undocumented parents. The 98-page complaint (linked above) argues the order flatly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, and would sow chaos in vital-records systems. Plaintiffs also allege the directive unconstitutionally commandeers state officials by forcing them to issue “provisional-citizenship” birth certificates.
Judge Paula Xinis held an expedited hearing and on 8 February 2025 entered a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement while the case proceeds. DOJ’s appeal (4th Cir. No. 25-1268) is fully briefed for argument on 10 June 2025. Meanwhile Judge Xinis has ordered limited discovery into White-House drafting files and set a merits schedule that could yield summary judgment by early autumn if the injunction survives on appeal.
Return to Directory
ACLU Protects Indonesian Community’s Birthright Claims
NH Indonesian Community Support v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00038 (D.N.H.) – Judge Landya B. McCafferty
This companion case, filed 30 January 2025 by a church-based Indonesian immigrant network and the ACLU of New Hampshire, spotlights families whose U.S.-born children risk “stateless limbo” under EO 14155. Beyond Fourteenth-Amendment claims, the 64-page complaint challenges DHS’s proposed “provisional-citizenship” ID card program as ultra vires and discriminatory.
Judge McCafferty granted a preliminary injunction on 6 February 2025, mirroring the Maryland order. She later transferred the action to Judge Xinis for consolidated discovery but kept jurisdiction over enforcement disputes in New Hampshire. The statewide vital-records bureau remains under court order to disregard the birth-ban EO entirely.
Return to Directory
Seattle Court Blocks Refugee Program Suspension
Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00255 (W.D. Wash.) – Judge Jamal N. Whitehead
Congolese refugee Pacito, HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services sued on 10 February 2025 after Executive Order 14160 froze FY-2025 refugee admissions and withheld resettlement funding. They argue the Refugee Act requires presidential consultation with Congress and that halting already vetted cases is arbitrary under the APA.
After a four-hour hearing, Judge Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction on 8 March 2025, ordering State and DHS to resume processing and to release held-up grant tranches within 30 days. The Ninth Circuit (No. 25-15991) took an emergency appeal but denied the government’s stay request on 28 March, so refugee arrivals have restarted while merits briefing proceeds; oral argument is set for 24 June 2025 in Seattle.
Return to Directory
Advocates Challenge Nationwide Expedited-Removal Expansion
Make the Road NY v. Huffman, No. 1:25-cv-00190 (D.D.C.) – Judge Amit P. Mehta
DHS’s 21 January 2025 regulation extends “expedited removal” nationwide to any undocumented person unable to prove two-year presence. Make the Road NY, La Uniόn del Pueblo Entero, and 15 individuals claim the rule unlawfully strips due-process rights and was issued without reasoned analysis. Their complaint also cites equal-protection concerns, noting DHS’s own data show disproportionate impact on Latino communities.
Judge Mehta heard argument on 22 April and has taken the preliminary-injunction motion under advisement; he signaled skepticism over DHS’s evidentiary record and promised a ruling “before the end of May.” Until then, the two-year fast-track rule technically remains in force, but DHS must file weekly statistics on removals and credible-fear determinations under a court scheduling order.
Return to Directory
Nationwide TRO Stops Third-Country Deportations
D.V.D. v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-10542 (D. Mass.) – Judge Brian J. Murphy
DHS’s 18 February 2025 directive authorizes ICE to deport non-citizens to any third country willing to accept them—often with no connection to the migrant—before asylum screening. Seven plaintiffs identified only by initials sued on 27 March 2025, asserting violations of the INA, CAT, and due process.
Judge Murphy granted a temporary restraining order on 28 March 2025, then converted it to a preliminary injunction on 12 April, forbidding third-country removals without fear interviews and written notice. The First Circuit (No. 25-1423) expedited the government’s appeal and will hear argument 20 June 2025. ICE must meanwhile comply with the injunction and file weekly compliance affidavits.
Return to Directory
Civil Rights, Inclusion & Education Policy
Court Blocks Anti-DEI Orders in Federal Agencies
National Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. (NADOHE) v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00207 (D. Md.) – Judge Theodore D. Chuang
Filed 3 February 2025, NADOHE, the American Association of University Professors, ROC-United, and the City of Baltimore attacked Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, which canceled all “equity-related” federal grants and forced contractors to certify they run no “illegal DEI” programs. The 97-page complaint argues the orders are unconstitutionally vague, violate the First Amendment by chilling race-related speech, and exceed the President’s spending power by nullifying duly appropriated funds.
After a five-hour hearing, Judge Chuang issued a nation-wide preliminary injunction on 21 February 2025, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on both First-Amendment and APA grounds. Agencies must process DEI grants as before and may not demand the anti-DEI certification. DOJ’s appeal (4th Cir. No. 25-1262) will be argued 12 June 2025; meanwhile discovery—limited to motive and scope—closes 30 July, positioning the case for summary judgment this fall.
Return to Directory
Eight States Sue Over Anti-DEI Executive Orders
State of California et al. v. Trump, No. 4:25-cv-01004 (N.D. Cal.) – Judge William H. Orrick
California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin sued 6 February 2025, echoing NADOHE’s claims but adding that the DEI bans commandeer state agencies and violate the Spending Clause. States detail billions in education and public-health grants jeopardized by the certification rule.
Judge Orrick declined to duplicate the Maryland injunction but entered a declaratory order stating the Fourth-Circuit ruling will bind the parties. He stayed further proceedings except for a live dispute over $74 million already withheld from California’s Cal-Grant program; that narrow issue will be argued 18 June 2025. If the Fourth Circuit narrows Chuang’s injunction, Orrick signaled he will revisit broader relief.
Return to Directory
Urban League Sues Over DEI Ban
National Urban League v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00711 (D.D.C.) – Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation Chicago filed 14 February 2025, claiming the DEI orders unlawfully discriminate by race and viewpoint, thwarting HUD-funded fair-housing programs.
Judge Chutkan consolidated briefing with NADOHE, but declined a stay, allowing plaintiffs to obtain limited discovery on HUD’s grant-cancellation spreadsheets. A joint status report is due 15 June 2025; unless the DEI orders survive on appeal, the D.C. case will likely be resolved on collateral-estoppel grounds.
Return to Directory
Women-Trades Group Challenges Contractor DEI Restrictions
Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01192 (N.D. Ill.) – Judge Franklin U. Valderrama
CWIT and two signatory contractors sued 28 February 2025, arguing the anti-DEI certification guts female-apprenticeship ratios in federal highway projects, violating equal-protection and procurement statutes.
Judge Valderrama denied an emergency TRO but set an accelerated summary-judgment track to avoid bid-cycle disruption. Cross-motions are due 21 June 2025, with a ruling promised in July—making this the first DEI-contractor test case likely to reach the Seventh Circuit.
Return to Directory
LULAC Sues Over Voter-Outreach Limits
LULAC v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00984 (D.D.C.) – Judge Reggie B. Walton
Latino advocacy groups challenge § 4 of EO 14180, which bars federally funded nonprofits from “targeted voter-registration.” They allege viewpoint discrimination and violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Judge Walton denied DOJ’s dismissal motion, finding plausible First-Amendment injury. A preliminary-injunction hearing is set for 31 May 2025; if granted, it would free outreach groups for the 2025 off-year elections.
Return to Directory
DNC Lawsuit Targets Federal Election-Control Order
Democratic Nat’l Committee v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01031 (D.D.C.) – Judge James E. Boasberg
The DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and DGA sued 12 March 2025, claiming EO 14182 federalizes election standards—ballot-harvesting bans, ID mandates—intruding on state authority under the Elections Clause.
Judge Boasberg paired the case with the multistate suit (below) and set en banc style briefing. The court will decide first whether political committees have standing, with argument on 11 June 2025.
Return to Directory
States Challenge Federal Election-Reform Order
State of California et al. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01022 (D.D.C.) – Judge James E. Boasberg
Eighteen states—spanning California to Wisconsin—contend Executive Order 14182 commandeers state election officials by dictating ID rules, early-voting windows, and ballot-collection limits, all without congressional delegation. Their 112-page complaint details how the order would withhold Help America Vote Act funds unless states adopt the federal template, and charges violations of the Elections Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. Plaintiffs stress practical harms: certifying new equipment on a federal timetable, reprinting millions of ID-compliant ballots, and rewriting dozens of state statutes barely a year before the 2026 midterms.
Judge Boasberg denied the Administration’s motion to dismiss on standing grounds, finding the states face “imminent administrative chaos.” He coordinated the suit with the DNC’s companion case and ordered merits briefing to finish by 30 August 2025—well ahead of the 2026 cycle. A three-day evidentiary hearing is set for 15–17 September on both the constitutional and APA claims. Because the order is not scheduled to bite until January 2026, Boasberg declined interim relief, but he warned that “decisional clarity” must come this year, anticipating an expedited appeal that will almost certainly land before the Supreme Court by spring 2026.
Return to Directory
School Districts Challenge DEI-Limiting Education Order
Somerville Public Schools et al. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10461 (D. Mass.) – Judge Patti B. Saris
Four Massachusetts districts joined by the AFT and NEA target EO 14184 (“Empowering Parents”), which conditions Title I and IDEA grants on certifying that no “race-based” instruction or affinity spaces exist. The 94-page complaint argues the order violates Title VI, the Spending Clause, and equal-protection principles, calling it a federal micromanagement of local pedagogy that would chill Black-history and bilingual-education programs. Plaintiffs attach declarations from superintendents forecasting staff layoffs and program cancellations once DOE begins withholding funds this summer.
Judge Saris denied an ex-parte TRO—citing the broader Maryland DEI injunction—but ordered DOE to disclose any enforcement plans and related grant-freeze spreadsheets. Limited discovery is underway, focusing on whether officials labeled curriculum “non-compliant” without clear criteria. A preliminary-injunction hearing is set for 14 June 2025; Saris signaled she will rule quickly so districts know their FY 2026 budgets. Should the Fourth Circuit narrow Judge Chuang’s nationwide DEI injunction, Saris indicated this education-specific case would “become the tip of the spear” for preserving race-conscious teaching.
Return to Directory
Trans Veterans Challenge Renewed Military Service Ban
Logan Ireland & Nicholas Bade v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00742 (D.D.C.) – Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Decorated Air Force veteran Logan Ireland and Marine veteran Nick Bade contend EO 14162, which bars transgender enlistment and commissions, is unconstitutional discrimination. Their lawsuit leans on Bostock and prior injunctions from the 2017 ban, alleging the Pentagon’s claimed “readiness costs” are a recycled pretext the courts already rejected. Plaintiffs seek class status for all transgender applicants shut out since 20 January 2025 and demand DoD restore accession processing immediately.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly consolidated the veterans’ case with Commander Shilling and compelled DoD to preserve all medical-cost and readiness studies—a nod to prior litigation where cherry-picked data collapsed under scrutiny. Merits briefing closes 15 July 2025, but the practical landscape is shaped by the Supreme Court’s stay of the Shilling injunction: the ban remains in force. Plaintiffs are banking on building a factual record showing zero operational detriment, hoping to undercut the high court’s “military deference” narrative when the consolidated appeal returns to the justices.
Return to Directory
Service Members Win Injunction Against Trans Ban
Commander Emily Shilling et al. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00491 (D.D.C.) – Judge Rudolph Contreras
Five active-duty officers and two cadets secured a nationwide preliminary injunction on 6 March 2025, with Judge Contreras ruling EO 14162 likely violates the Fifth Amendment and the APA. He held DoD’s own 2020 report—finding minimal cost impact—undercuts the Administration’s “readiness” claim. The order would have reopened enlistment and retention for transgender personnel.
The Justice Department raced to the Supreme Court, which on 2 May (5-4) granted a stay pending appeal, citing deference to military judgments. Contreras is nevertheless overseeing discovery into how the current ban was drafted; he ordered production of cost-benefit memos and any White House communications by 10 June. The D.C. Circuit will hear argument 27 June 2025. If plaintiffs win there, they can ask the Supreme Court to lift its stay—setting up a decisive clash over military authority versus equal protection.
Return to Directory
PFLAG Wins TRO Against Anti-Trans Healthcare Orders
PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00508 (D. Colo.) – Judge Nina Y. Wang
PFLAG, alongside the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, moved within hours of EO 14163’s signing, calling the order a blanket denial of federally funded gender-affirming care. Their 81-page complaint cites the Equal Protection Clause, Section 1557 of the ACA, and medical-ethics standards. Judge Wang granted a same-day TRO (4 Feb 2025), expanded to a nationwide preliminary injunction on 18 Feb, finding irreparable harm to thousands of patients suddenly cut off from treatment.
The government’s emergency stay was rebuffed by the Tenth Circuit on 11 March; DOJ now must file merits briefs by 1 July 2025. Concurrently, HHS has issued a memo telling Medicaid contractors to resume paying for previously approved hormone and surgery claims—compliance PFLAG is monitoring through court-ordered data reports. A final judgment is likely late this year; if the injunction stands, EO 14163 may effectively die in Colorado before other circuits even weigh in.
Return to Directory
Doctors Sue Over Trans-Healthcare Restrictions
Doctors for America v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00412 (W.D. Wash.) – Judge Robert S. Lasnik
Fourteen medical organizations and two hospital systems argue the same EO forces clinicians to abandon evidence-based care and conflicts with federal nondiscrimination rules. They filed on 9 February 2025, adding APA claims for arbitrary reversal of HHS’s prior medical-necessity determinations.
Judge Lasnik stayed the Washington case in deference to Judge Wang’s nationwide injunction but kept jurisdiction, ordering HHS to provide quarterly compliance declarations for West-Coast providers. Should the Colorado injunction be narrowed, Lasnik’s stay will lift automatically, readying this case to supply immediate regional protection for patients in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
Return to Directory
States Secure Injunction on Trans-Healthcare Orders
State of Washington et al. v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00455 (W.D. Wash.) – Judge Robert S. Lasnik
Filed 11 February 2025 by Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, the suit targets EO 14163 for trampling state-run Medicaid and employee-health plans. Plaintiffs allege the order violates the Spending Clause and commandeers state insurers.
Judge Lasnik issued a regional preliminary injunction on 7 February (predating PFLAG’s broader order) that bars HHS from denying federal match to state Medicaid programs covering transition care. Although now overshadowed, the injunction remains a fail-safe: if the national order is narrowed by higher courts, Pacific-Northwest patients still retain coverage under Lasnik’s separate decree.
Return to Directory
Families Challenge Sex-Definition Executive Order
Ashton Orr et al. v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00721 (D. Ariz.) – Judge Susan R. Bolton
Seven transgender youths and their parents contest EO 14168, which mandates all federal agencies define sex strictly as “determined at conception.” Their complaint argues the edict conflicts with Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, and prior circuit precedent recognizing gender identity. Plaintiffs detail practical fallout: invalidated passports, loss of FAFSA eligibility, and barred entry to gender-appropriate sports teams.
Judge Bolton denied DOJ’s bid to unmask the minors, stressing the risk of harassment. Limited discovery into the order’s drafting is underway; both sides will brief the preliminary-injunction motion by 27 June 2025 with an 11 July hearing. Bolton indicated she will issue a detailed ruling on whether the order is “categorically irreconcilable” with federal civil-rights statutes—an analysis likely to guide other district courts.
Return to Directory
Trans Inmate Stops Transfer to Men’s Prison
Maria Moe v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10279 (D. Mass.) – Judge Denise J. Casper
Maria “Moe,” a transgender woman serving time at FMC Carswell, sued on 26 January 2025 after BOP ordered all trans women moved to men’s prisons. She claimed Eighth-Amendment deliberate indifference and Fifth-Amendment equal-protection violations. Judge Casper granted a TRO the same day, barring transfer and restoring hormone therapy.
The case is now in discovery—coordinated with Kingdom v. Trump in D.C.—and Moe moved for class certification covering all trans women in federal custody. Casper set class-briefing deadlines for August and signaled willingness to issue a preliminary injunction class-wide if discovery shows systemic abuse risks. The TRO remains in effect for all named plaintiffs.
Return to Directory
Florida Inmate Challenges Trans-Prison Transfer Policy
Doe v. Bondi, No. 0:25-cv-60444 (S.D. Fla.) – Judge Kathleen M. Williams
“Jane Doe,” a trans woman at FCI Tallahassee, filed on 2 February 2025, raising the same constitutional claims. Judge Williams granted a TRO within hours and consolidated Doe’s case with Jones v. Bondi. She ordered the government to produce risk-assessment data on assaults against trans women in men’s facilities by 17 May 2025.
The TRO bars BOP from transferring Doe or cutting off her treatment; Williams indicated it will remain until Judge Rudolph Contreras (overseeing Kingdom) rules on nationwide relief—but she reserves power to enter a permanent injunction for Florida plaintiffs if D.C. relief lags.
Return to Directory
1
Third Inmate Suit Over Prison-Transfer Ban
Jones v. Bondi, No. 0:25-cv-60473 (S.D. Fla.) – Judge Kathleen M. Williams
Filed 4 February 2025 by “Jane Jones,” the suit reinforces the challenge, adding Bivens claims against individual BOP officials who allegedly threatened immediate transfer absent court order. The TRO in Doe protects Jones as well; discovery focuses on internal e-mails referencing “Order 336,” the directive to re-house all inmates by “chromosomal sex.”
Williams synchronized the Florida schedule with Kingdom v. Trump—class-wide merits briefing will follow the D.C. timeline. Final relief for the Florida subclass will depend on whether national courts require individualized housing assessments or allow the blanket “biological-sex” policy to stand.
Return to Directory
Federal Workforce & Agency Governance
NTEU Sues to Block Schedule F Purge
NTEU v. Trump No. 1:25-cv-00106 (D.D.C.) – Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
The National Treasury Employees Union sued on Inauguration Day to stop Executive Order 14171, which re-creates “Schedule F” and lets agencies re-classify policy and analyst positions into an excepted service that can be fired at will. NTEU claims the order squarely conflicts with the Civil Service Reform Act, violates due-process property interests in continued employment, and was issued without APA notice-and-comment. Declarations from IRS and CFPB economists warn of wholesale resignations and politicization of economic analysis.
Judge Sullivan refused to dismiss for lack of standing, granted expedited discovery into OPM’s classification numbers, and on 4 April 2025 heard arguments on a preliminary injunction. He has taken the motion under advisement but did issue a temporary administrative stay that bars any Schedule F removals until he rules. If the injunction issues, it will freeze all reclassifications; if it is denied, the union will sprint to the D.C. Circuit, where a companion AFGE appeal is already docketed.
LINK TO COURT DOCUMENTS
Return to Directory
Unions File Second Challenge to Schedule F Order
AFGE et al. v. Trump – Second Schedule F Challenge No. 1:25-cv-00129 (D.D.C.) – Judge Dabney L. Friedrich
AFGE, AFSCME, and NARFE filed a parallel challenge two weeks after NTEU, but add a count that Schedule F violates the Constitution’s Take-Care Clause because it strips the Merit Systems Protection Board of its statutory review role. Plaintiffs stress ripple effects: decimating agency whistle-blower programs, chilling dissent, and skewing scientific advisory work.
Judge Friedrich consolidated briefing with NTEU for efficiency but declined to merge the dockets. She held a joint status hearing on 22 April and said she will “track Judge Sullivan’s pace”—meaning her ruling will likely follow within days of his. If Sullivan enjoins Schedule F, Friedrich is expected to do the same; if he refuses, Friedrich may still grant narrower relief protecting employees in her plaintiffs’ bargaining units.
Return to Directory
PEER Sues Over Schedule F Impact on Science
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump No. 1:25-cv-00202 (D.D.C.) – Judge Royce C. Lamberth
PEER, representing scientists at EPA, NOAA, and Interior, argues Schedule F uniquely endangers evidence-based decision-making by letting political appointees purge climate-modelers and wildlife biologists. Their APA claim zeroes in on OPM’s failure to analyze scientific-integrity EO 12866 costs.
Judge Lamberth denied a TRO—citing Sullivan’s temporary stay—but ordered OPM to preserve all reclassification spreadsheets and to notify the court if any science positions are proposed for conversion. A merits briefing schedule will trail the NTEU decision by 30 days, giving PEER a chance to refine arguments based on whatever reasoning Judge Sullivan supplies.
Return to Directory
Watchdogs Challenge OPM Schedule F Rollout
Government Accountability Project v. OPM – Schedule F Guidance No. 1:25-cv-00245 (D.D.C.) – Judge Beryl A. Howell
GAP, the National Active & Retired Federal Employees Association, and three former IGs say OPM’s detailed Schedule F guidance is itself a legislative rule that should have gone through notice-and-comment. They seek vacatur of the manual that tells agencies how to label someone a “policy” employee.
Judge Howell refused to stay the case and ordered OPM to file the entire guidance record—including e-mails with the White House—in unredacted form under seal. She will hear cross-motions for summary judgment on 18 July 2025; if the manual is vacated, even a surviving EO would lack procedural teeth.
Return to Directory
Judge Halts Order Terminating Union Contracts
NTEU v. Trump – Union Contract Terminations No. 1:25-cv-00311 (D.D.C.) – Judge Rudolph Contreras
On 31 March 2025, President Trump issued an EO voiding 12 department-level collective-bargaining agreements “for inefficiency.” NTEU sued the same day, alleging the President lacks statutory authority to abrogate signed CBAs, which can be altered only by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
Judge Contreras granted a preliminary injunction on 25 April 2025, holding the EO likely ultra vires; agencies must honor the CBAs while the case is litigated. DOJ appealed (D.C. Cir. No. 25-5092) and sought a stay, which Contreras denied. The appellate court set argument for 19 June; unless it lifts the injunction, all union contracts stay in force through FY 2025.
Return to Directory
Court Blocks CFPB Shutdown Attempt
NTEU v. Vought – CFPB Shutdown Attempt No. 1:25-cv-00257 (D.D.C.) – Judge Richard J. Leon
NTEU also sued acting CFPB Director Russell Vought after he suspended the Bureau’s self-funding draw and halted enforcement actions. The union alleges violation of the Dodd-Frank Act’s mandatory funding scheme and separation-of-powers principles.
Judge Leon issued a temporary restraining order on 12 February 2025 requiring Vought to resume normal operations and forbidding mass RIFs. After a full briefing he converted the TRO to a preliminary injunction on 21 March. The D.C. Circuit (No. 25-5082) allowed Vought to appeal but denied a stay, remarking Congress designed CFPB’s funding to be “insulated from exactly this executive pressure.
Return to Directory
States Win Injunction Against Federal-Grants Freeze
State of New York et al. v. Trump – Federal-Grants Freeze No. 3:25-cv-00931 (N.D.N.Y.) – Judge Brenda K. Sannes
Twenty-one states challenged the White House “pause memo” that froze discretionary grant obligations while officials reviewed “ideological bias.” The complaint asserts Spending-Clause, APA, and Impoundment-Control-Act violations.
Judge Sannes granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on 13 March 2025, compelling agencies to process stalled grant awards. DOJ’s Second-Circuit appeal (No. 25-896) will be argued 5 June; meanwhile states file weekly compliance declarations detailing funds that have resumed flowing to climate, opioid, and infrastructure programs.
Return to Directory
Nonprofits Join Suit Over Grant Suspension
National Council of Nonprofits et al. v. Trump No. 1:25-cv-00571 (D.D.C.) – Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
Private charities—including United Way Worldwide, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Public Health Association, and dozens of local food banks—filed suit on 7 March 2025 after the White House issued a “pause memo” suspending every discretionary grant and cooperative agreement while officials performed an “ideological‐content audit.” The 118-page complaint says the freeze breached the Spending Clause, the APA, and equal-protection guarantees because it singled out organizations the Administration labeled “progressive.” Plaintiffs describe real-time fallout: halted Head Start slots, mobile-clinic contracts, and food-bank USDA commodity deliveries. They also ask for damages to cover staff furloughs and spoilage costs if the money never arrives.
Judge Chutkan denied DOJ’s bid to stay the case, noting that although the multistate New York v. Trump injunction bars enforcement, only this suit can address private losses. She ordered limited discovery into how OMB staff tagged grantees as “equity-focused” and allowed plaintiffs to depose two senior OMB aides on motive. A status hearing is set for 12 July 2025; if agencies have not fully cleared the backlog by then, Chutkan signaled she is prepared to set a damages trial schedule and, if necessary, appoint a special master to monitor compliance.
Return to Directory
Pennsylvania Sues Over Grant-Freeze Impact
Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania et al. v. Trump No. 2:25-cv-01412 (E.D. Pa.) – Judge Gerald A. McHugh
Pennsylvania sued on 11 March 2025, emphasizing state-specific harms from the freeze: a $450 million interstate-bridge replacement, opioid-abatement block grants, and workforce-development funds tied to semiconductor fabs. The 96-page complaint echoes the constitutional and statutory theories in New York v. Trump but adds a Tenth-Amendment claim that the freeze intrudes on state sovereignty by derailing projects for which Harrisburg has already issued matching bonds.
Judge McHugh stayed the merits until the Second Circuit rules in New York, but he refused to leave Pennsylvania defenseless. His order requires USDOT, Labor, and HHS to give the Commonwealth 21 days’ notice before cutting any grant; that notice must include a written rationale and a point-of-contact for expedited challenge. Effectively, Pennsylvania enjoys a bespoke early-warning system, giving Governor Shapiro a chance to file a TRO in Philadelphia the moment the federal government targets state funds—leverage the Governor’s office calls “insurance against ideological bean-counting.”
Return to Directory
Universities Win Injunction Against Research-Overhead Cuts
Ass’n of American Universities et al. v. Trump – Overhead-Cost Cap No. 1:25-cv-00602 (D.D.C.) – Judge Carl J. Nichols
On 12 February 2025, AAU, AAAS, Johns Hopkins, MIT, and 58 other R1 institutions challenged OMB Bulletin 25-03, which slashes permissible indirect-cost rates on NIH and NSF grants from 26 percent to 15 percent. The universities argue OMB ignored statutory cost-principles, produced no economic analysis, and sidestepped the APA’s notice-and-comment mandate—all while threatening to strip $3.2 billion from campus labs mid-budget year. Affidavits warn of cancelled graduate stipends, shuttered vivariums, and delayed cancer-trial enrollment.
Judge Nichols, an alumnus of the civil-division office that once wrote OMB circulars, called the bulletin “the paradigm of arbitrary rulemaking.” His 14 February 2025 preliminary injunction blocks the cap nationwide and orders agencies to keep paying invoices at the legacy 26 percent rate until final judgment. DOJ appealed (D.C. Cir. No. 25-5075) but the panel denied a stay, citing the potential for “irreparable loss of unique research.” Oral argument is docketed for 8 August 2025 and has been consolidated with the companion multistate suit from Massachusetts to give the court a single opportunity to decide whether the executive branch can unilaterally rewrite cost-principle ceilings.
Return to Directory
States Join Fight Against Research-Overhead Cap
State of Massachusetts et al. v. Trump – States Join Overhead-Cap Fight No. 1:25-cv-10521 (D. Mass.) – Judge Leo T. Sorokin
Twenty states (from Maine to New Mexico) followed the universities on 20 February 2025, arguing the cap hijacks state budgeting for land-grant institutions and violates the Spending Clause’s “clear-notice” rule. Their complaint highlights public-health knock-ons: a planned Lyme-disease vaccine trial at UMass and coastal-resilience modeling at URI risk defunding mid-stream.
Judge Sorokin issued a declaratory judgment adopting Nichols’s reasoning and enjoining enforcement against institutions in the First Circuit. He then stayed remaining proceedings, but required NIH and NSF to certify—quarterly—that no New England or Atlantic-state grant was carved down. The D.C. Circuit’s forthcoming decision will dictate next steps; if Nichols’s injunction survives, Sorokin will close the docket, but if it falters, the First-Circuit case springs back to life with its own injunctive muscle.
Return to Directory
Medical Colleges Sue Over Indirect-Cost Cuts
Ass’n of American Medical Colleges et al. v. Trump No. 8:25-cv-00411 (D. Md.) – Judge Deborah K. Chasanow
AAMC, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Mayo Clinic, and 30 teaching-hospital systems sued on 4 March 2025, stressing that the overhead cap uniquely hurts clinical trials and Medicare-funded residency programs, which rely on indirect-cost pools to keep research wards staffed 24/7. They allege APA violations, breach of NIH’s authorizing statute, and unconstitutional commandeering of nonprofit resources.
Judge Chasanow stayed merits proceedings to await the D.C. appeal but issued an interim order compelling HHS to escrow any withheld indirect-cost funds plus interest. She reasoned that if the cap is ultimately struck down, hospitals should be “made whole without further litigation.” Quarterly escrow reports are due to both the court and the AAMC, ensuring a clear damages ledger if the plaintiffs prevail.
Return to Directory
Fired Special Counsel Dellinger Sues Over Ouster
Hampton Dellinger v. Trump – OSC Ouster No. 1:25-cv-00521 (D.D.C.) – Judge Reggie B. Walton
Hampton Dellinger, Senate-confirmed head of the Office of Special Counsel, alleges he was forced to submit a “resignation effective on presidential request” under an EO demanding loyalty pledges from certain appointees. He says the maneuver violates the OSC statute’s five-year tenure protection and retaliates for his investigations into Schedule F planning. The complaint seeks reinstatement and a declaration that the loyalty EO is facially unconstitutional.
Judge Walton denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss (rejecting the claim that OSC leaders serve “at pleasure”), ordered expedited discovery, and set a bench trial on 9 July 2025. Walton hinted that if Dellinger proves retaliation, the remedy may extend beyond reinstatement to an order barring similar “deferred resignations” across the inspector-general corps—potentially restoring independence protections gutted in prior administrations.
Return to Directory
Employees Challenge DOGE Financial-Disclosure Mandate
Denise Nemeth-Greenleaf et al. v. Trump – DOGE Financial-Disclosure Mandate No. 1:25-cv-00655 (D.D.C.) – Judge Trevor N. McFadden
Five mid-career analysts at EPA and USDA challenge the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) blanket demand for personal bank statements, cryptocurrency wallets, and social-media handles. They claim it violates the Privacy Act, exceeds DOGE’s statutory remit (limited to agency-specific efficiency audits), and chills First-Amendment associational rights—especially for employees with side-income from advocacy writing or Patreon content.
Judge McFadden granted a temporary protective order shielding the plaintiffs from disclosure deadlines, instructed OPM to suspend data-collection for any prospective class members, and ordered briefing on class certification by 17 June 2025. A full PI hearing is scheduled for 2 July 2025. McFadden also told DOJ to be ready to justify the breadth of requested data under strict-scrutiny review—signaling the mandate may be evaluated not merely for APA defects but for core constitutional infirmities.
Return to Directory
Civil Servants Sue Over DOGE Privacy Orders
Andrea Gribbon et al. v. Trump – Privacy Orders No. 1:25-cv-00702 (D.D.C.) – Judge Amit P. Mehta
Six civil servants—two of them whistle-blowers in ongoing OSC investigations—filed a Bivens action against Elon Musk (DOGE director) and senior OPM officials, alleging threats of discipline if they failed to produce crypto-wallet addresses and private-messaging logs. They assert First-Amendment retaliation and due-process violations, seeking both injunctive relief and individual damages.
Judge Mehta consolidated discovery with Nemeth-Greenleaf but allowed plaintiffs to depose Musk for two hours on directive drafting, rejecting DOJ’s apex-doctrine objection because Musk allegedly authored the data form himself. The court will revisit personal-capacity immunity claims after discovery; meanwhile, plaintiffs enjoy the same protective order halting disclosures.
Return to Directory
Anonymous Workers Seek Protection From DOGE Disclosures
J. Doe #1–26 v. Trump – Anonymous Employee Suit No. 1:25-cv-00729 (D.D.C.) – Judge Ana C. Reyes
Twenty-six employees spanning eight agencies sued under seal, arguing that revealing their identities could trigger retaliation or leaks to partisan media. They seek the same injunction and class certification as Nemeth-Greenleaf but add a prayer for declaratory relief that anonymity is justified given the Administration’s public rhetoric branding “disloyal” staff as enemies.
Judge Reyes approved pseudonyms and ordered DOJ to file any planned disclosures in camera first. She will hold a sealed status conference after Judge McFadden’s PI ruling to determine whether her plaintiffs can ride the outcome of the lead case or require a separate merits track.
Return to Directory
States Sue Over Employee-Privacy Violations
States of New Mexico et al. v. Trump – Employee-Privacy Violations No. 1:25-cv-00394 (D.N.M.) – Judge Kea W. Riggs
Thirteen states claim DOGE’s disclosure mandate disrupts federally funded joint programs—Medicaid, SNAP, highway planning—because state employees embedded in federal task forces now fear dismissal or data exposure. They allege cooperative-federalism violations and a chilling effect on state recruitment to federal grant work.
Judge Riggs denied the TRO, reasoning the D.C. cases provide nationwide protection if the disclosure rule is enjoined. However, she set a status hearing to follow the 2 July PI decision in Nemeth-Greenleaf. At that point, Riggs will decide whether supplemental state-specific relief is needed—keeping a placeholder for declaratory judgment tailored to state–federal partnerships.
Return to Directory
Retiree Groups Fight DOGE Data Demands
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Trump – Retiree Data Demands No. 1:25-cv-00823 (D.D.C.) – Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
Senior-advocacy groups argue DOGE’s order sweeps in annuitants and survivors who no longer hold clearances, compelling disclosure of pension account numbers and Social Security statements. They claim Privacy-Act and due-process violations and seek an injunction barring OPM from contacting retirees.
Judge Chutkan stayed enforcement against retirees pending resolution of the employee class cases but added a notice requirement: OPM must warn the court and counsel 30 days in advance before any outreach to annuitants. She set a joint status update for 15 September 2025 to see whether the retirees need separate permanent relief or can piggyback on the employee judgments.
Return to Directory
Unions Mount Second DOGE-Disclosure Lawsuit
AFGE v. Trump – Second DOGE-Disclosure Lawsuit No. 1:25-cv-00867 (D.D.C.) – Judge Christopher R. Cooper
AFGE, AFSCME, and NTEU seek class-wide protection for more than 700 000 bargaining-unit employees subject to the data demand. Their complaint mirrors Nemeth-Greenleaf but adds a labor-statute claim that the mandate is a unilateral change to working conditions imposed without collective bargaining.
Judge Cooper deferred PI briefing until after Judge McFadden rules, but he granted unions’ motion for preservation subpoenas, compelling DOGE and OPM to retain all draft policies and purge-list spreadsheets. Cooper stressed that if the policy is ultimately struck down, unions may pursue monetary relief for any members disciplined or denied promotions due to non-compliance—laying groundwork for a large-scale back-pay action if the Administration’s disclosure gambit fails.
Return to Directory
EPIC FOIA Suit Seeks DOGE Program Records
EPIC v. Trump – FOIA Lawsuit for DOGE Records - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00684, Judge Randolph D. Moss
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed suit on February 28 2025 after five agencies—including OPM, OMB, and DOJ—ignored or “glomar”-responded to EPIC’s Freedom of Information Act requests for e-mails, tasking memos, and data-security assessments behind the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) massive employee-financial-disclosure program. The 29-page complaint seeks a court order compelling an expedited search and production schedule, plus a Vaughn index so the public can see who ordered DOGE to vacuum up crypto-wallet and bank data and how that information will be stored or shared. EPIC also asks for attorney fees, citing the agencies’ “pattern and practice” of stonewalling requests related to Schedule F and DOGE.
Judge Moss denied DOJ’s motion for an open-America stay, called the case “ripe for sunlight,” and on April 18 entered a production order: agencies must finish rolling releases by July 1 2025 and file a detailed exemption log. If they miss any deadline by more than seven days, Moss will entertain EPIC’s request for in-camera review and possible contempt sanctions. Because the record overlaps with the class challenges to DOGE’s data mandate, plaintiffs in those cases have already filed notices of related action so they can cross-use any e-mails EPIC extracts.
Return to Directory
CREW Sues Over White-House Records Retention
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Trump – Records-Retention Challenge - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00691, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
CREW’s March 3 2025 complaint alleges the White House and DOGE are routinely deleting Signal messages, Proton-Mail threads, and draft executive-order redlines in violation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the Federal Records Act (FRA). CREW attaches whistle-blower declarations from White-House IT contractors describing “auto-purge” scripts pushed to senior-staff phones days after the inauguration. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the deletion policies are unlawful and a mandatory injunction forcing the Archivist to take custody of any remaining server images.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding CREW’s injury is “informational and concrete” under D.C. Circuit precedent. She ordered limited discovery into server logs and, in a rare step, allowed CREW to depose the White House deputy CTO on preservation protocols. A preliminary-injunction hearing is set for June 26 2025; if CREW shows ongoing spoliation, the court may appoint a special master to oversee immediate imaging of White-House devices—a potential watershed for presidential-records enforcement.
Return to Directory
POGO Seeks Enforcement of Federal Records Laws
Project On Government Oversight (POGO) v. Trump – Enforcement of Federal Records Laws - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00704, Judge Timothy J. Kelly
POGO’s March 6 2025 action dovetails with CREW but focuses on agency-level compliance. It seeks mandamus compelling the Archivist and the Office of Management and Budget to issue preservation directives after multiple Inspectors General reported missing agency Slack channels tied to DOGE planning. POGO claims the Archivist’s passive posture violates 44 U.S.C. § 2905, which requires proactive steps to safeguard records at risk.
Judge Kelly denied a government motion to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims, stressing it is “classic APA review.” He set an accelerated briefing schedule and hinted he may consolidate merits and preliminary-injunction issues at a July 10 2025 hearing. If POGO wins, expect a sweeping court order compelling immediate capture of executive-branch cloud accounts—a move that would dramatically stiffen PRA/FRA compliance across agencies.
Return to Directory
Democracy Forward Files Multiple DOGE-Records Suits
Democracy Forward Foundation v. Trump – Multiple FOIA/APA Suits on DOGE - D.D.C. Nos. 1:25-cv-00622, -00645, -00673; all before Judge Amy Berman Jackson
Between February 26 and March 14 2025, Democracy Forward filed three related suits seeking DOGE charter documents, cost-benefit analyses for Schedule F, and OPM legal opinions green-lighting DOGE’s data grab. The complaints blend FOIA counts with an APA claim that DOGE is an “agency” operating without an OMB-approved information-collection clearance, thus any data mandate is unlawful.
Judge Jackson consolidated the cases, ordered a rolling release every 30 days, and denied DOJ’s request for a blanket national-security exemption. She also required OPM to file a declaration by June 7 explaining why DOGE’s disclosure form lacked a Paperwork Reduction Act control number. Democracy Forward plans to use any released documents to bolster the Schedule F and privacy challenges now pending before Judges Sullivan and McFadden, creating a coordinated paper trail of administrative overreach.
Return to Directory
American Oversight Litigates IG-Firing Records
American Oversight v. Trump – IG-Firing Records - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00811, Judge James E. Boasberg
American Oversight sued on April 4 2025 after OMB and DOJ withheld memos related to the January 31 mass firing of eight Inspectors General, including the DOJ and HHS IGs. The complaint seeks immediate production under FOIA and a declaration that the firing decision documents are not privileged because they involve statutory tenure protections.
Judge Boasberg granted American Oversight’s motion for a Vaughn-index deadline: agencies must catalog withheld records by June 20. He also issued an order preserving all communications between DOGE, OMB, and the White House regarding IG removals. If the Vaughn index confirms political motives, American Oversight will move for in-camera review and fast-track summary judgment, aiming to release the memos before the Senate weighs replacements for the ousted watchdogs.
Return to Directory
Ousted Inspectors General Reinstated After Lawsuit
Robert Storch et al. v. Trump – Reinstated Inspectors General - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00544, Judge Jia M. Cobb
Five former IGs, led by DOJ IG Robert Storch, challenged their summary removals on February 8 2025. They argue the firing EO violates the IG Reform Act, which allows removal only for specific misfeasance reported to Congress. Storch et al. sought reinstatement and declaratory relief that independent watchdogs cannot be purged en masse for “policy disagreement.”
Judge Cobb granted a preliminary injunction on February 12, ordering immediate reinstatement and back pay, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed under D.C. Circuit precedent (Blazy v. Tenet). DOJ’s appeal (D.C. Cir. No. 25-5062) will be argued June 27; until then the IGs are back in office, continuing investigations into Schedule F and DOGE. The case stands as a powerful check on executive attempts to sideline statutory watchdogs.
Return to Directory
MSPB Chair Harris Challenges Unlawful Removal
Cathy Harris v. Trump – MSPB Chair Removal - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00625, Judge Timothy J. Kelly
Cathy Harris, chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, sued March 1 2025, claiming her removal violated 5 U.S.C. § 1202, which requires cause and Senate concurrence. She seeks reinstatement and declaratory relief that the President cannot terminate MSPB members mid-term.
Judge Kelly denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss, invoking Seila Law’s carve-out for multi-member adjudicatory boards. He set a merits hearing for July 15. If Harris prevails, Trump would have to seat the Senate-confirmed quorum he dismissed—reopening an appellate avenue for thousands of federal employees challenging Schedule F-related firings.
Return to Directory
Former NLRB Member Wilcox Contests Firing
Gwynne Wilcox v. Trump – NLRB Member Firing - S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-03076, Judge Jesse M. Furman
Former NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox filed on April 9 2025, alleging her removal breached NLRA tenure protections and constituted viewpoint discrimination. She seeks reinstatement and injunctive relief preventing the Board from reversing decisions issued during her term.
Judge Furman issued a show-cause order compelling DOJ to justify the firing by June 3. He also stayed any NLRB abatements of Wilcox-joined decisions. If the court reinstates her, Trump’s effort to tilt the Board 4-1 Republican will unravel, and dozens of workplace-rights rulings could be revived.
Return to Directory
Former OPM Director Grundmann Sues Over Removal
Susan Tsui Grundmann v. Trump – OPM Director Removal - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00845, Judge Florence Y. Pan
Grundmann sued April 12 2025, alleging her ouster violated a statutory fixed term and impeded civil-service stability. The complaint also claims retaliation for opposing Schedule F.
Judge Pan denied a TRO but granted expedited discovery and set an evidentiary hearing for July 18. If Grundmann shows political retaliation, Pan hinted she may issue not only reinstatement but also a structural injunction barring the White House from using “clouded” terminations to intimidate future OPM heads.
Return to Directory
VOA Journalists Win TRO Against Broadcast Gag
Michael Abramowitz et al. v. Trump – VOA Broadcast Gag - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00788, Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Voice of America journalists sued March 25 2025 (D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00788, Judge Royce C. Lamberth) after DOGE issued a directive banning coverage “critical of federal policy.” Plaintiffs allege First-Amendment and statutory violations of U.S. AGM’s editorial firewall.
Judge Lamberth granted a TRO the same day, expanded into a preliminary injunction on April 4, blocking the gag and restructuring plan. The injunction restores editorial independence and forbids personnel changes without Board of Governors approval—buffering U.S. international broadcasters from political control through 2026.
Return to Directory
USIP Board Sues Over DOGE Takeover
United States Institute of Peace v. Trump – DOGE Takeover (D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00760, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan)
USIP’s bipartisan board filed April 1 2025 to stop an EO placing the congressionally chartered peace institute under DOGE budget authority. They argue the move violates USIP’s enabling law and separation-of-powers principles.
Judge Sullivan denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss, issued a temporary injunction preserving USIP’s autonomy, and scheduled summary-judgment cross-briefing to finish by August 1. If the takeover is voided, it will cap the President’s reach over other quasi-governmental nonprofits.
Return to Directory
USADF Head Brehm Challenges Agency Abolition
Ward Brehm v. Trump – USADF Abolition - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00892, Judge Rudolph Contreras
USADF president Ward Brehm sued April 15 2025 challenging an EO folding the African Development Foundation into the State Department. The complaint cites statutory language that USADF “shall be an independent agency” and claims presidential reorganization without congressional approval is ultra vires.
Contreras issued a PI on April 22, blocking the merger and halting layoff notices. He ordered State and USADF to file competing governance proposals by July 5, signaling willingness to mediate a legislative fix if Congress acts—but prepared to issue declaratory relief barring unilateral abolition if it doesn’t.
Return to Directory
States Halt Social-Security Overhaul in Court
State of Rhode Island et al. v. Trump – Social-Security Overhaul (D.R.I. No. 1:25-cv-00089, Judge Mary S. McElroy)
Twenty-one states sued March 25 2025 after an EO directed SSA to pilot work-requirements and private-investment options. The complaint argues the order violates the Social Security Act’s benefits formula and the non-delegation doctrine.
Judge McElroy granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on April 10, freezing the pilots. SSA must file weekly reports on halted implementation. DOJ’s First-Circuit appeal (No. 25-1422) is set for July 2; beneficiaries retain status quo until a higher court rules.
Return to Directory
Disability Groups Sue Over Social-Security Changes
American Association of People with Disabilities v. Trump – Social-Security Changes - D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00809, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
Filed April 2 2025, AAPD and allied groups allege the same EO violates the APA, the Rehabilitation Act, and due process by imposing hurdles on disabled claimants. They seek to piggyback on the Rhode Island injunction but pursue damages for beneficiaries who already faced benefit suspensions during the first week of rollout.
Judge Chutkan stayed enforcement against named plaintiffs and permitted limited discovery into SSA emails discussing disability “cost savings.” She will revisit wider relief once the First Circuit rules—ensuring disabled claimants are not left in limbo if the statewide injunction is narrowed.
Return to Directory
States Sue Over Seven-Agency Closure Plan
States v. Trump – Seven-Agency Closure Plan
A 21-state coalition (D.R.I. No. 1:25-cv-00051, Judge John J. McConnell) won a preliminary injunction on March 29 2025 halting the shuttering of IMLS, FMCS, MBDA, and four other small agencies. Judge McConnell’s order cites clear congressional appropriations and labels the EO an “impermissible line-item veto.” The First Circuit set fast-track appeal argument for June 19; meanwhile the agencies continue normal operations, a reminder that even minor-budget outfits enjoy powerful statutory protection when courts check executive axes.
Return to Directory
