1:25-cv-01683

Complaint

In January 2025, the Trump administration stopped providing ASL interpreters at public press briefings and other similar events. The federal government had provided ASL interpretation for all coronavirus press briefings following a court order in October 2020 and began voluntarily providing interpretation services at all press briefings by key administration officials in January 2021.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), a civil rights organization, and two members of NAD are suing President Trump, Susan Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, Karoline Leavitt, the Press Secretary to the President, and a number of offices within the White House to challenge the decision to stop providing ASL interpretation. Plaintiffs argue that without such services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals are unable to meaningfully access federal government programs and services or participate in American society. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits executive agencies from discriminating against individuals with disabilities when conducting any program or activity. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants are violating the First Amendment, arguing that freedom of speech includes the right to receive information and that this deprivation impinges on their ability to petition the government. Plaintiffs further argue that the Fifth Amendment is violated because Plaintiffs are being denied equal protection under the law by being treated differently and because the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights under the First Amendment are being impinged upon. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide ASL interpreters at press briefings and other similar events. They also seek a court declaration that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act and the First and Fifth Amendments.

Update 1: On November 4, Judge Ali granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part, ordering the administration to provide a simultaneous and publicly accessible feed with American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpretation for “all publicly announced White House press briefings conducted by the President or White House Press Secretary that are captured by White House communication channels.” The court found that the administration’s decision to end ASL interpretation likely violated the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits excluding people with disabilities from participation in, denying them benefits of, or discriminating against them in Executive agency programming. The court did not grant the plaintiffs’ request to require ASL interpretation for Vice President, First Lady, or Second Lady press briefings or events and that interpretation be provided for all videos on the White House website and social media pages.

1:25-cv-00716

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-04-29

On Mar. 6, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) accusing the law firm Perkins Coie LLP of undermining democracy and maintaining illegal race-based hiring quotas. The executive order directs various agencies to impose sanctions against the firm, including: terminating the firm’s government contracts; suspending employees’ security clearances pending a national-security review; ordering a review of the firm’s hiring practices by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; limiting employees’ access to federal buildings; and directing agencies not to hire Perkins Coie employees. The Plaintiff sued on Mar. 11, alleging that the executive action is unconstitutional, violating separation of powers, the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They seek a declaratory judgment that the order is unconstitutional and an immediate injunction stopping implementation of the order pending court review, followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions. The Plaintiff also submitted a request for a temporary restraining order and a proposed order that enjoined only Sections 1 (Purpose), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel including access to Federal Government buildings) of the executive order.

Update 1: On Mar. 12, Judge Beryl Howell, ruling from the bench, granted Perkins Coie’s request for a temporary restraining order to block Sections 1, 3, and 5 of the executive order. During the hearing, she reportedly noted that the Plaintiff had not requested the TRO apply to Section 2 (Security Clearances) and Section 4 (Racial Discrimination) of the executive order, although those sections are also part of the lawsuit. She followed hours later with a written order.

Update 2: On Mar. 21, the Defendant filed a motion to disqualify the judge. On Mar. 26, the court denied the motion.

Update 3: On Apr. 2, Perkins Coie filed a motion for summary judgment and requested the court to permanently block Defendants from enforcing the EO. Perkins Coie argues the Court should declare the EO unlawful for violating the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, exceeding the President’s constitutional authority under Article II, and violating the separation of powers. On that same day, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, arguing that the EO directs the review of Perkins Coie to ensure that the Federal Government’s dealings with the firm are consistent with national security and other public interests. Defendants also filed a motion to reconsider the scope of the TRO granted on Mar. 12, arguing it is overly broad because the United States is not a proper defendant.

Update 4: On Apr. 16, Perkins Coie filed its opposition to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, emphasizing the retaliatory nature of the EO. On that same day, the DOJ filed its opposition to Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment, instead requesting the court grant its motion to dismiss.

Update 5: On Apr. 18, the DOJ replied to Perkins Coie’s opposition to its motion to dismiss, asserting Perkins Coie’s conduct is subject to reasonable scrutiny and that the court is not the proper recourse for Perkins Coie’s concerns. On that same day, Perkins Coie replied to the DOJ’s opposition to its motion for summary judgment, emphasizing its view that the EO is “blatantly unconstitutional” and requesting the court grant its summary judgment motion on all claims.

Update 6: On Apr. 29, Perkins Coie amended its complaint to list all of the defendants and their addresses.

Update 7: On Apr. 30, the Fannie Mae defendants were voluntarily dismissed in a notice by Perkins Coie. On that same day, Perkins Coie filed a motion for summary judgment and the DOJ renewed its motion to dismiss and requested expedited judgment.

Update 8: On May 2, Judge Howell held that the EO violates the law and is invalid. Specifically, Judge Howell held that the EO violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and permanently enjoined the DOJ from implementing, enforcing, or using statements from the EO in any way. Judge Howell granted Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment and declaratory relief and denied the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.

Update 9: On May 20, following Defendants’ motion to clarify Judge Howell’s May 2 summary-judgment and permanent-injunction order, Judge Howell confirmed the the permanent injunction as to Section 4 of the EO applies only to Plaintiff Perkins Coie and does not enjoin Defendants with respect to other law firms or the legal profession generally.

Update 10: On Jun. 30, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in response to Judge Howell’s judgment and injunction blocking Executive Order 14230, which explicitly targeted law firm Perkins Coie. In her May 2 decision, Judge Howell ruled the Executive Order unconstitutional and condemned it as an “unprecedented attack” on the “foundational principles” of the judicial system.

Update 11: On Sept. 23, in this appeal and the related cases—Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310—the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to file, within 30 days, motions to govern further proceedings in light of potential duplicative briefing, including whether the cases should be held in abeyance, consolidated, or argued together, proposed briefing formats, and justifications for any separate or overlength briefs.

Update 12: On Oct. 8, following the government's Oct. 6 motion for a stay, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the government’s appeal—as well as in Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277 and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310–be held in abeyance pending further order of the court due to the government shutdown.

1:25-cv-00916

Complaint

On Mar. 25, President Trump issued an executive order accusing Jenner & Block LLP of engaging in partisan representation, “support[ing] attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and back[ing] the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.” The executive order directs various agencies to impose sanctions against the firm, including: terminating the firm’s government contracts; requiring government contracting agencies to disclose any business they do with Jenner; suspending employees’ security clearances pending a national-security review; ordering a review of the firm’s hiring practices by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; limiting employees’ access to federal buildings; and directing agencies not to hire Jenner & Block employees. The Plaintiff sued on Mar. 28, alleging that the executive action is unconstitutional, violating separation of powers, the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech, petition, and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They seek a declaratory judgment that the order is unconstitutional and an immediate injunction stopping implementation of the order pending court review, followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions. Jenner & Block also submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order with proposed text, that enjoined only Sections 1 (Purpose), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel including access to Federal Government buildings) of the executive order. On the same day, the court held a hearing, and Judge John Bates granted the TRO.

Update 1: On Apr. 8, Jenner filed its motion for summary judgment on all claims, requesting a permanent injunction against the implementation of the EO. On the same day, the Department of Justice filed its motion to dismiss.
Update 2: On Apr. 17, Jenner filed its memorandum in opposition to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss. On the same day, the Department of Justice filed its memorandum in opposition to Jenner’s motion for summary judgment.

Update 3: On May 23, Judge John Bates issued an order and opinion granting Jenner & Block’s motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s motion to dismiss, declaring EO 14, 246 unlawful and “null and void” because it violates the First Amendment, and permanently enjoined the government from implementing or enforcing the order, directing agencies to rescind any steps taken under it and to resume ordinary dealings with the firm as if the order had never issued.

Update 3: On Jun. 2, Judge Bates denied the government’s request to amend or limit his May 23 summary judgment as to Section 1 of Executive Order 14, 246—reaffirming that agencies must rescind all implementation or enforcement of the order, including any use, consideration, or reliance on Section 1—but granted clarification as to Section 4, explaining that the injunctive relief under Section 4 runs only in favor of Jenner & Block LLP (and its affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns, directors, officers, partners, employees, and agents).

Update 5: On Jul. 21, the Department of Justice appealed Judge Bates’ May 23 summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit.

Update 6: On Sept. 23, in this appeal and the related cases—Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310—the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to file, within 30 days, motions to govern further proceedings in light of potential duplicative briefing, including whether the cases should be held in abeyance, consolidated, or argued together, proposed briefing formats, and justifications for any separate or overlength briefs.

Update 7: On Oct. 8, following the government's Oct. 6 motion for a stay, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the government’s appeal—as well as in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310–be held in abeyance pending further order of the court due to the government shutdown.

1:25-cv-00917

Complaint

On Mar. 27, President Trump passed an executive order accusing the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP of engaging in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States. The executive order directs various agencies to impose sanctions against the firm, including: suspending employees’ security clearances pending a national-interest review; terminating the firm’s government contracts to the extent permitted by law; and limiting employees’ access to federal buildings. The Plaintiff sued on Mar. 28, alleging that the executive action is unconstitutional. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the order: (i) violates the First Amendment’s protections against retaliation for protected expression, prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, right to petition the government, and freedom of association; (ii) exceeds the President’s authority and interferes with federal courts’ Article III powers; (iii) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses; (iv) violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel; (v) violates Article I of the Constitution. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the order is unconstitutional and an immediate injunction stopping implementation of the order pending court review, followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions.The Plaintiff also submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order with proposed text enjoining the executive order. On the same day, the court held a hearing, and Judge Richard Leon granted the TRO in the main part. He denied a TRO for section 2 of the EO restricting security clearances. The court wrote that the DC Circuit “has held that security clearance decisions are within the purview of the Executive Branch,” and thus the Plaintiff did not have a likelihood of success on the merits on that specific issue.

Update 1: On Apr. 8, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Apr. 11, the states of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. filed an amici curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On Apr. 17, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Update 2: On May 27, Judge Richard Leon dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' counts VIII (equal protection), IX (right to counsel) and XI (spending power), but granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the other eight counts.

Update 3: On July 25, the Trump Administration filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit, challenging Judge Leon’s summary judgment on May 27, which found Executive Order 14250, targeting WilmerHale, was unlawful and void.

Update 4: On Sept. 23, in this appeal and the related cases—Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310—the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to file, within 30 days, motions to govern further proceedings in light of potential duplicative briefing, including whether the cases should be held in abeyance, consolidated, or argued together, proposed briefing formats, and justifications for any separate or overlength briefs.

Update 5: On Oct. 8, following the government's Oct. 6 motion for a stay, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the government’s appeal—as well as in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310–be held in abeyance pending further order of the court due to the government shutdown.

1:25-cv-01107

Complaint

On Apr. 9, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) against Susman Godfrey, a Texas-based trial firm. The EO orders heads of executive agencies to suspend security clearances held by Susman employees. It also orders agencies to require government contractors to disclose any business with Susman and to review contracts with contractors that disclose doing so. It also requires agencies to terminate all contracts with Susman. Finally, the EO bars Susman employees from accessing federal buildings, limits the interactions of government personnel with Susman employees, and prohibits agencies from hiring Susman employees. Susman sued over 50 federal defendants to challenge the Order. Susman argues that it faces irreparable reputational and economic harm. Susman claims that the EO violates the First Amendment because it constitutes both government retaliation for the Firm’s engagement in protected speech and viewpoint discrimination. The Firm also alleges the EO violates its First Amendment right to petition the government and freedom of association. Susman additionally claims that the conditions placed on government contracts are in violation of the Spending Clause. Susman also argues that the EO violates the Fifth Amendment in multiple ways. It violates the Due Process Clause because of the absence of procedural due process and because the EO is unconstitutionally vague; it violates the right to counsel; and it violates equal protection rights. Finally, Susman argues that the EO is an ultra vires action that exceeds the President’s scope of authority as it violates the separation of powers. Susman requests the Court block the Defendants from implementing the EO and order them to cancel any guidance implementing the EO that has already been issued.

Update 1: On Apr. 14, Susman filed a motion for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block the enforcement of EO Sections 1 (Background), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel, including access to Federal Buildings). On Apr. 16, the court granted the temporary restraining order (TRO). On Apr. 16, this TRO was extended until final judgment is entered in the matter.
Update 2: On Apr. 23, Susman filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum in which it requested the court to permanently enjoin the Defendants’ implementation of the EO and declare the Defendants’ actions unlawful.
Update 3: On Apr. 30, Susman filed its opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, emphasizing their actions constitute a “brazen defiance of the separation of powers and rule of law.” On that same day, Defendants filed their opposition to Susman’s motion for summary judgment, asserting the EO merely directs agencies to do their jobs and that Susman’s claims regarding access to agency buildings are unripe because the related EO section asks agency heads to provide guidance on Susman employee access instead of outright limiting said access.
Update 4: On May 5, Susman filed its reply memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, and Defendants filed their reply to Susman’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Update 5: On May 12, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Susman’s amended complaint, for the same reasons contained in their previous motion to dismiss. On that same day, Susman filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the court declare the EO unlawful and enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the EO, for the same reasons contained in their previous motion for summary judgment.

Update 6: On June 27, Judge Loren Alikan granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for 8 of the 10 Counts (the two exceptions were a Spending Clause Count and a separation-of-powers Count), and issued a permanent injunction.

Update 7: On August 22, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding Judge Alikan’s June 27 decision to grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Update 8: On Sept. 23, in this appeal and the related cases—Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277—the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to file, within 30 days, motions to govern further proceedings in light of potential duplicative briefing, including whether the cases should be held in abeyance, consolidated, or argued together, proposed briefing formats, and justifications for any separate or overlength briefs.

Update 9: On Oct. 8, following the government's Oct. 6 motion for a stay, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the government’s appeal—as well as in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277–be held in abeyance pending further order of the court due to the government shutdown.

1:25-cv-01124

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-05-16

On Mar. 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) No. 14230 titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.” This EO directed the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review the hiring practices of law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On Mar. 17, 2025, Acting Chair of the EEOC Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms asking about DEI-related employment practices, including requests for personally identifiable information of lawyers employed by these firms and law students who had applied for positions. Plaintiffs are three current law school students who applied to work at some of the law firm recipients of these letters. They allege that much of the information requested is sensitive or confidential, and that their privacy will be harmed if law firms provide that information to the EEOC. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ sending these letters constitutes an ultra vires action that is outside of the EEOC’s authority because 1) the EEOC has started this investigation without a charge being filed, 2) the investigation is being conducted publicly, and 3) the EEOC lacked relevant quorum when issuing these letters. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants acted in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that sending the letters was an ultra vires action, order Defendants to withdraw the Mar. 17 letters, enjoin them from conducting investigations of law firms that do not meet Title VII requirements, and order them to return any information already collected pursuant to the letters and delete that information from their databases.

Update 1: On May 16, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to be a class action complaint for others similarly situated.

Update 2: On June 26, Judge Reggie Walton permitted extensions of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment. Additionally, Judge Walton denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and did not otherwise stay the proceedings.

1:25-cv-01263

Complaint

The ABA has been receiving grants since 1995 through the DOJ Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to support programs designed to increase access to justice for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. On April 9, 2025 Defendant Blanche issued a memorandum entitled “Engagement with the American Bar Association” (Blanche Memo) imposing limits on DOJ employees’ engagement with the ABA and asserting that the DOJ can withhold funds from the ABA due to disagreements with ABA actions, including litigation against the Administration on issues “contrary to the federal government’s policies.” On April 10, DOJ terminated all of ABA’s OVW grants, citing a change in “agency priorities.” On April 23, the ABA filed suit, contending that this action was taken in retaliation against the ABA for taking positions that the current Administration disfavors. Plaintiffs allege that these actions violate the First Amendment as they are retaliation for protected activity and viewpoint discrimination, as well as constituting unconstitutional conditions on federal funding in violation of the First Amendment and the Spending Clause, and also violate Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process protections. They also argue that the grant terminations violate the APA as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the termination of the ABA’s CDSV grants is unlawful as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcing the terminations and requiring the disbursement of the grants.

Update 1: On Apr. 24, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and accompanying memorandum citing irreparable harm.

Update 2: On May 2, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support of this motion and in opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that the funding decision was within the legal discretion of the DOJ.

Update 3: On May 7, the Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to the motion for a TRO and a reply to the motion to dismiss.

Update 4: On May 9, Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.

Update 5: On May 14, Judge Christopher Cooper granted a preliminary injunction on the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

1:25-cv-01365

Complaint

Mark Zaid’s limited access security clearance was rescinded by the Trump Administration after a March 22, 2025 Memorandum ordering the revocation of several individuals’ limited access security clearances. Zaid alleges that the revocation of his limited security access was politically motivated and lacked any of the procedural due process afforded to security clearance holders or applicants whose security clearance is denied or revoked. Zaid, who is an attorney, asserts that the revocation of his security clearance prevents him from accessing classified material needed to represent current and prospective clients, hampering his ability to represent these clients before government agencies.

Dec. 23, 2025: Judge Ali granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and denied the government’s motion to dismiss. Judge Ali enjoined the government from giving effect to the security clearance revocations or denial of access to classified information as to Zaid. The preliminary injunction will not go into effect until Jan. 13, 2026.

Jan. 6, 2026: Defendants appealed the court’s Dec. 23, 2025 order to the D.C. Circuit.

1:25-cv-01888

Complaint

In March and April of 2025, President Trump signed a series of Executive Orders (EO’s) specifically directed at five law firms that he stated had taken actions that he viewed as against the “national interest”, including practices related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), employment of lawyers who were involved in or associated with investigations or prosecution of President Trump, and conduct or advocacy otherwise disfavoured by the Administration. The EO’s (collectively, the “Law Firm Orders”) imposed sanctions that included termination of security clearances for employees of those firms, a requirement that all government contractors disclose any business done with those law firms, termination of government contracts, limiting federal building and employee access, and the refusal to offer federal employment to employees of targeted law firms.

The EO’s also direct the EEOC and the Attorney General to investigate these firms for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On March 17, 2025 the EEOC also sent letters to twenty other law firms requesting information about their DEI practices. On March 22, 2025, the White House issued a memorandum entitled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court” directing the Attorney General to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States”. On May 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum prohibiting the government, subject to limited exceptions, from hiring as private counsel any attorneys from any law firm that represents clients in “active litigation against Administration policies.”

The American Bar Association (ABA), a non-partisan non-profit organisation and the nation’s largest voluntary association of legal professionals, filed suit against the United States as well as federal departments and agencies that have been directed to implement these EO’s, the heads of those departments and agencies, and federal agencies likely to implement these orders. The complaint alleges that the EO’s, along with the various memoranda and public statements issued by the Administration constitute an unconstitutional policy (the “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” or “Policy”) that is designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like.

The complaint asserts that the unlawful coercive effects of the Policy are evident in the fact that although four federal judges have ruled that the Law Firm Orders are unconstitutional, numerous firms made pre-emptive commitments to support Administration policies out of concern that they would be targeted (or in the case of Paul Weiss, to effect the revocation of the order against it).They claim that the Policy has successfully coerced much of the profession to forego constitutionally protected activity, including litigation against the Administration, and notes that none of the top 25 firms and less than ten of top 100 firms have been willing to file amicus briefs in support of the firms targeted by the Law Firm Orders.

The Plaintiff allege that both the ABA itself and its member attorneys have suffered harm because of the Policy, including not bringing various cases, finding it difficult to find co-counsel in cases (or in the case of the ABA, to find law firms to represent it in litigation adverse to the government), changes to case acceptance procedures at their firms, and the need to devote substantial resources to mitigate the impact of the orders or to prepare for the possibility of retaliation. They also assert that so long as there is a reasonable likelihood that the Administration will target any law firm which represents causes and clients the Administration dislikes with retaliatory sanctions, “wide swaths of the legal profession—including many members of the ABA—will continue to be chilled in the exercise of their constitutional rights.”

The ABA alleges that the Policy is a violation of the First Amendment due to 1) suppression of and threatened retaliation for protected activity (the provision of advocacy and advice); 2) viewpoint discrimination; 3) a violation of the constitutionally protected right to petition the government, since it causes members to refrain from bringing litigation in matters adverse to the federal government; 4) a violation of the right to free association and compelled disclosure, insofar as it requires government contractors to disclose any business they do with targeted law firms and threatens to unlawfully impose punishment based on protected association with others; and 5) overbreadth as unduly vague, since it has caused ABA members and their law firms to divert resources away from their ordinary business of representing clients in order to scrutinize and decline representations that may be perceived as falling afoul of vaguely and ambiguously described categories. They also assert that it is ultra vires as a violation of the Separation of Powers, as no act of Congress authorized the Policy or the Law Firm Orders or the negotiation for commitments of free legal work to avoid sanctions and suggest that these actions might actually be specifically prohibited by various Congressional statutes including anti-corruption statutes, the Merit System Protection Act, and others.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that the various sanctions in the Law Firm Orders unconstitutional and enjoining the enforcement of any of them against any ABA member or ABA member’s law firm or initiating attorney conduct and disciplinary proceedings, of any ABA member or ABA member’s law firm based on the individual’s law firm or organizational affiliation or based on the identity of their client representations.

8:25-cv-00337

Complaint

On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order prohibiting the federal government from expending federal funds to promote “gender ideology,” the idea that gender identity can differ from biological sex. On January 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. Finally, the order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against female genital mutilation and develop legislation for a private right of action against medical professionals performing gender-affirming procedures, pursuant to an older statute against female genital mutilation. PFLAG and other plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the orders constitute unconstitutional presidential action in excess of Article II authority; discriminate on the basis of sex and disability in violation of statutes; violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and substantive due process guarantees; and abridge the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Plaintiffs seek to have the orders declared unconstitutional and unlawful, and asking for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.

Update 1: On Feb. 5, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order.

Update 2: On Feb 13, Judge Brendan Abell Hurson issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of the Executive Order.

Update 3: On Feb. 18, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the Executive Order.

Update 4: On Feb. 26, Plaintiffs moved to extend the TRO. Judge Hurson extended the TRO until March 5, 2025.

Update 5: On Mar. 4, Judge Brendan Hurson granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined Defendants from conditioning, withholding, or terminating federal funding based on the fact that a healthcare entity or professional provides gender-affirming medical care to a patient under age 19.

Update 6: On Mar. 7, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for enforcement of the preliminary injunction, asserting that the government violated the injunction by issuing notices renewing threats to withhold federal funds from organizations providing gender-affirming care.

Update 7: On Mar. 10, the government filed a memorandum opposing plaintiffs’ emergency motion, asserting that the government’s actions “do not violate this Court’s preliminary injunction” because they do not directly “condition, withhold, or terminate” aid under the enjoined provisions. In response, plaintiffs filed a memorandum asserting that the government’s notices “are overt threats by Defendants that federal funding recipients risk losing their federal funding if they provide gender affirming medical care to a patient under the age of nineteen.”

Update 8: On Mar. 21, the government filed notice that it was appealing the Mar. 4 preliminary injunction in the case to the Fourth Circuit.

Update 9: On Mar. 28, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ emergency motion for enforcement of the preliminary injunction. The Court explained that the government’s notices presently do not violate the preliminary injunction order because they merely advise the agencies that grant funding could change in the future.

1:25-cv-04228

Complaint

Plaintiff in this lawsuit is a transgender employee of the National Security Agency (NSA). Defendant is the director of the NSA. Plaintiff alleges that, on Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the Executive Order, “...the NSA has undertaken a series of actions that have created a hostile work environment for Ms. O’Neill, including cancelling its policy recognizing her identity and right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment, prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications, purging references to transgender people from its materials, and barring her from using the women’s restroom at work.” Plaintiff argues that these actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which, she argues, protects plaintiff from sex discrimination. She further asserts that the Supreme Court held in 2020 that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being transgender without unlawfully discriminating based on sex in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff primarily asks the court, therefore, to declare that the actions of the defendant violate Title VII; enjoin the defendant from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order “...and any other policy or practice that prevents Ms. O’Neill from using restrooms that align with her gender identity, prohibits her from using pronouns aligned with her gender identity in written communications at work, or prevents her from accessing or viewing information about her civil rights under Title VII as a transgender person…”

2:25-cv-00244

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-02-19

On Jan. 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. Finally, the order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against female genital mutilation and develop legislation for a private right of action against medical professionals performing gender-affirming procedures, pursuant to an older statute against female genital mutilation. Three states and three physicians filed suit, arguing that Executive Order 14187 violates Fifth Amendment equal protection by creating classifications and facially discriminating on the basis of transgender status and sex without sufficient government interest. Plaintiffs also allege that the order violates separation of powers by imposing conditions on the receipt of funding by the plaintiff states’ medical institutions, whereas Congress never authorized such a provision and explicitly barred medical institutions from denying individuals access to federally funded services based on gender dysphoria under 29 U.S.C. § 794. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the order violates the Tenth Amendment by regulating and threatening criminal prosecution against certain consensual medical practices, thus unlawfully intruding on the states’ traditional police powers over local public health.

Update 1: On Feb. 7, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order.

Update 2: On Feb. 14, Judge Lauren King issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of Section 4 and Section 8(a) of Executive Order 14187 within Plaintiff States; on Feb. 16, the court issued an Opinion in the matter.

Update 3: On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the State of Colorado as a plaintiff and a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim for vagueness. Plaintiffs moved separately for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order, to which the government responded in opposition on Feb. 28.

Update 4: On Feb. 28, Judge Lauren King issued an order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, with one exception. The one exception involved Section 8(a) of the EO directing the Attorney General to prioritize “enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation”; but the court found “no credible threat of prosecution” for the plaintiffs.

Update 5: On Mar. 6, plaintiffs filed a motion for the court to hold defendants in contempt of court on shortened time, alleging that defendants tried to circumvent the preliminary injunction by falsely claiming actions taken to withhold funding under the enjoined EOs were actually taken pursuant to other policies. In the alternative, plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery as to whether defendants violated the preliminary injunction.

Update 6: On Mar. 13, defendants filed a memorandum opposing the motion for contempt, asserting that the relevant decisions to withhold funding were based on preexisting authority and not the enjoined EOs.

Update 7: On Mar. 14, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for contempt or expedited discovery.

Update 8: On Mar. 17, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for contempt, but granted expedited discovery on the question of whether the actions were taken pursuant to the enjoined EOs.

Update 9: On Mar. 21, defendants appealed the district court’s partial grant of a preliminary injunction and grant of expedited discovery to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Defendants’ stay of the proceedings pending the appeal of the preliminary injunction on April 23.

Update 10: The court granted the Defendants’ stay of the proceedings pending the appeal of the preliminary injunction on April 23.

Update 11: On May 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the joint motion to stay the appellate proceedings until the resolution of United States v. Skrmetti or until further order from the court. SCOTUS issued its decision in Skrmetti on June 18, holding that the Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.

Update 12: On November 10, the district court denied the defendants’ second motion to stay the preliminary injunction.

1:25-cv-12162

Complaint

The Trump administration issued Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” and two related memoranda on April 22 and June 11 , which aim to eliminate the provision of healthcare to transgender individuals under the age of 19. On Aug. 1, a coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint challengingthese actions. Plaintiffs allege the EO and related memoranda intimidate providers into ceasing care for medically necessary healthcare to transgender individuals under age 19 through threats of unconnected civil and criminal prosecution. The Plaintiffs argue the actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tenth Amendment (Anti-Commandering Doctrine), and seek to declare the EO unconstitutional and vacate the administration's actions.

8:25-cv-02947

Complaint

Prior to June 11, 2025 the policy manual of “TRICARE”, the Department of Defense (DoD) healthcare program that provides insurance coverage to millions of military servicemembers and their families, indicated that coverage was available under TRICARE for medically necessary gender transition medications and therapy. On Jan. 28, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14187, titled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” which eliminated federal funding for healthcare for transgender people under the age of 19 and on Jun. 11 the TRICARE Policy Manual was revised to exclude coverage to both children and adults for “puberty blockers . . . to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex,” and for the “use of sex-hormones . . . to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”

On Sept. 8, two minor children and a young adult filed suit alleging that this change to the TRICARE policy was made without proper observance of the rulemaking procedures and notice requirements set in place by Congressional statutes. Plaintiffs claim that the DOD’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law and in excess of statutory authority, and also violates Separation of Powers. They seek a declaratory judgment that the new policy is unlawful and a permanent injunction against enforcing the change in policy.

1:24-cv-00251

Complaint

First Amended Complaint 2024-11-08

Second Amended Complaint 2025-02-12

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued Executive Order 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in Executive Order 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. Plaintiffs, two transgender teenage athletes in New Hampshire, previously filed suit against the state, arguing a state law banning transgender women from competing in school sports was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and a violation of Title IX. On Sept. 10, 2024, the court ordered a preliminary injunction against the state law. On Feb. 12, following the Trump administration’s executive order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add federal defendants to the suit. The amended complaint argues the executive order (1) unconstitutionally violates Fifth Amendment equal protection rights; (2) is an ultra vires action in conflict with Title IX; and (3) is an ultra vires action to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds. They seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order is unconstitutional and unlawful; and a permanent injunction enjoining its enforcement.

2025-08-22: The court granted a temporary restraining order.

2025-09-10: The court granted a preliminary injunction.

3:25-cv-04863

Complaint

In 2013, California enacted California Education Code Section 221.5(f) which requires that “[a] pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions . . . irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the statewide governing body for secondary school athletics, adopted this same requirement through CIF Bylaw 300.D. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order (EO) 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued EO 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in EO 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. EO 14201 further directs that “[a]ll executive departments and agencies . . . shall review grants to educational programs and, where appropriate, rescind funding to programs that fail to comply with the policy established in this order.”On June 2, 2025, Defendant U.S. DOJ issued a letter (the “Certification Demand Letter”) to every Local Education Agency (LEA) in California, which asserts that CIF Bylaw 300.D is “facially unconstitutional” as it would violate the Equal Protection rights of cisgender girls and demanding that all LEA’s certify in writing by June 9, 2025 that they will not implement CIF Bylaw 300.D. Plaintiff sued, asserting that the Certification Demand Letter would require California to violate the Equal Protection Clause by preventing the state from protecting the rights of transgender students. The State further argues that Defendants have no statutory or regulatory authority to demand certification and threaten to withhold funding as this was not specifically authorized by Congress. California also asserts that the Certification Demand Letter violates the Spending Clause due to a lack of clear notice of a change in conditions of receiving funds and because Congress may not impose a spending condition that would induce a State to violate the Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act as agency action contrary to constitutional right and in excess of statutory right. California seeks a declaratory judgement that CIF Bylaw 300.D does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, that the demands in the Certification Demand Letter violate the Equal Protection Clause, that Defendants acted ultra vires by issuing the Certification Demand Letter, that California LEA’s are obligated not to provide certification, and that the Certification Letter should be vacated. They also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from acting on the Certification Demand Letter.

Update 1: On Jun 9, Plaintiffs filed for a declaratory and injunctive relief against all defendants and an injunction against the US government/official or APA vacatur requested. Complaints modified on Jun 10.

Update 2: On Aug 15, the parties filed stipulation with proposed order (1) Extending Deadline for Defendants to Answer/Respond to Complaint, (2) Setting Briefing Schedule for Defendants Contemplated Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Granting Parties Leave to File Oversize Briefs Re. Motion to Dismiss. On Aug 19, Judge Breyer granted order of stipulation.

Update 2: On Aug 22, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief. The plaintiffs filed responses on Sep. 26.

Update 3: On Sep 5, Judge Breyer denied defendants’ 22 Administrative Motion for Continuance of Case Managed Dates and Stay of Discovery filed on Aug 29. The relevant plaintiff response was filed on Sept 2.

Update 4: On Sep. 11, Judge Breyer granted 26 Stipulations and Order Extending Deadlines after the plaintiff and the defendant stipulated and asked the court to enter a proposed order to set (1) the deadline to make initial disclosures and file ADR certifications will be 14 days following the date that Defendants file an answer, if required following determination of their motion to dismiss, and (2) the deadline to file a joint case management statement will be 7 days before the initial case management conference, if and when a date for such conference is scheduled by the Court.

Update 5: Oct. 6, Judge Breyer granted defendant's unopposed administrative motion for stay of briefing schedule due to lack of appropriations and stayed defendants’ filing deadline by the total number of days of the lapse in appropriations

1:25-cv-00240

Complaint

On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. This order categorically prohibits both enlistment and continued service, deeming transgender individuals incompatible with military standards of “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” The plaintiffs are a group of active duty transgender service members and prospective or current enlistees. They argue that the categorical exclusion of this class of individuals from military service violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the policy is arbitrary and lacks a legitimate government interest.

Update 1: On Feb. 3, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order.

Update 2: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order.

Update 3: On Feb, 5, the court ordered the Government to notify plaintiffs and the court of any Department of Defense policy or guidance implementing the Executive Order. If any such action is taken, the court will entertain Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO.

Update 4: In response to the Court’s order to update any policies or guidance implementing Executive Order 14168 (“Defending Women from Gender Extremism…”) or Executive Order 14183 (“Prioritizing Miliary…”), the government filed a memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership Commanders of the Combatant Commands Defense Agency and DoD Field Activity Directors, released on February 26, 2025, Subject: Additional Guidance on Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. The Memorandum requires updating of military guidance as it relates to transgender service members and provides a new policy, “Service Members and Applicants for Military Service who Have a Current Diagnosis or History of, or Exhibit Symptoms Consistent with, Gender Dysphoria.” The new policy states that “Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service,” and orders that “steps to identify Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria within 30 days of this memorandum.” It also states that “history of cross-sex hormone therapy or sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria or in pursuit of a sex transition, is disqualifying,” including already-extended offers of admission to military academies, and applies restrictions on individuals post-separation benefits eligibility. While waivers are available, the applicant “must be willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with the applicant's sex.”

Update 5: On Mar. 18, Judge Ana Reyes granted Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, extending to all transgender service members facing the same irreparable harm. The Court stays its Order until Mar. 21, 2025, to provide Defendants time to consider filing an emergency stay with the D.C. Circuit.

Update 6: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include additional plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Jamie Hash, Vera Wolf, Hunter Marquez, Ashley Davis, and Samuel Ahearn also filed a motion requesting a TRO to block enforcement of the EO and Department of Defense memoranda and preserve the status quo, on the basis that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim and likely to face irreparable harm. The motion states: “In light of this Court’s March 18, 2025, order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction of the Military Ban, ECF No. 88, which the Court administratively stayed pending Defendants’ Motions, see Minute Order (Mar. 21, 2025), this Court should temporarily restrain enforcement of the Military Ban with respect to these specific adverse actions toward Moving Plaintiffs until it resolves Defendants’ Motions on the merits.”

Update 7: On Mar. 26, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit appealing Judge Reyes’ Mar. 18 order renewing the preliminary injunction.

Update 8: On Mar. 27, the D.C. Circuit ordered that Judge Reyes’ Mar. 18 preliminary injunction order be administratively stayed pending further review by the court.

Update 9: On June 27, Plaintiffs Miriam Perelson and Greyson Shishkina were voluntarily dismissed as plaintiffs in the action.

Update 10: On Dec. 9, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 to grant the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal of the District Court’s preliminary injunction against the administration’s policy banning transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Katsas wrote that, in granting the preliminary injunction, the district court had afforded insufficient deference to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s determination that the policy would advance key military interests.

2:25-cv-00241

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-03-04

On Jan. 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. Plaintiffs, including active and prospective trans service members and an organization representing transgender military members, argue that the ban violates the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. They seek declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against enforcement of the executive order.

Update 1: On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the executive order as to Plaintiffs and other current and aspiring transgender servicemembers.

Update 2: On Mar. 4, Plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint.

Update 3: On Mar. 4: Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental brief in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction; the government responded with a brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction on Mar. 14; to which the Plaintiffs replied on Mar. 19.

Update 4: On Mar. 27, Judge Benjamin Settle granted a preliminary injunction. He wrote, “The government has in turn provided no evidence supporting the conclusion that military readiness, unit cohesion, lethality, or any of the other touchstone phrases long used to exclude various groups from service have in fact been adversely impacted by open transgender service under the Austin Policy. The Court can only find that there is none.” “The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,” Settle stated.

Update 5: On Mar. 28, the government appealed the Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. On that same day, Trump was dismissed as a defendant in this case.

Update 6: On Mar. 31, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a stay. On Apr. 24, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Update 7: On May 6, the Supreme Court issued a stay (with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting).

1:25-cv-01918

Complaint

On Jan. 20 and 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued EOs reversing the existing policy of the United States Armed Forces by banning transgender people from military service. Plaintiffs Master Sergeant Logan Ireland and Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade are transgender men who have served as members of the United States Air Force for years. Both Plaintiffs have been placed on administrative absence and have been informed that they only can continue to serve if they do so in their birth sex (i.e., as women). It is not possible for either Plaintiff to serve as a woman because they have medically transitioned and live as men. Plaintiffs believe that involuntary administrative separation proceedings will be initiated against them because of their transgender status by Mar. 26, 2025, given the Trump administration’s EO implementation timeline. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the implementation of the EOs and related memoranda, on the basis that they have a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to not be separated from military service based on their transgender status.

1:25-cv-01921

Complaint

On Jan. 27, 2025, the Trump Administration issued EO 14183 banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. On May 8, the Secretary of Defense issued a Memorandum setting deadlines for active-duty service members and reserve service members to self-identify and voluntarily retire or face involuntary separation. On November 10, a group of 17 transgender servicemembers in the Air Force and Space Force sued the administration after approvals for their retirement benefits were rescinded. The plaintiffs allege that the government violated 10 U.S.C. § 9329, which provides that retired service members are entitled to retirement benefits. The plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their retirement orders and benefits.

1:25-cv-00131

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-04-08

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued Executive Order 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in Executive Order 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. On April 2, Maine received a letter from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, stating that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was freezing funds for certain technological functions in schools in Maine, as well as reviewing all research and education-related grants and funding. The letter stated that in order to continue to receive taxpayer dollars from USDA, Maine must demonstrate compliance with “Title IX’s protection of female student athletes from having to compete with or against males.” Despite commitments from Secretary Rollins that this freeze would not affect funding to feed schoolchildren, on April 3, Maine’s Child Nutrition Program was allegedly unable to access various federal funds. Plaintiff alleges that the funding freeze is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, they argue that the freeze is “arbitrary and capricious” and taken without observance of procedure required by law, as Secretary Rollins allegedly did not follow numerous required procedures, including notification, investigation, and related hearings. Plaintiff has requested the court vacate the funding freeze and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the USDA from impeding Maine’s access to federal funds based on the alleged violation of Title IX without following all legally required procedures.

Update 1: Immediately after filing its complaint on Apr. 7, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to temporarily block Defendants from terminating, freezing, or otherwise interfering with Maine’s access to federal funds allocated to Maine based on Maine’s alleged violation of Title IX. Plaintiff amended its complaint the next day, but did not add any additional claims against Defendants.

Update 2: On Apr. 9, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency TRO. Plaintiffs replied to Defendant’s opposition on Apr. 10.

Update 3: On Apr. 11, Judge John Woodcock, Jr. granted Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency TRO through Apr. 25, 2025. This order requires Defendants to immediately unfreeze and release federal funding to Maine that has been withheld due to the alleged violation of Title IX and was later extended through May 9, 2025.

Update 4: On May 2, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice.

2:25-cv-06846

Complaint

On June 3, Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka filed a lawsuit against Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official Ricky Patel, claiming that his arrest by DHS agents outside of an ICE detention facility in Newark on May 9 during a press conference violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The complaint alleges that his arrest was politically motivated and asserts claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and defamation. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

2025-06-04: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

2025-08-21: In a separate case, Alina Habba was disqualified as acting as the U.S. Attorney General for the District of New Jersey.

1:25-cv-12173

Complaint

Following the announcement of “Operation Midway Blitz” in early September 2025, the Trump Administration has ramped up immigration enforcement operations and deployed federal officers to the greater Chicago metropolitan area, including the area at and near the Broadview, Illinois ICE facility where demonstrations against the federal government’s policies and actions have been staged daily. Local and national press have continuously covered the federal law enforcement deployment to Chicago and the Broadview ICE facility in particular. On October 6, 2025, a coalition of media organisations, journalists, non-profit membership organisations and unions representing members of the media, and protestors filed suit alleging that federal officers have been responding to their presence at these protests with a pattern of brutality designed to silence the press and civilians.

The complaint alleges that Federal immigration officers at the Broadview ICE facility have repeatedly and intentionally singled out persons whom they know to be members of the Press for violence, assault, and intimidation. Plaintiffs brought the suit as a class action on behalf of all persons who are or will be peacefully present at demonstrations in the Northern District of Illinois, and who intend to non-violently participate in, observe, or record the demonstrations, or engage in news gathering, reporting, or prayer, and allege violations of: their First Amendment rights to free speech, assemble, gather news and practice religious beliefs; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 which provides that the government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion; their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of excessive force and unreasonable seizures; and the Administrative Procedure Act as contrary to constitutional right and arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Plaintiffs also allege a conspiracy by Defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights. They seek classwide declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from using force against journalists or using riot control weapons or excessive force against journalists or protestors.

Update 1: On October 9, District Court Judge Ellis issued a temporary restraining order granting plaintiffs’ motion and blocking the Trump administration from using force against journalists or ordering crowd dispersal orders unless justified by exigent circumstances in the Chicago area. The order prohibits federal agents from arresting, threatening, or using force against any person they “reasonably should know is a Journalist” without probable cause, using riot control weapons unless necessary to stop an “immediate and serious threat,” and seizing or arresting any non-violent protester without probable cause. The court’s ruling enjoins federal agents from this conduct for 14 days (until Oct. 23, 2025).

Update 2: On October 17, Judge Sara L. Ellis issued a modification to her previous Temporary Restraining Order, further enjoining federal agents’ use of force in immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois. The modification adds a requirement that all such federal agents wear active body cameras while engaged in enforcement activity, unless exempt under CBP, ICE, or DHS policy. The modified TRO came a day after Ellis reportedly expressed during a hearing that she was “startled” by “images in the paper” showing federal agents deploying tear gas against protestors without warning and had “serious concerns that my order is being followed.”

Update 3: On Oct. 28, Judge Ellis further clarified her TRO and ordered that all federal agents place a conspicuous identifier on their uniforms and reiterated that all CPB agents should wear body cameras. She further required that CPB Commander Geregory Bovino wear a body camera and report to her each afternoon to provide updates on the operation, and that the Defendants provide her with all body camera video and use of force reports to date by Oct. 31 and all subsequent such video and reports within 24 hours of the reports being finalized. She also directed that Defendants should provide her by Oct. 31 with a chart of all individuals detained for violations not related to immigration enforcement.

Update 4: On October 29, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request to temporarily block Judge Ellis’ Oct. 28 order requiring CBP Chief Patrol Agent Greg Bovino to appear in court at 5:45PM on weekdays to report on use of force activities for each day.

Update 5: On October 31, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request to issue a writ of mandamus blocking the district court’s order that had required CBP Chief Patrol Agent Greg Bovino to appear in court to report on use of force activities for each day. The court found that the order “puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator” and “sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding on the personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch,” concluding that the order infringes on the separation of powers.

Update 6: On November 6, Judge Ellis issued a preliminary injunction that extends an order she issued last month restraining DHS, ICE, and CBP agents from using force, chemical weapons, or arrests against journalists. The judge reportedly stated that she found the DOJ’s evidence “not credible” and expressed concern that Defendant Bovino had admitted to lying about the use of tear gas.

Update 7: On Nov. 19, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court’s preliminary injunction, calling the lower court’s order “overbroad” in the range of defendants it enjoined and “too prescriptive” in its attempt to prohibit the use of certain riot control weapons. At the same time, the court cautioned that its order does not preclude “a more tailored and appropriate” preliminary injunction, warning: “[d]o not overread today’s order.”

Update 8: On Nov. 20, District Judge Ellis issued a written opinion explaining the Court’s Nov. 6 preliminary injunction.

1:25-cv-03753

Complaint

Sam O’Hara, a 35-year-old District of Columbia resident, brings this action against Sgt. Devon Beck of the Ohio National Guard, four Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers (Campbell, Brown, Reyes-Benigno, and Lopez Martinez), and the District of Columbia. The complaint arises from events on Sept. 11, 2025, when O’Hara, peacefully protesting the National Guard’s presence in D.C. by walking behind Guard members, playing “The Imperial March,” and recording the encounter, was threatened by Sgt. Beck, who called MPD. The officers detained O’Hara, handcuffed him tightly, and prevented further protest without conducting any investigation or having probable cause, allegedly causing him pain and anxiety while aggravating a prior shoulder injury. The complaint contends O’Hara’s actions were non-disruptive, posed no interference, and were clearly protected First Amendment activity, as he did not assault, harass, or block the Guard members. Key allegations include First Amendment violations (suppression of speech and retaliation) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable seizure and excessive force, D.C. common law false arrest/false imprisonment, and battery, holding the District vicariously liable for its officers’ conduct. O’Hara seeks declaratory judgments that his constitutional and common law rights were violated, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper, as well as a trial by jury. This suit aims to ensure accountability for the alleged unlawful suppression of peaceful protest and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights.

1:25-cv-04125

Complaint

[Coming soon - On Nov. 25, Representative Eric Swalwell sued Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte, alleging that the administration unlawfully leaked Swalwell’s private mortgage records to manufacture a politically motivated criminal investigation in retaliation for his criticism of the president.]

6:25-cv-02268

Complaint

In January 2025, the federal government issued new regulations authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect federal buildings and property. The finalized rules took effect on November 5, 2025. On December 5, individuals Christina Longworth and Anna Lardner were arrested while protesting outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Eugene, Oregon. Longworth and Lardner subsequently filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, alleging they had been arrested under regulations that unlawfully expanded federal agents’ ability to target lawful conduct and in violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants President Donald Trump, the Department of Defense, and Secretary Kristi Noem and their agents unlawfully threatened and arrested Plaintiffs in retaliation for vocally protesting outside of the Eugene ICE building. Plaintiffs say this will have a chilling effect on protected First Amendment activities. Plaintiffs also allege these regulations are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from continuing these actions.

Dec. 10, 2025: Judge Aiken granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, temporarily blocking the administration from enforcing arrests for “loud or unusual noise” under 6 CFR § 139.35(c) on the sidewalks surrounding the federal building located between 6th and 7th Avenues and Pearl and High Streets in Eugene, Oregon.

1:26-cv-00321

Complaint

Beginning in September 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deployed personnel from Border Patrol to Illinois to conduct immigration enforcement as part of “Operation Midway Blitz”. On Jan. 12, 2026, the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago filed suit against DHS, alleging that the Border Patrol deployment to Chicago was an unlawful and coercive campaign that culminated in a militarized Border Patrol using “violent tactics” with “deadly results.” The complaint states that "uniformed, military-trained personnel, carrying semi-automatic firearms and military-grade weaponry, have rampaged for months through Chicago and the surrounding areas, lawlessly stopping, interrogating and arresting residents, and attacking them with chemical weapons." Plaintiffs contend that these actions are in retaliation for the failure of Illinois and Chicago to accept the administration’s immigration policies, in particular the TRUST act, which prohibits Chicago state and local employees from participating in civil immigration enforcement operations. Plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ conduct violates the Tenth Amendment since it impedes Illinois and Chicago from carrying out core sovereign functions, including providing public safety and enforcing state statutes. The complaint also asserts that the policies of the Border Patrol, including policies which allow roving patrols, biometric scanning, warrantless arrests, deployment of tear gas, enforcement at sensitive locations, concealing license plates and private trespass, violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they exceed defendants’ statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious as well as ultra vires. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the policies and declaring the government’s actions unconstitutional and enjoining defendants from engaging in conduct under the policies asserted to be illegal.

0:26-cv-00190

Complaint

Beginning in December 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deployed personnel from Border Patrol and ICE to Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement as part of “Operation Metro Surge”. On Jan. 12, 2026, the State of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul (the “Twin Cities”) filed suit against DHS, alleging that the mass deployment of armed immigration agents is a politically motivated, unconstitutional immigration enforcement campaign marked by racial profiling, excessive force, and widespread disruption. Plaintiffs contend that the decision to target the Twin Cities is motivated by a desire to punish Minnesota for voting against President Trump in the 2024 election and in retaliation for the failure of the Twin Cities to accept the administration’s immigration policies, and argue the administration’s statements justifying its actions in Minnesota as based on cases of fraud in the state are pretextual.

In the complaint, the State of Minnesota asserts a violation of Equal Sovereignty based on disparate treatment. Plaintiffs further argue that the defendants’ conduct violates the Tenth Amendment and is ultra vires as it impedes both the State and the Twin Cities from carrying out core sovereign functions, including policing and crime control and maintaining public schools. In addition, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants’ violations of state law and city ordinances and use of excessive force, warrantless arrests, enforcement at sensitive locations, and activity taken as if near the border constitute violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. They also assert violations of the First Amendment as unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the government’s actions unconstitutional and enjoining defendants from engaging in specifically described conduct. The same day, plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order.

Jan. 14, 2026: Judge Menendez declined to grant an ex parte TRO without giving the Defendants an opportunity to respond to the motion for injunctive relief and will treat the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

1:25-cv-01161
1:25-cv-03742

Complaint

Re-filed Complaint

The plaintiffs, a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden, filed a complaint against President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and other DOJ and BOP employees in their official capacity. The plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 14164, issued by President Trump, which directed the Attorney General to ensure their imprisonment in conditions reflecting the severity of their crimes. The Bondi Memo implemented this order, mandating their indefinite incarceration at ADX Florence, the only federal supermax prison. Plaintiffs allege that the redesignation process was a sham, denying them procedural due process and equal protection. They claim the conditions at ADX Florence constitute cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to their medical and mental health needs. Additionally, they argue that the redesignation directive is a bill of attainder and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively increasing the severity of their punishment. The plaintiffs assert that these actions interfere with the clemency power of President Biden's commutation orders. They also contend that the defendants' actions exceeded statutory authority and were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn EO 14164 and the Bondi Memo, ordering appropriate redesignation based on initial BOP decisions. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys' fees for the legal proceedings.

Update 1: On May 2, Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in further support for their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Defendants stopped the lawful process to impose an extra-judicial punishment. Plaintiffs claim that they are likely to prevail on the merits, they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not intervene, and the balance of equities and public interest weighs heavily in their favor.

Update 3: On May 27, Judge Timothy Kelly denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction Judge Kelly’s opinion noted Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, because they have not exhausted all available administrative remedies.

Update 4: On Oct. 21, plaintiffs refiled after moving to suspend briefing pending completion of administrative appeals and then voluntarily dismissing their original case. They re-filed “out of an abundance of caution” given the D.C. Circuit’s “strict interpretation” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

1:25-cv-00946

Complaint

On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and conditions federal funding to states based on compliance with the EO. Plaintiffs are three nonprofits, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Secure Families Initiative (SFI), and the Arizona Students’ Association (ASA). They allege that the EO violates the separation of powers, the Electors and Election Clauses of the Constitution, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (including allegedly making “arbitrary and capricious” changes to the Federal Form and Federal Post Card Application). Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the EO is unlawful and unconstitutional, enjoin the implementation and enforcement of the EO, and block the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Pam Bondi from taking action that would prohibit the counting of valid mail-in and absentee ballots.

April 3, 2025: This case was consolidated with Democratic National Committee v. Trumpand League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

April 4, 2025: The nonpartisan plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify the consolidation order to allow them to brief the issues in the case separately from the Democratic Party plaintiffs, and to expedite the hearing and briefing on their motion for a preliminary injunction.

April 5, 2025: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order modifying the consolidation order to allow the plaintiffs to rule separately.

April 7, 2025: Nonpartisan plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the EO. In an accompanying memorandum, plaintiffs reassert that the EO violates Constitutional protections for federalism and the separation of powers.

April 7, 2025: Democratic Party plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the EO. In an accompanying memorandum, plaintiffs reassert that the EO violates Constitutional protections for federalism and the separation of powers.

April 24, 2025: Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted a preliminary injunction, with the exception of the Democracy Party Plaintiffs’ motions as to Sections 2(b), 7(a), and 7(b) of the EO.

May 31, 2025: Defendants answered LULAC’s complaint. On June 1, Defendants answered the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) complaint. On June 7, Defendants answered the League of Women Voters’ complaint. In each instance, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe and that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims.

June 12, 2025: Judge Kollar-Kotelly allowed the Republican National Committee (RNC) to intervene as a Defendant in the consolidated cases against Plaintiffs’ claims regarding Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 3(a), and 7(a) of the EO. On that same day, RNC answered the complaints of each of the consolidated cases. RNC’s answers to LULAC, DNC, and League of Women Voters denied the plaintiffs’ allegations and argued that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Additionally, RNC’s answer to League of Women Voters alleged that the League of Women Voters lacked standing to bring forth their claims.

Aug. 28, 2025: Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied Defendants’ motion to strike, deny, or defer consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Sept. 17, 2025: Democratic Party Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a joint stipulation of partial dismissal of claims challenging Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of EO 14248. This includes ultra vires claims as to Sections 4(b) and 4(c) in Count 1, Plaintiffs’ separation of powers/unlawful intrusion upon congressional authority claims as to Sections 4(b) and 4(c) in Count II, Plaintiffs’ separation of powers/usurpation of Congress’s spending powers claim as to Section 4(d) in Count IV and Plaintiffs’ APA claims as to Section 4(b) and 4(c) in count XI.

Oct. 31, 2025: District Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their constitutional separation of powers claims and issued a permanent injunction against the administration blocking Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248, which directs the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to apply for mail-in-voting. The court noted that Congress has never assigned nor intended to assign any responsibility with respect to mail-in-voting to the President or Executive Branch with the power to act unilaterally.

Dec. 23, 2025: Defendants filed notice of appeal.

1:25-cv-00952

Complaint

On Mar. 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among its requirements, the EO directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and provides that the Department of Homeland Security and DOGE shall review each state’s voter registration lists. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the Executive Order. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries challenged the EO, alleging that the President does not have legal authority to impose these policy changes, and that the Constitution reserves such authority to the states and to Congress. They further allege that the EO will make it harder to register to vote, cast a ballot, and to administer fair elections, and that it violates individual privacy rights. Plaintiffs brought 11 counts, alleging (1) Ultra Vires presidential action; (2) Violation of the Separation of Powers with respect to various congressional and state authorities; (3) Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations with respect to various statutes; and (4) APA violations with respect to various constitutional provisions. Plaintiffs requested that the court declare the relevant sections of the EO unlawful and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the various government departments from taking any action to implement the EO.

April 3, 2025: This case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

1:25-cv-00955

Complaint

On Mar. 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on the federal voter registration form (“Federal Form”) and conditions federal funding to states based on compliance with the EO. Plaintiffs are seven voting rights organizations, including multiple branches of the League of Women Voters (LMV), the Hispanic Federation, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). They allege that the EO violates the separation of powers and the National Voter Registration Act. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the EO is unlawful and enjoin the implementation of the EO to the extent that it directs the EAC to change the Federal Form.

April 3, 2025: This case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and Democratic National Committee v. Trump. These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

1:25-cv-10810

Complaint

On Mar. 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among its requirements, the EO directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and provides that the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Government Efficiency shall review each state’s voter registration lists. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the EO. Plaintiffs are 19 States that allege the President lacks authority to make the proposed changes to election law, that the EO infringes on the authority of States and Congress to determine election law, and that the EO would impose significant burden on the States to begin immediately conforming to the proposed new policy changes. Plaintiffs challenged six provisions of the EO: (1) Section 2(a), which requires the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship in its national mail voter registration form; (2) Section 2(d), which requires Federal voter registration departments or agencies to assess citizenship prior to providing a Federal voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs; (3) Section 3(d), which requires the Secretary of Defense to require documentary proof of citizenship in the Federal Post Card Application pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Voting Absentee Voting Act; (4) Section 4(a), which requires the EAC to freeze funds to States that do not implement these documentary requirements; (5) Section 7(a), which directs the Attorney General to enforce a new statutory interpretation to disallow counting of ballots received after Election Day; and (6) Section 7(b), which directs the EAC to condition funding to States based on adherence to this interpretation of Election Day. Plaintiffs allege that the President does not have authority to implement these changes to election law. Specifically, they argue that these provisions of the EO are unconstitutional under the Bicameralism, Presentment, Elections, and Electors Clauses (depending on the provisions), ultra vires, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act, violate Separation of Powers, and violate State sovereignty. Plaintiffs have requested the court declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and void, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin all Defendants except President Trump from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions.

Update 1: On Apr. 23, Defendants moved to transfer the case to the District of Columbia and consolidate the case with three other cases challenging the same provisions of the EO. The supporting memorandum of law notes these three DDC cases include: (1) League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President; (2) Democratic National Committee v. Trump; and (3) League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. In the alternative, Defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of the aforementioned cases.

Update 2: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a supporting memorandum of law. The motion seeks relief for five of the six challenged provisions of the EO, including sections 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a), and 7(b).Plaintiffs argue that these provisions violate constitutional separation of powers, unconstitutionally impose extra-statutory conditions on congressionally appropriated funding, and unlawfully invade State sovereignty.

Update 3: On May 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to Defendants’ motion to transfer and consolidate or in the alternative to stay, arguing that there is a strong presumption in favor of Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, that the Plaintiff States have distinct interests and harms from the private plaintiffs in the DDC cases, and that they therefore face severe prejudice if not allowed to litigate on their own timeline.

Update 4: On May 9, the Court denied the transfer, stating that “the differences between the matters counsel against consolidation”, that the interests of justice do not favor transfer, and that a stay is not warranted.

Update 5: On Jun. 13, Judge Casper issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from enforcing key parts of the administration’s election Executive Order, which requires states to demand proof of citizenship for voter registration, imposes new requirements on public assistance agencies, and penalizes states for ballot receipt deadlines and ballot curing practices. The court found that the coalition of states suing the government showed a “substantial risk” that their citizens would be disenfranchised.

Update 6: On Jul. 18, Judge Casper issued an amended preliminary injunction following the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The amended order continues to block federal agents from enforcing key aspects of the election Executive Order in Plaintiff States, but no longer applies to all States. The amended order also continues to block federal officials from engaging in national enforcement actions that cannot be limited to non-Plaintiff States, such as updating the federal postcard application for all uniformed and overseas voters.

Update 7: On Jul. 31, Defendants appealed the amended preliminary injunction order to the First Circuit.

Update 8: On Sept. 17, District Court Judge Casper denied the administration's motion to dismiss 19 states’ challenge E.O. 14248, which requires documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration programs and conditions Help America Vote Act funding on states adopting Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. The court held the states have standing, allowing a prior preliminary injunction to remain in effect and allowing plaintiff states to proceed with their other causes of action.

Update 9: On Oct. 15, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to stay all deadlines due to lapse in appropriations, but limited the stay to expire on Oct. 31. On Oct. 20, in response to defendants’ motion for clarification, the district court confirmed that the stay ends on Oct. 31, and no other relief was granted.

Update 10: On Nov. 24, the First Circuit lifted its Oct. 14 stay of proceedings entered during the government shutdown.

2:25-cv-00602

Complaint

On Mar. 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among its requirements, the EO directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and provides that the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shall review each state’s voter registration lists. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the EO.

Plaintiffs are the State of Washington and the State of Oregon. They are challenging ten provisions of the EO: (1) Section 2(a), which directs the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship in its national mail voter registration form; (2) Section 2(b)(iii), which directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOGE to review each state’s public voter registration list against federal immigration databases; (3) Section 2(d), which requires Federal voter registration departments or agencies to assess citizenship prior to providing a voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs; (4) Section 2(e)(ii), which directs the U.S. Attorney General to enforce federal election laws by using state-issued identification records and driver’s license databases; (5) Section 3(d), which requires the Secretary of Defense to require documentary proof of citizenship for overseas voting; (6) Section 4(a), which directs the EAC to freeze funds to States that do not implement these documentary requirements; (7) Section 4(b), which sets guidelines for voting systems and directs the EAC to review and re-certify voting systems; (8) Section 4(d), which directs DHS and FEMA to consider withholding federal funding based on states’ compliance with the voting system guidelines; (9) Section 5(b), which directs the the U.S. Attorney General to enforce Federal election integrity laws in the states and potentially withhold federal funding to states based on compliance; and (10) Section 7, which directs the Attorney General to take enforcement actions against any states found not in compliance with the EO and the EAC to condition federal funding to states based on their compliance. Plaintiffs allege that the challenged provisions violate the Elections Clause of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment (powers reserved to the states), the constitutional right to vote, ultra vires and separation of powers principles, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and the National Voter Registration Act. Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court declare that these provisions of the EO are unlawful and that the President does not have authority to implement these changes to election law. Plaintiffs are also requesting both a preliminary and a permanent injunction to prevent Defendants from implementing or enforcing these provisions of the EO.

May 29, 2025: Plaintiffs Washington and Oregon filed a motion for partial summary judgment and requested that the Court hold that certain sections of the EO violate the separation of powers principle and enter a declaratory judgment that the Plaintiff States’ ballot-receipt deadlines are not impacted.

Oct. 1, 2025: The Court granted Defendants’ motion for a stay of deadlines based on the current lapse of appropriations. All current case deadlines are stayed pending resolution of the lapse of appropriations. If the lapse of appropriations is more than seven days, the stay shall continue for the length of the lapse plus ten days. If the lapse of appropriations is seven days or less, the stay shall continue for the length of the lapse plus five days.

Jan. 9, 2026: Judge Chun ruled that EO 14,248 violates the separation of powers in its directives §§ 2(a), 4(a), 4(b), 7(a), and 7(b), permanently enjoining enforcement of those provisions while denying or dismissing the remaining claims.

8:25-cv-3675

Complaint

On Aug. 29, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued a guidance document announcing that non-governmental entities are not permitted to provide voter registration services. The plaintiff, National Council of Jewish Women, is an advocacy organization that regularly provided voter registration assistance to newly eligible voters: those who had recently turned 18 and naturalized citizens. On Nov. 7, 2025, the plaintiff sued USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security over the August USCIS decision banning private voter assistance services. The plaintiff argued that the ban was motivated by discriminatory intent, violating the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiff further argued the ban violated the First Amendment in limiting the right to free expression and association by discouraging voter participation. Finally, the plaintiff alleged the ban was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiff requested that the court find that the voter assistance ban violated the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA, and to temporarily block and permanently prevent Defendants from enforcing the ban.

1:20-cv-00731

Complaint

In July 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia to challenge an employee policy that requires immigration judges to obtain permission before speaking publicly on issues relating to immigration. The NAIJ argued that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of its members. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the policy could only be challenged through the administrative procedures established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).

The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and on June 3, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court. The Court held that although the CSRA’s administrative scheme would normally be the appropriate venue for this case, the CSRA “requires a strong and independent Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) and Special Counsel” and stated that the principle that “functioning and independent bodies would receive, review, and decide in the first instance challenges to adverse personnel actions affecting covered federal employees has recently been called into question.” In particular, the panel noted that “the Special Counsel and several members of the MSPB have been terminated by the President and the Government has questioned the constitutionality of the removal protections enshrined in the CSRA.”

The Court vacated the case and remanded so that the District Court can evaluate whether the CSRA continues to function as Congress intended in order to determine whether it would be appropriate to strip jurisdiction from the district court.

Dec. 5, 2025: Chief Justice John Roberts placed a hold on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in the case. The Circuit had overturned a District Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the administration’s policy requiring that immigration judges obtain permission before speaking publicly on issues relating to immigration.

Dec. 19, 2025: The Supreme Court declined to stay the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, finding that the government had not demonstrated that it would otherwise suffer irreparable harm.

1:25-cv-13305

Complaint

In May 2025, the White House and Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) implemented the “Merit Hiring Plan,” which includes open-ended essay questions in federal civil service job applications, one of which asks prospective employees how they would help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities. In June 2025, OPM issued updated guidance that states that the essay questions are not mandatory for applicants to answer but are encouraged. On Nov. 6, the American Federation of Government Employees (“AFGE”), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”), and the National Association of Government Employees (“NAGE”) sued OPM and its Director Scott Kupor and the United States of America to challenge the inclusion of this question. Plaintiffs argue that the question violates the First Amendment because it functions as viewpoint discrimination that compels speech pertaining to President Trump’s policy priorities and chills speech critical of those policy priorities, as applicants would feel pressured to self-censor and instead give an answer that aligned with the current president’s views in order to remain competitive. Plaintiffs also argue that the question and guidance violate the Privacy Act and are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). They further argue that the question’s infringement of First Amendment rights also violates the APA. Plaintiffs request the court find the use of the question to be unlawful, and to both temporarily block and permanently prevent Defendants from using the question in civil service employment, from relying on answers to the question, and from retaining applicants’ answers to the question.

1:25-cv-04111

Complaint

[Coming soon]

[Coming soon - On Nov. 24, former Department of Justice attorney and manager of the Witness Protection Program Joseph Schnitt sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ alleging that his termination by the Department violated his First Amendment rights.]

1:25-cv-04258

Complaint

On Dec. 8, twelve anonymous former Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents sued several federal agencies and offices, including the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging they were demoted or fired in retaliation for kneeling during a 2020 protest as a de-escalation tactic, conduct that the administration has characterized as participating in the demonstration. Plaintiffs allege their firing was politically motivated, and violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit alleges that Defendant Kashyap Patel, Director of the FBI, circumvented established FBI procedures in terminating the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ actions violate their First Amendment right since they constitute retaliation for perceived political affiliation and their Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights. They also allege that Defendants violated the Separation of Powers and acted ultra vires. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, backpay, and reinstatement to their positions, and ask the court to enjoin Defendants from taking any further adverse personnel action against each of them.

1:25-cv-04250

Complaint

The app ICEBlock, on which users can report sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, was created in early 2025 in response to the Trump Administration’s campaign to arrest, detain, and deport immigrants. In October, Attorney General Pam Bondi remarked on Fox News that the Trump Administration had reached out to Apple requesting the removal of ICEBlock from their App Store, which Apple subsequently did. On December 8, the creators of ICEBlock sued the administration to challenge the removal of the app. Plaintiffs allege that the administration illegally threatened to prosecute the app’s creators and pressured Apple to remove the app from its App Store, which the creators claim had more than one million users. Plaintiffs allege that government officials have unlawfully threatened to criminally investigate and prosecute the app’s creator, Joshua Aaron, for his role in developing the app. Plaintiffs claim these threats, along with the administration’s pressuring of Apple into removing the app, constitute violations of their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and ask that the court permanently enjoin Defendants from demanding Apple to stop distribution of the App, and from investigating or prosecuting Aaron.

1:25-cv-04144

Complaint

On Dec. 16, 2025, Jeanne Marrazzo, former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, filed a complaint against Robert F. Kennedy and several other Department of Health and Human Services officials for removing Marrazzo from her position following her objections to new NIH policies. After being placed on administrative leave, Dr. Marrazzo filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint and a disclosure of government wrongdoing with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in September 2025, and was terminated three weeks later. Plaintiff alleges that her termination is a violation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment as retaliation for protected speech, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) as illegal retaliation for engaging in protected activity, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to constitutional rights. She seeks declaratory relief, backpay, and reinstatement to her position and asks the court to enjoin Defendants from taking any further adverse personnel action against her.

0:25-cv-04669

Complaint

[Coming soon]

On Dec. 17, 2025, a group of Minnesota residents filed a class action complaint against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and several other DHS officials for ICE officers’ actions during recent protests, which allegedly included unlawful seizures and arrests, threats and intimidation tactics, and physical assault of observers and protestors.

Dec. 19, 2025: At a status conference, the court converted Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order into a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

1:26-cv-00081

Complaint

On Nov. 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly and five other members of Congress posted a video titled “Don’t Give Up The Ship” which reminded service members that they can refuse illegal orders. On January 5, 2026, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a censure letter to Senator Kelly based on determinations that statements in the video undermined the chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the armed forces, and was conduct unbecoming an officer. Kelly was subsequently referred to retirement grade determination proceedings. On Jan. 12, 2026, Kelly filed a complaint challenging the censure and related efforts to reopen and reduce his retired military grade. The complaint alleges that the censure and reopening of plaintiff’s grade determination violates the First Amendment as retaliation for protected speech, the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution as his statements were legislative acts and thus not subject to any adversarial proceedings, Separation of Powers as Defendants’ action usurps Congress’s authority to punish its own members, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as the decision to censure was preordained, 10 U.S.C. § 1370 which the complaint contends requires that only the Secretary of the Navy, not the Secretary of Defense, can reopen a retirement grade determination and then only for good cause, and the Administrative Procedure Act as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ actions were unlawful and an order vacating and enjoining the Defendants’ actions.

Jan. 12, 2026: Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

1:25-cv-10195

Complaint

Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiff, Maria Moe, is a transgender female federal inmate who was placed in a Special Housing Unit to await transfer to a men’s facility. The suit seeks to enjoin the Executive Order on the basis that it violates the 5th Amendment by discriminating against transgender individuals on the basis of sex and gender identity; the 8th Amendment by subjecting Moe to risk to life and dignity; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate Moe’s gender dysphoria; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Update 1: On Jan. 26, the judge reportedly issued a temporary restraining order requiring prison officials to maintain Moe's medical care and not to transfer her from the general population of the women's facility.

Update 2: On Feb. 7, the judge issued an order transferring the case “to the United States District Court for the district in which [Moe] is currently confined” and terminating proceedings in the District of Massachusetts. The order does not identify the District, noting that “[t]he parties are familiar with the proper district based on the sealed documents previously filed in this matter.”

Update 3: On Mar. 10, the court granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction and ordered that defendants maintain and continue the plaintiff’s housing status and medical care as they existed immediately prior to January 20, 2025.

Update 4: On Apr. 5, the court sealed the case due to logistical and technical difficulties.

Update 5: On Apr. 10, the court unsealed the case again with both parties agreeing that this case need not remain under seal, but rather, can proceed under the same protections as in other like cases.

Update 6: On May 22, the court extended the preliminary injunction until Aug. 23, 2025.

Update 7: On Aug. 20, the court extended the preliminary injunction until Nov. 21, 2025.

Update 8: On Nov. 17, the court extended the preliminary injunction until Feb. 19, 2026.

1:25-cv-00286

Complaint

Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiffs are three transgender women federal inmates, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are housed in female facilities. All have been informed that they will be transferred imminently to men’s facilities. The suit seeks a declaratory judgement that the executive order violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the 5th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex; the 8th Amendment by failure to protect through exposing plaintiffs to risk of serious harm and by cruel and unusual punishment by refusing necessary medical care; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate plaintiffs’ gender dysphoria and disability discrimination; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the government from carrying out the executive order and requiring it to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing and medical treatment consistent with the status quo prior to the order.

Update 1: On Feb. 4, 2025, Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order and enjoined the government blocking it from transferring the plaintiffs or from discontinuing the plaintiffs’ medical care.

Update 2: On Feb. 18, Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining implementation Section 4(a) and 4(c) of the Executive Order against plaintiffs.

Update 3: On Feb. 21, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum and motion for a TRO and expanded the preliminary injunction to cover all Plaintiffs in the First Amendment Complaint.

Update 4: On Feb. 24, Judge Lamberth issued an Order granting the request for an expanded preliminary injunction covering the additional plaintiffs.

Update 5: On Mar. 14, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add Plaintiffs Rachel and Ellen Doe, who were already transferred to male facilities. On the same day, Plaintiffs Rachel and Ellen Doe filed a motion for a further TRO. On Mar. 18, Plaintiffs filed a motion to convert their pending motion for a further TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction and TRO.

Update 6: On Mar. 19, Judge Royce Lamberth granted Plaintiffs Rachel and Ellen Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 7: On Apr. 2, the Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the preliminary injunction.

Update 8: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for a renewed preliminary injunction, which was granted by Judge Lamberth on May 15.

Update 9: On June 4, Defendants appealed Judge Lamberth’s May 15 preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit.

Update 10: On Aug. 20, Judge Lamberth granted Plaintiff’s motion for a renewed preliminary injunction which was filed, unopposed, on Aug.15.

Update 11: On August 21, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as to Judge Lamberth’s August 20 preliminary injunction order.

1:25-cv-00401

Complaint (Feb. 10, 2025)

Amended Complaint (Feb. 28, 2025)

Trump’s Executive Order 14168 mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care.

Plaintiff is a transgender woman who had previously been transferred from a women’s to a men’s unit of a BOP facility. She has since been transferred back, but she “now fears at any moment she will again be transferred to a men’s prison pursuant to Executive Order 14166[sic].” Plaintiff alleges that she is unsafe in any men’s prison, and she is also at imminent risk of losing access to medical care to treat her gender dysphoria. She brings claims alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Rehabilitation Act, and Administrative Procedure Act, and she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the EO.

Update 1: Feb. 21, Plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction on an emergency basis to stop Defendants from enforcing two sections of Executive Order 14168: Section 4(a), which requires inmate segregation based on biological sex, and Section 4(c), which bars federal prisons from providing medical care that would align inmates' physical characteristics with their gender identity.

Update 2: On Feb. 24, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction, stopping the Administration from enforcing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168 and maintaining Plaintiff’s housing and medical treatment.

Update 3: On Feb. 28, four additional Plaintiffs were added through an Amended Complaint, and they submitted a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

Update 4: On Mar. 3, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the TRO and preliminary injunction to the new plaintiffs added by the amended complaint.

Update 5: On Apr. 2, Defendants appealed the Feb. 28 and Mar. 3 orders granting the emergency applications for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

Update 6: On Apr. 30, Defendants filed a motion to stay further proceedings until August 30, 2025, which was granted on May 13.

Update 7: On May 16, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for a renewed preliminary injunction.

Update 8: On June 4, Defendants appealed the May 22 order granting a renewed preliminary injunction.

Update 9: On Aug. 20, Judge Lamberth granted Plaintiff’s motion for a renewed preliminary injunction which was filed, unopposed, on Aug.18.

Update 10: On August 21, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as to Judge Lamberth’s August 20 preliminary injunction order.

1:25-cv-00691

Complaint

Trump’s Executive Order 14168 (“EO”), issued on January 20, 2025, mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. Plaintiffs, three transgender individuals currently incarcerated in federal prisons who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, brought the lawsuit to represent all current and future federal inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria who are impacted by the executive order's ban on gender-affirming care. The lawsuit argues that the EO violates their constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment (protection against cruel and unusual punishment), Equal Protection Clause, Rehabilitation Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.

Update 1: On Mar. 17, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification for the purpose of emergency relief.

Update 2: On Mar. 28, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Mar. 17 motions, requesting that the court deny Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification.

Update 3: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction, to stay agency action and for class certification.

Update 4: On June 3, Judge Royce C. Lambert granted both the motion for class certification and the motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the Defendants are required to restore and maintain access to treatment for both those previously receiving treatment as well as any existing or future class member determined to be in need of treatment while this dispute is pending.

Update 5: On June 24, Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted and to exhaust their administrative remedies. Additionally, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would violate the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.

8:25-cv-00243

Complaint

On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Under the new policy guidance, immigration enforcement in such areas would only be subject to the enforcement officers’ “common sense.” The plaintiffs, a coalition of Quaker congregations, seek to enjoin enforcement of this policy change and request a court declaration that any government policy permitting immigration enforcement based solely on subjective common sense is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment. Their complaint also claims that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Feb. 4, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order.
Feb. 24, 2025: The court granted in part a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the DHS 2025 directive in or near any place of worship owned or used by the plaintiff organizations without an administrative or judicial warrant; and instead requiring adherence to the 2021 guidelines. The court also issued a Memorandum Opinion, which explained its reasons for not issuing a nationwide injunction based on the particulars of the Plaintiffs' organizations and their affidavits.
Apr. 17, 2025: DHS and Noem filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and supporting memorandum, which request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claims specifically.
Apr. 24, 2025: DHS and Noem appealed the Feb. 24 preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit.
May 1, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

1:25-cv-00403

Complaint

On January 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious denominations and associations sued for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting DHS from effectuating the directive. The complaint asserts that DHS’s authorization of immigration enforcement action at plaintiffs’ places of worship in the absence of exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. In addition, the complaint alleges that DHS’s manner of recission of the “sensitive locations policy” violates legal constraints on agency action.

Update 1: On Feb. 21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from carrying out immigration enforcement activities at their places of worship absent exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant.

Update 2: On Mar. 14, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, claiming that the plaintiffs lack standing, do not sufficiently claim irreparable injury, and that there is not a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion.They also claim that the Government has a compelling interest in the uniform enforcement of immigration laws.

Update 3: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants’ motion in opposition.

Update 4: On Apr. 11, Judge Friedrich denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating in the accompanying memorandum opinion that the Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of standing.

Update 5: On May 30, Plaintiffs appealed Judge Friedrich’s order denying their preliminary injunction motion to the D.C. Circuit.

1:25-cv-00474

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-04-16

On January 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Denver Public Schools filed a suit challenging the rescission of the policy, alleging that DHS implemented this major policy change through internal memoranda that have never been publicly released, with the shift announced only through a press release. According to the complaint, the new policy allegedly replaces three decades of formal protections with vague guidance that agents should use "common sense" in deciding whether to conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations. The Plaintiff argues that this reversal of a decades-old policy constitutes final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that DHS failed to meet the basic requirements for changing established policy — including the need to provide reasoned explanation for the change, consider reliance interests, and examine alternatives. The Plaintiff further alleges that DHS’s failure to publish the policy memoranda violates FOIA disclosure requirements. The suit asks the court to enjoin and vacate the new policy and require the 2025 policy to be made public.

Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order.

Update 2: On Mar. 7, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Update 3: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds of a claimed “arbitrary, capricious” conduct, constituting a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, requesting enjoinment and the vacating of the DHS policy.

Update 4: On Apr. 29, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the Plaintiffs lack standing, and they failed to state a claim.

Update 5: On June 9, Plaintiffs dismissed all claims in the action in their entirety. The civil case was terminated on that same day.

4:25-cv-40102

Complaint

On January 20, 2025, then-Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Benjamin Huffman rescinded prior enforcement guidelines that restricted immigration enforcement near protected areas, such as places of worship. The change in policy, which reverses two decades of guidance, allows the administration to conduct enforcement at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, shelters, food banks, hospitals, and churches. In the wake of this change, a growing number of immigration enforcement actions have taken place at formerly protected areas, including houses of worship. On July 28, a coalition of religious organizations filed a complaint challenging this rescission, which plaintiffs allege is substantially burdening their religious exercise and chilling their right of expressive association. The plaintiffs allege the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act and seek declarative and injunctive relief.

1:25-cv-01128

Complaint

As part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts to cut spending programs, the Department of Labor (DOL) has terminated all of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs’ (ILAB) external grantmaking and agreements for technical assistance projects. Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations whose funding for programs to combat child and forced labor internationally was eliminated because of this termination. These organizations allege the termination is an ultra vires action that is contrary to several laws–including the Appropriations Acts, Impoundment Control Act, and Anti-Deficiency Act-in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also allege the termination is an arbitrary and capricious action under the APA, and request the court declare the mass termination of ILAB’s agreements as unlawful and order the reinstatement of the ILAB cooperative agreements.

Update 1: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On June 30, Judge Beryl Howell issued a memorandum opinion and denied Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on their ultra vires and contrary to law under Anti-Deficiency Act (in violation of the APA) claims. Judge Howell also denied Defendants’ partial cross-motion for summary judgment on the ultra vires and contrary to the Appropriations Acts, Impoundment Control Act, and Anti-Deficiency Act claims under the APA. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as to their arbitrary and capricious under the APA claim was also denied, as was Defendants’ challenge to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

1:25-cv-10313

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-04-25

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. The order directed the Secretary of State to change policies related to documents like passports to align with the order’s definition of sex. The State Department subsequently stopped processing passport applications of individuals seeking to change their sex designation, or who selected an “X” designation. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, sued, arguing the policy is unconstitutional and violates the 5th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status; violates the Fifth Amendment by restricting the right of free movement and travel; violates the Fifth Amendment by forcing disclosure of private and intimate information; and violates the First Amendment by compelling the speech of transgender applicants through their passports. Plaintiffs also argue the policy is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, as contrary to constitutional rights, powers, and immunities; as an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and by failing to observe procedures as required by law in instituting the policy without a comment period. They seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unconstitutional and unlawful; preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping the policy from being implemented; and an order vacating agency actions already taken under the policy.

Update 1: On Feb. 18, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order.

Update 2: On Mar. 12, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to stay agency action and for preliminary injunction.

Update 3: On Mar. 19, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to stay agency action and for preliminary injunction.

Update 4: On Mar. 28, Plaintiffs submitted a request to file a short, supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to stay agency action and for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ memorandum provides additional arguments to support their request for the court to order Defendants to temporarily reinstate prior passport policy to restore the status quo.

Update 5: On Apr. 4, Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in which they requested any warranted relief be issued in the form of a targeted injunction at the particular agency action held to be invalid and limited to the plaintiffs whom the State Department is held to have taken unlawful action against.

Update 6: On Apr. 18, Judge Julia Kobick granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The order enjoins Secretary of State Marco Rubio against enforcing the passport policy against Plaintiffs and requires that the State Department permit changes to Plaintiffs’ sex designations on their passports, but denies the request for a stay of the passport policy.

Update 7: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Plaintiffs and details on continued harm to the plaintiffs since the initial filing of the lawsuit and on Apr. 30, filed a memorandum of support for the expanded class certification.

Update 8: On June 13, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit as to Judge Julia Kobik’s Apr. 18 Order of Preliminary Injunction.

Update 9: On June 17, Judge Kobick granted the class certification and preliminary injunction.

Update 10: On July 11, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit as to both Judge Kobik’s preliminary injunction and subsequent July 11 denial of Defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.

Update 11: On September 19, the administration asked the Supreme Court to stay an injunction granted earlier in 2025 that blocks the State Department from enforcing a new policy that delays or denies passport applications for individuals whose gender identity does not match their “immutable biological factors at conception.” The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a stay of the injunction earlier in September.

Update 12: On November 6, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s emergency request to stay the district court injunction blocking enforcement of a new passport policy requiring all passports to list an individual’s sex assigned at birth.

1:25-cv-01344

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. The order directed the Secretary of State to change policies related to documents like passports to align with the order’s definition of sex. The State Department subsequently stopped processing passport applications of individuals seeking to change their sex designation, or who selected an “X” designation. Plaintiffs sued, arguing the policy is unconstitutional and violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by discriminating on the basis of sex and of transgender status; violates the Fifth Amendment by restricting the right of free movement and travel; violates the Fifth Amendment by forcing disclosure of private and intimate information; and violates the First Amendment by compelling the speech of transgender and nonbinary applicants through their passports. Plaintiffs also argue the policy is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, as contrary to constitutional rights, powers, and immunities and as an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. They seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unconstitutional and unlawful; and preliminary and permanent national injunctions that stop agencies from implementing the policy as it relates to passports.

May 14, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum.

Sept. 9, 2025: District Judge George L. Russell granted a preliminary injunction to six transgender individuals denied passports matching their gender identity under a new government policy. The court held the policy violated the Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantee, finding the policy did not satisfy the heightened scrutiny required for sex-based classifications because the rationale for the policy given by the government did “not serve an important governmental interest that is exceedingly persuasive” and because “the discriminatory means employed are not substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” Judge Russell declined to reach the other constitutional and statutory claims, finding that the equal protection claim was sufficient to grant the injunction. The court dismissed a claim by a seventh plaintiff for lack of standing, and did not extend the preliminary injunction beyond the six successful plaintiffs.

Nov. 6, 2025: In the case of Orr v. Trump, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s emergency request to stay the district court injunction blocking enforcement of a new passport policy requiring all passports to list an individual’s sex assigned at birth.

Dec. 22, 2025: Judge Russell granted parties’ joint motion to stay pending final disposition of related case in the District of Massachusetts.

1:25-cv-00532

Complaint

On Feb. 11, 2025, White House officials banned AP journalists from entering areas like the Oval Office and Air Force One as members of the press pool unless the AP began referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. On Feb. 21, the AP filed suit, claiming that the ban (1) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause on the alleged grounds that the ban removes the AP from spaces it has used “for over a century” and was announced with no prior notice, no written notice, no opportunity to challenge before it took effect, and no formal opportunity to challenge since; and (2) violates the First Amendment on the alleged grounds that the ban is an attempt to compel the AP’s speech and retaliation for the AP’s exercise of its protected rights of expression. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that denying AP access is unconstitutional, and a court order that the White House rescind the policy. On Feb. 21, 2025, the AP also filed a motion for a TRO and a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 1: On Feb. 24, in a 2-page order, Judge Trevor N. McFadden denied the motion for a temporary restraining order but noted that the court had ordered expedited hearings for consideration of a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Mar. 3, Plaintiffs submitted an amended motion for a preliminary injunction, responding to Judge McFadden’s requests for briefings on specific questions, and requesting that the court require Defendants to rescind the ban on AP’s access to spaces open to the White House press pool.
Update 3: Given the amended motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge McFadden ordered the Feb. 21 motion moot on Mar. 4.
Update 4: On Mar. 11, Defendants filed a response opposing the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. They argue that media organizations do not have a Fifth Amendment liberty interest in special access to the President and that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for the President to grant special media access based on the nature of a journalist’s prior coverage.
Update 5: On Mar. 25, Defendants filed a supplemental declaration from Taylor Budowich, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Cabinet Secretary. The declaration provides some detail on the process for selecting press pool members and explains the access provided to the Plaintiff.

Update 6: On Apr. 8, the court granted a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds.
Update 7: On Apr. 10, Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to DC Circuit.
Update 8: On Apr. 16, the Associated Press submitted a motion to enforce the Apr. 8 preliminary injunction. The government submitted its opposition the following day. On Apr. 18, following a hearing, Judge McFadden denied the motion to enforce. He reportedly said from the bench, “I don’t intend to micromanage the White House;” “I think they are entitled to a presumption of good faith in their actions;” and that it was too soon to draw conclusions as to whether the government was in violation of his order.

Update 9: On June 6, the D.C. Circuit agreed to let the administration ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office, Air Force One, Mar-a-Lago, and “other similar restricted presidential workspaces,” while litigation proceeds. The appeals court kept the injunction in effect for events held in the East Room, which the court recognized as a designated public forum subject to First Amendment protections.

Update 10: On June 10, Plaintiffs filed an emergency petition for rehearing en banc of the stay order in the D.C. Circuit.

Update 11: On July 22, the D.C. Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ motion for en banc reconsideration, holding that the standard for en banc review was not met because the stay was a non-precedential order that did not resolve the appeal’s merits.

2:25-cv-05563

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-10-16

On June 18, a group of reporters, legal observers and protesters in Southern California filed a lawsuit alleging that Department of Homeland Security officers have targeted and assaulted protesters, reporters covering these events, and legal observers seeking to document the government’s conduct. The group alleges this conduct violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, is chilling the right to peacefully report, observe, and protest, and has needlessly caused violence. The group seeks injunctive relief.

Update 1: On June 18, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from dispersing, threatening or assaulting the press or legal observers, as well as using several violent means of crowd control.

Update 2: On June 20, Judge Stephen V. Wilson denied Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a TRO on the grounds that Plaintiffs have not established standing for injunctive relief and that the requested relief was too broad.

Update 3: On July 9, the case was reassigned to District Judge Hernan D. Vera based on its relation to Los Angeles Press Club v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:25-cv-05423.

Update 4: On July 18, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Defendants’ allegedly excessive use of force and asserting they would suffer irreparable harm absent court protection.

Update 5: On Sept. 10, Judge Vera granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that federal agents’ use of force had disrupted and would continue to disrupt peaceful protest and media coverage, and holding that Plaintiffs had demonstrated an ongoing risk of future injury.

Update 6: On Sept. 19, Defendants noticed an appeal of the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit and, the same day, filed an ex parte application in the district court to stay the Sept. 10 preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Update 7: On Sept. 22, Judge Vera denied Defendant’s Sept. 10 ex parte application to stay the Sept. 10 preliminary injunction pending appeal, noting that in the nine days between entry of the PI and Defendants’ ex parte application, Defendants had been able to comply with the injunction without difficulty and could continue to do so.

Update 8: On Oct. 9, Defendants filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s PI pending appeal. On Oct. 10, Plaintiffs moved to strike that motion, arguing that the parallel stay request in the district court had not yet been resolved.

Update 9: On Oct. 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the district court, reasserting the case as a putative class action, adding a plaintiff and several defendants, and alleging that Defendants’ unreasonable use of force pursuant to agency action violates the APA.

Update 10: On Oct. 21, the district court issued an order following its Sept. 22 decision denying Defendants’ ex parte application to stay the PI pending appeal. On the same day, the Ninth Circuit ordered that the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike be referred to the panel that will decide the merits of the appeal.

1:25-cv-01959

Complaint

On June 23, 2025, Media Matters, a nonprofit organization that monitors, analyzes, and corrects mis-information in the US media, filed suit against the Federal Trade Commission and several of its commissioners alleging that recent investigatory actions by the FTC into Media Matters amount to unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The complaint asserts that the FTC’s inquiry is politically motivated and designed to chill protected speech in response to Media Matters’ reporting on Elon Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter). Media Matters specifically alleges that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, its First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the government’s “campaign of retaliation.”

Update 1: On Aug 15, Judge Sooknanan granted Plaintiff’s July 14 motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing or enforcing an FTC Civil Investigative Demand against Media Matters. The court found that Media Matters was likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim.

Update 2: On Aug 18, Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit and filed an emergency motion for stay before Judge Sooknanan, which was denied on Aug 22.

Update 3: On Oct. 23, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit denied Defendants’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.

1:25-cv-04218

Complaint

On Sept. 18, 2025, Defendant Sean Parnell (Chief Spokesman for the Pentagon and Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs) issued a memorandum detailing the Pentagon’s new press access badge policy. The new policy gives federal government officials broader discretion to suspend and revoke reporters’ press access badges, including for reporting on information that the government has not approved. If reporters did not affirmatively agree to comply with the new policies, their badges were revoked/forced to be surrendered. This policy was followed by an “Acknowledgment” in which press access badge holders had to agree to the policy. On Sept. 28, Secretary of Defense Pete Hesgeth’s attorney circulated a revised version of the Acknowledgment. On Oct. 6, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued its final policy on its discretion to rescind press access, which included an updated Acknowledgement press access holders were required to sign by Oct. 14. Journalists covering the Pentagon refused to sign the Acknowledgement and were compelled to turn in their access badges. On Dec. 4, the New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes filed a complaint against the DoD, Secretary Hegseth, and Chief Spokesman Parnell. Plaintiffs allege that the new policy has a chilling effect on speech, engages in viewpoint discrimination (by controlling what information can be reported on and effectively only allowing reporters who are ideologically aligned with the administration to remain in the press briefings), cuts off reporters’ opportunities to report on White House communications, and deprives the public of important and transparent reporting on government affairs. Plaintiffs argue that the policy is vague and authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, thus violating the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs further argue that the policy violates the First Amendment by: giving the DoD unlimited discretion to chill speech with discretionary punishment, denying access to the public forum of the Pentagon Press Briefing Room, and by placing content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions intended to restrain and chill speech. Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the policy is arbitrary and capricious and violates the First and Fifth Amendments, constituting an infringement of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs request that the court declare that the policy is unlawful, prevent Defendants from implementing the policy, and reinstate the press access badges formerly held by Plaintiffs.

Jan. 7, 2026: Former Department of Defense official and NBC News correspondent Pete Williams filed a declaration in support of the New York Times challenge to the administration’s memo imposing restrictions on press badge access, arguing the policy is counterproductive and ultimately harmful to the public.

1:25-cv-00333

Complaint

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “[defend] women from gender ideology extremism and [restore] biological truth to the federal government.” That same day, the President issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the administration issued a third executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiffs argue the first order is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and the 5th Amendment’s due process guarantee for vagueness. They argue the second order unconstitutionally violates 5th Amendment due process for vagueness; the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause; and the separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgments that both orders are unlawful and unconstitutional, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against both.

Update 1: On Feb. 13, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Orders.

Update 2: On Feb. 18, Defendants filed a response against Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction, arguing, inter alia, that two of four Plaintiffs lack standing and that Plaintiffs' claims fail on merits. On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

Update 3: On Feb. 21, Judge Adam B. Abelson issued a memorandum opinion and granted the preliminary injunction in large part, enjoining implementation of the Termination Provision of Executive Order 14151 and of the Certification and Enforcement Threat Provisions of Executive Order 14173. The court stated that “Plaintiffs’ irreparable harms include widespread chilling of unquestionably protected speech." The court also denied the preliminary injunction in part, allowing the Attorney General to prepare the report pursuant to Executive Order 14173 and to engage in an investigation.

Update 4: On Feb. 24, the Defendant submitted a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Update 5: On Mar. 3, Judge Abelson denied the Defendants' motion to stay the injunction pending an appeal.

Update 6: On Mar. 10, Judge Abelson granted Plaintiff’s motion to clarify the scope of the injunction, such that it applies not only to “persons in active concert or participation with defendants,” but to all federal executive branch agencies.

Update 7: On Mar. 14, the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s petition for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Update 8: On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction granted by Judge Abelson on Feb. 21 in light of the Fourth Circuit’s grant of stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Plaintiffs seek to vacate so that they can instead seek additional relief that takes into account new factual developments and also save judicial resources.

Update 9: On Apr. 1, Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the preliminary injunction, asserting that the district court lacks the jurisdiction to do so after a notice of appeal has been filed.

Update 10: On Apr. 2, Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their motion to vacate the preliminary injunction order and requested the Court grant this motion as soon as possible.

Update 11: On May 1, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to vacate the preliminary injunction order.

Update 12: On May 7, the Plaintiff Restaurant Opportunities Center (“ROC”) voluntarily dismissed without prejudice its claims in full against all Defendants.

1:25-cv-00300

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. Plaintiffs are U.S. intelligence officers who were assigned to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives at ODNI and CIA. The complaint alleges that Defendants placed Plaintiffs on administrative leave “apparently only because of [Plaintiffs’] temporary assignments to personnel functions involving DEIA.” Plaintiffs bring several causes of action. First, they claim that Defendants violated the Administrative Leave Act by placing Plaintiffs on leave for more than ten work days, despite the fact that no worker misconduct had been alleged. Second, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act, because Plaintiffs’ “imminent termination” is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with [Intelligence Community] regulations, and unsupported by any evidentiary record whatsoever.” Third, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the First and Fifth Amendments by firing Plaintiffs on the basis of “their assumed beliefs about a domestic political issue [DEIA]” and causing them to lose “their property interest in their employment without due process of law.” The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. The plaintiffs also submitted a request for a temporary restraining order.

Update 1: On Feb 18, the court issued an administrative stay blocking the termination of plaintiffs’ employment or placing plaintiffs on leave without pay.

Update 2: On Feb. 20, Defendants filed a motion in opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for a TRO.

Update 3: On Feb. 27, the court vacated its prior administrative stay and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge Anthony Trenga extended the employees’ deadline to accept the administration’s deferred resignation program to Monday, March 3.

Update 4: On Mar. 27, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction with a memorandum in support.

Update 5: On Mar. 31, the court partially granted a preliminary injunction, blocking Defendants from implementing any decision to terminate Plaintiffs, ordering that Defendants must allow Plaintiffs to appeal their termination decisions, and requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiffs’ request for reassignment to other open positions.

Update 6: On May 6, Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit.

1:25-cv-00471

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-06-30

On Jan. 20, the Trump Administration issued an executive order directing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Director, assisted by the Attorney General and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the Trump Administration issued another executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order applying to contractors, in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiffs, non-profits that receive federal funding for programs designed to serve vulnerable populations, allege that the executive orders violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs allege the same regarding Executive Order 14168, which takes similar action against programs involving trans rights, violates the same laws. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the executive orders are unlawful, rescission of the executive orders, and permanent injunctions against any actions taken to enforce the executive orders.

Update 1: On Feb. 28, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Defendants submitted a motion in opposition on Mar. 12, to which Plaintiffs replied on Mar. 17. The court held a preliminary injunction hearing on Mar. 19.
Update 2: On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a notice to clarify factual matters discussed during the Mar. 19 hearing concerning the employment of Judge Timothy J. Kelly’s wife as the Director of the D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT). On Mar. 24, the Court ordered both parties to provide further information regarding the potential applicability of the executive order (EO) to DDOT and to articulate their positions on whether Judge Kelly should recuse himself from the case based on this information.
Update 3: On Mar. 26, both parties submitted their responses to Judge Kelly’s Mar. 24 order. Plaintiffs’ response highlighted their limited access to information on the matter, stating that the limited publicly available information does not necessitate Judge Kelly’s recusal. Defendants’ response noted that their respective agencies have no awards, grants, or contracts with DDOT. Consequently, Defendants do not believe recusal is required at this time.
Update 4: On May 2, Judge Kelly denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, stating that Plaintiffs were not able to show that they were likely to succeed on any of their claims.

Update 5: On June 27, Plaintiff National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) voluntarily dismissed its claims, thereby removing itself from the action. Plaintiffs National Urban League (NUL) and AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC) filed an amended complaint on June 30, which removed NFHA’s claims and dropped some of Plaintiffs’ APA claims.

3:25-cv-01824

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “[defend] women from gender ideology extremism and [restore] biological truth to the federal government.” That same day, the President issued an executive order directing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Director, assisted by the Attorney General and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the administration issued a third executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiffs allege that these three executive orders “pose an existential threat to transgender people and the organizations that respect their existence, shield them from harm, provide them with life-saving services and community, and engage in core protected speech advocating for their liberation.” Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the EOs: 1) have been used by Defendants to engage in viewpoint and content discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, (2) violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and are void for vagueness, (3) exceed the President’s powers under Article II of the Constitution by usurping congressional authority, and (4) violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent implementation and enforcement of the EOs.

Update 1: On Mar. 3, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in which they requested for the court to enjoin the implementation of the three EOs at issue in the litigation (EOs 14168, 14151, and 14173).

Update 2: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits and that any injunctive relief should be limited to the Plaintiffs and agency defendants.

Update 3: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, emphasizing how the EOs are causing continued harm to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and funding.

Update 4: On June 9, Judge Jon Steven Tigar granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and blocked the administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements, ruling that the government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funds. Judge Tigar’s offi

Update 5: On Aug. 7, Defendants appealed the June 6 partial grant of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Update 5: On Aug. 7, Defendants appealed the June 6 partial grant of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

1:25-cv-02005

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “[defend] women from gender ideology extremism and [restore] biological truth to the federal government.” That same day, the President issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the administration issued a third executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiff, a non-profit organization that works to train women to enter and remain in high-skilled trades, filed suit, arguing the executives orders (1) violate the First Amendment due to (a) overbreadth and vagueness; (b) viewpoint discrimination; and (c) setting unconstitutional conditions on speech; (2) violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause for vagueness; (3) are ultra vires violations of Article I, Sec. 8 (the Spending Clause); and (4) violate the separation of powers. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgments that the orders are unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining their enforcement.

Update 1: On Mar. 5, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the DEI Executive Orders (EO). On Mar. 18, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the federal government from taking adverse action against any recipient of federal funding resulting from the DEI Executive Orders.

Update 2: On Mar. 24, the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motions for a TRO and a preliminary injunction

Update 3: On Mar. 26, Judge Matthew Kennelly granted a TRO.

Update 4: On Apr. 1, the court issued an order granting an amended TRO. The amended TRO provides that the Secretary of Labor and employees or advisors of the Department of Labor (DOL) may not pause, freeze, or cancel any awards, contracts, or obligations made to Plaintiff on the basis of the termination provision of January 20 EO, and that the enjoined parties cannot require certification or other representations under the certification provision of the January 21 EO.

Update 5: On Apr. 3, the Government filed a second memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing the nationwide injunction requested by the Plaintiff should not be implemented.

Update 6: On Apr. 7, Plaintiff filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction in which it requested a nationwide preliminary injunction covering all federal agencies. In the alternative, the Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction against the defendant agencies.

Update 7: On Apr. 14, Judge Kennelly granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Kennelly declined to enjoin all federal agencies but did enjoin DOL and its officers specifically from implementing a pause, freeze, or cancellation of any awards, contracts, or obligations made to Plaintiff on the basis of the termination provision of January 20 EO. Judge Kennelly further ordered that the enjoined parties cannot require certification or other representations under the certification provision of the January 21 EO. The order was entered on Apr. 15.

Update 8: On Apr. 18, Plaintiff requested the modification of the preliminary injunction order issued on Apr. 14. The order only modified one of Plaintiff’ federal grants, and Plaintiff requested that the order be expanded to enjoin the enforcement of the termination provision as to all five of Plaintiff’ federally funded grants.

Update 9: On Apr. 25, the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s requested preliminary injunction order modification.

Update 10: On May 1, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion to modify the preliminary injunction, emphasizing that Defendants’ opposition does not dispute the plain language of the statutes and appropriations reports that demonstrate the grants at issue are intentionally funded by Congressional action.

Update 11: On May 7, Judge Kennelly denied Plaintiff’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction order, finding there was no manifest error of law warranting the modification.

Update 12: On June 27, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery until the court considered the motion to dismiss, citing the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas and the D.C. Court of Appeal’s June 2025 opinion for In re U.S. Department of Government Efficiency Service.

Update 13: On July 3, the Government appealed Judge Kennelly’s Apr. 14 preliminary injunction order to the Seventh Circuit.

1:25-cv-00702

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “[defend] women from gender ideology extremism and [restore] biological truth to the federal government.” That same day, the President issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the administration issued a third executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiffs are organizations whose members include hundreds of teacher preparation programs. Those programs receive grants through the U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Quality Partnership Program (TQP), Supporting Effective Educator Development Program (SEED), and Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (TSL). Plaintiffs assert that, pursuant to the President’s Executive Order 14151 which halted DEI initiatives, the Department of Education summarily terminated many of the TQP, SEED, and TSL grants without proper procedure. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that EO 14151 is unconstitutionally vague and that the termination of the grants constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an injunction ordering reinstatement of grant funds. They also submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 1: On Mar. 17, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction as to the Plaintiffs’ APA claim.

Update 2: On Mar. 21, Defendants submitted a notice of appeal on the partial grant of the motion for preliminary injunction to the Fourth Circuit.

Update 3: On Mar. 25, Defendants filed a time sensitive motion for stay pending appeal with the Fourth Circuit.

Update 4: On Mar. 31, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to place the case in abeyance, stating that the disposition of another case pending before the Supreme Court will inform any future briefing in this litigation. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to suspend the briefing schedule and deadline to respond to the Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal until the Supreme Court weighs in on the related case.

Update 5: On Apr. 1, the Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ motion to place the case in abeyance. The next day, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal, arguing that Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their appeal.

Update 6: On April 4, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to stay pending appeal.

Update 7: On Apr. 10, the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the Supreme Court's recent order granting a stay pending appeal in Department of Education, et al. v. California, et al.

Update 8: On Apr. 27, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and a supporting memorandum of law in which they requested an indicative ruling because the case is currently on interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Update 9: On May 6, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion to dissolve preliminary injunction and request for indicative ruling under rule 62.1, stating that the Court struggles to see a substantive or procedural advantage if the Court were to dissolve the PI.

1:25-cv-00079

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-05-12

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “[defend] women from gender ideology extremism and [restore] biological truth to the federal government.” That same day, the President issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the administration issued a third executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs.

Plaintiffs are arts nonprofit corporations that have received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Pursuant to the Jan. 20 “gender ideology” EO, the NEA now requires all grant applicants to certify their understanding that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” Plaintiffs, who seek to “affirm transgender and nonbinary identities and experiences in the projects for which they seek funding,” allege that such projects now appear to be ineligible for NEA funding, and the vagueness of the new NEA policy “requires [Plaintiffs] to guess as to what if anything they can create, produce, or promote that addresses themes of gender.” The Plaintiffs claim that the NEA’s “gender ideology” prohibition exceeds statutory authority under the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 and is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the prohibition violates the First and Fifth Amendments by imposing vague and viewpoint-based restrictions on artistic speech. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief stopping the government from implementing the EO,, and they request a preliminary injunction, expedited hearing, and/or a temporary restraining order in light of a Mar. 24 deadline for NEA applications.

March 21, 2025: The Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

March 25, 2025: The Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction.

April 3, 2025: The court denied Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, and expedited hearing. The Court noted that Plaintiffs’ claims, for now, are moot because NEA rescinded its implementation of the EO pending further administrative review. The Court cautioned that Plaintiffs may be able to return and request relief depending on the outcome of the administrative review.

May 12, 2025: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which included updates on the changes to NEA policy that took place following the commencement of the lawsuit.

Sept. 19, 2025: District Court Judge Smith enjoined the National Endowment from the Arts from applying a view-point based standard of review which would disfavor applications deemed “to promote gender ideology” and vacated and set aside NEA’s plan to implement E.O. 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Judge Smith granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part and denied in part, ruling in favor for the First Amendment and APA claims, but against on their Fifth Amendment claim. Per the Court, “Defendants made no effort to argue [that the policy] satisfies any type of judicial scrutiny, let alone strict scrutiny . . . .” Judge Smith did not find that the phrase to “promote gender ideology” was void for vagueness, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Nov. 17, 2025: Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal.

1:25-cv-10548

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-06-02

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14151 directing the government to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, Trump issued Executive Order No. 14173 requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws. On Jan. 29, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order No. 14190 instructing the Secretary of Education to develop a plan to eliminate federal funding for “illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools.” On Feb. 5, 2025, the Acting Secretary of Education issued a department directive instructing the Department of Education (“DOE”) employees to review ongoing grants to ensure they “do not fund discriminatory practices–including in the form of DEI.” Allegedly, within two days recipients of Congressionally-authorized Teacher Quality Partnership (“TQP”) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (“SEED”) grants totaling more than $250M received termination letters from the DOE, stating that the grants conflict with the administration’s policies opposing DEI efforts. Eight states filed suit, arguing that the DOE’s termination of TQP and SEED grants unlawfully violates the Administrative Procedure Act as (1) arbitrary and capricious; and (2) an agency action not in accordance with law, in this case the DOE’s own procedures. The Plaintiff states seek an order vacating and setting aside the DOE’s termination of previously-awarded grants; a declaratory judgment that terminating the grants violated the APA; and preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the government from unlawfully terminating the grants.

Update 1: On Mar. 10, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the DOE from terminating the grants.

Update 2: On Mar. 12, the Defendant submitted a notice of appeal to the First Circuit.

Update 3: On Mar. 21, the First Circuit denied the Defendant’s motion for a stay of the TRO pending appeal.

Update 4: On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the TRO pending the court’s ruling on the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Update 5: On Mar. 24, the government filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the TRO.

Update 6: On Mar. 24, Judge Myong J. Joun granted Plaintiffs’ request to extend the TRO pending the court’s ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction, not to go past Apr. 7. The hearing for the preliminary injunction is scheduled for Mar. 28.

Update 7: On Mar. 26, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the order by the district court and issue an administrative stay.

Update 8: On Apr. 4, the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) granted a stay pending appeal. The majority wrote that “the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction” and signaled that the case may need to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.

Update 9: On May 12, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims.

Update 10: On June 2, plaintiff state’s filed an amended complaint expounding on the factual background and adding three new allegations: (1) that an actual and substantial controversy exists that is presently justiciable and that declaratory relief is appropriate to resolve the controversy, (2) defendant’s action is a substantive violation of the Spending Clause, and (3) Defendant’s action is ultra vires - outside the scope of statutory authority conferred on the Executive.

Update 11: On June 2, Judge Myong J Joun issued an order directing the clerk to terminate Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot and giving Defendants until June 24 to file an answer or other pleading responsive to the amended complaint.

Update 12: On November 13, Judge Kelley allowed the lawsuit to continue in part, denying the government’s motion to dismiss. Judge Kelley held that the court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff States’ terminated grants, but retained jurisdiction over all remaining claims.

1:25-cv-00760

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEIA programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, 2025, the Acting Director of U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), issued a memo to the heads of federal agencies, directing them to close DEIA initiatives and programs and place employees of DEIA offices on administrative leave. On Jan. 22, 2025, the Veterans Benefits Administration (“VBA”) – Office of Equity Assurance (“OEA”) was shut down and employees were placed on administrative leave. Plaintiffs are career civil employees who were placed on administrative leave and terminated from access to government systems on Jan. 22. Plaintiffs allege that the implementation of the EO violates the First Amendment because they were targeted because of their assumed beliefs about a domestic political issue (DEIA) which was unrelated to their work at VBA. They also allege that their termination violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, and preliminary and permanent injunctions on Defendant from designating OEA as a DEIA office affected by the EO.

Update 1: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO. In their memorandum in support of this motion, Plaintiffs note they seek the TRO to enjoin Defendant Collins from designating OEA as a DEIA office and Plaintiffs as DEIA employees affected by the EO and from blocking access to the Agency’s employee network and employee benefits.

Update 2: On Apr. 25, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. On Apr. 28, Plaintiffs filed a reply to Defendants' opposition of the motion for a TRO.

Update 3: On May 2, Judge Rudolph Contreras denied Plaintiffs’ TRO motion following a hearing on the matter that same day.

Update 4: On July 17, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action.

1:25-cv-00783

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14151 directing the government to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, Trump issued Executive Order No. 14173 requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws.The Plaintiff, a municipality, applied for and received a three year grant from the Defendant, Americorps, to fund volunteer programs. In compliance with Americorps’ rules, the grant application included statements on the Plaintiff’s plans to advance DEIA. Following the issuance of the two Executive Order (EOs) noted above, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it risked losing its funding if it failed to change the language of its grant or attest to not promoting DEI. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the Defendant’s actions are arbitrary and capricious, and of the Constitution’s Spending Clause, claiming that the Defendant’s new requirements for funding are too vague. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from imposing the new grant requirements.

Update 1: On Mar. 21, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting the court order Defendants to determine Plaintiff to be in compliance with all relevant grant requirements for existing grants and to immediately disburse any funds to which Plaintiff is entitled.

Update 2: On Apr. 4, AmeriCorps filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 3: On Apr. 14, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice and withdraw its preliminary injunction motion because AmeriCorps changed its certification requirements following the lawsuit’s commencement. The court granted this request the same day.

1:25-cv-01079

Complaint

[Coming soon]

1:25-cv-00637

Complaint

In January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Orders 14168, 14185 and 14190, which directed that federal funds should not be used to promote “gender ideology” or DEI, including in both the DoD and in all federally funded K-12 schools. The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) issued two memoranda on Feb. 5 requiring all DoDEA schools to review their libraries and remove books related to gender ideology or “discriminatory equity ideology topics”, and to cease using curricular materials potentially related to these topics. School administrators in DoD schools throughout the world subsequently removed a wide range of books from libraries and made curricular changes including banning specific lessons, educational programming and cultural events based on content purportedly referencing race and gender ideologies. Twelve children who are minor dependents of active-duty servicemembers and attend K-12 DoDEA schools both in the US and abroad filed suit against DoDEA, its Director and the Secretary of Defense on Apr. 15, asserting that they are experiencing irreparable harms stemming from their reduced access to books, curricula, and educational information about race and gender in DoDEA schools and that these actions are a violation of their First Amendment right to receive information. They seek a declaratory judgment that their constitutional rights have been violated, reinstatement of the removed books and curricula, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against any enforcement of steps taken to implement the EOs.

May 7, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum.

Oct. 20, 2025: The court granted a preliminary injunction but denied it on a nationwide basis.

Dec. 18, 2025: Defendants filed notice of appeal.

Dec. 23, 2025: Plaintiffs filed notice of cross appeal.

Jan. 2, 2026: Appeal and cross appeal consolidated by Fourth Circuit.

2:25-cv-00814

Complaint

First Amended Complaint 2026-05-21

Second Amended Complaint 2025-07-10

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directed federal agencies to “take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology” and “assess grant conditions and grantee preferences” to “ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.” On Jan. 21, Trump issued EO 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which instructed federal agencies to include “in every contract or grant award” a term that the contractor or grant recipient “certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI” that would violate federal antidiscrimination laws. On Jan. 24, Trump issued EO 14182, titled “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” which directed federal agencies to “end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.” On Feb. 19, Trump issued EO 14218, titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” which directed federal agencies to ensure “that Federal payments to States and localities do not, by design or effect, facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration, or abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.” After these EO’s were issued, counties and municipalities received grant agreements from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which included provisions reflecting these executive orders as conditions to continue receiving already apportioned funding. Grants affected included funds designed to provide housing and related services for people exiting homelessness, including healthcare, transportation and job services, which were previously authorized by Congress as part of HUD’s Continuum of Care program.Plaintiff King County also received the same Conditions in an updated master agreement with the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) for certain federal grants. The Conditions imposed require that Plaintiffs comply with the Trump administrations’ interpretation of non-discrimination law as barring any and all DEI programs, facilitate the administration’s immigration policies, including the use of a federally mandated verification system to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, and not fund or promote gender ideology or elective abortions.

Plaintiff counties and cities jointly filed a complaint against HUD, the FTA, and the FTA’s parent agency, the Department of Transportation (DOT) on May 7, contending that the new Conditions are unlawful since only Congress has the power to attach conditions to federal grants, and therefore the Conditions contravene separation of powers principles. They also allege that the Conditions are unconstitutionally vague, contrary to existing non-discrimination statutes, and in violation of the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the APA, as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to regulations (including notice-and comment requirements) and the Constitution, and in excess of statutory authority. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the conditions are unlawful and a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants enforcing the Conditions.

Update 1: On May 5, the Plaintiffs filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), alleging that the Conditions require them to make a “Hobson’s choice between agreeing to abandon their values, laws and policies or else put hundreds of millions of grant dollars in jeopardy in an extremely limited time frame”. They argue that forfeiting the funding would cut off critical programs and services and significantly impact their budgets.

Update 2: On May 6, Defendants filed their opposition to the TRO on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction, which they allege that under the Tucker Act should lie with the Court of Federal Claims.

Update 3: On May 7, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a TRO, arguing that the Court does have jurisdiction and reasserting the above claims.

Update 4: On May 7, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, noting that the Court does have jurisdiction since the claim is based on statutory and constitutional rights and the relief sought would not be available in the Court of Federal Claims; that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

Update 5: On May 14, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, reiterating their belief that the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter.

Update 6: On May 21, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.

Update 7: On June 4, Judge Rothstein granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

Update 8: On June 9, Defendants appealed Judge Rothstein’s preliminary injunction order to the Ninth Circuit.

Update 9: On July 10, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.

Update 10: On July 14, Plaintiffs filed their third preliminary injunction motion and proposed order, requesting that the court extend the relief previously granted to new jurisdictions, barring HHS from applying unlawful conditions at any stage of the grant-making process, and barring HUD from doing the same as to all grant programs.

Update 12: On October 10, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

1:25-cv-02482

Complaint

On July 29, FreeState Justice, a non-profit organization providing legal services to the Maryland LGBTQ+ population filed a complaint against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging what it describes as a “Trans Exclusion Policy” after the EEOC halted the charge-investigation process for all charges tied to sexual orientation and gender identity in January 2025 and, in April, directed that all gender-identity discrimination charges be classified as meritless and suitable for dismissal. Plaintiff alleges the policy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by refusing to process certain charges of sex discrimination brought by individuals of a particular gender identity and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by denying the government’s services to one disfavored group. Plaintiffs also allege the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law and in excess of statutory limitation, contrary to constitutional right, and without observance of procedure required by law. The Plaintiff asks the court to vacate the policy and declare it as unlawful and unconstitutional.

1:25-cv-00447

Complaint

The National Alliance to End Homelessness and the Rhode Island’s Women’s Development Corporation, two nonprofit organisations that work to end homelessness and improve the availability of affordable housing, filed suit challenging new criteria established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) governing eligibility for $75 million in funding grants under HUD’s Continuum of Care (CoC) program, which provides funds for programs to assist homeless individuals and families. Plaintiffs allege that the new CoC criteria unlawfully disqualifies projects based in state and local jurisdictions with policies the administration disfavours or which provide services which are not aligned with administration views on gender identity, immigration enforcement or harm reduction. Plaintiffs allege that the imposition of the new criteria violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority, and violates the First Amendment as viewpoint bias, the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the imposition of the new criteria.

Sept. 14, 2025: District Judge McElroy granted a Temporary Restraining Order to plaintiffs, finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

6:25-cv-01748

Complaint

Two sexual health education programs created and funded by Congress—the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and the Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program (SRAE) – have been administered by States for several decades. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO)14,168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” which declares that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” Pursuant to the EO, in August, 2025 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) informed States receiving federal funds under these programs that it intended to cut all State PREP and SRAE funding unless the States remove all references to inclusive gender identity from their programs.

On September 26, 16 states and the District of Columbia filed suit, alleging that the new guidance violates statutory requirements that these programs include content that is “medically accurate and complete” and “culturally appropriate,” or provided in the appropriate “cultural context”. They contend that the directives force Plaintiff States to choose between losing federal funding for essential public health education programs or complying with unlawful funding conditions that undermine the central purpose of these programs and conflict with state and federal laws, including numerous state laws and policies that are aimed at promoting comprehensive, medically-accurate sexual health education and ensuring that sexual health education be inclusive of all students.

The complaint alleges that the new guidance violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as action contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to constitutional rights as a violation of the Spending Clause and Separation of Powers. They seek a declaration that the guidance is unlawful and unconstitutional, and injunctive relief to vacate the new requirements. On the same day they moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin their enforcement.

Oct. 27, 2025: District Court Judge Aiken issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from conditioning plaintiff states’ eligibility for certain health education grants on removing all references to gender identity from their program materials, pursuant to Executive Order 14168. Judge Aiken characterized the administration’s justification for the grant conditions as “absurd” and pretextual, likely in violation of Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and sex discrimination laws.

1:25-cv-03702

Complaint

On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff Leah Cross, a Colorado resident and former Amazon delivery driver, filed a complaint against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and its Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, in their official capacities. Cross alleges that the EEOC's September 2025 "Disparate Impact Rule"—issued in response to Executive Order 14281—unlawfully directed EEOC field offices to administratively close all pending investigations involving disparate-impact discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and to halt any related conciliation efforts, including closing her class-based charge of discrimination against Amazon that alleged Amazon’s denial of bathroom breaks to delivery drivers disproportionately harmed female employees. The complaint asserts that the Disparate Impact Rule contradicts statutory mandates (Title VII and ADEA), was adopted without necessary quorum, Commissioner vote, or public notice, which she claims is contrary to law and procedurally invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Cross sets out four causes of action under the APA: that the Rule is not in accordance with law, is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the EEOC’s statutory authority by imposing substantive rather than procedural changes, and was established without required notice-and-comment procedures. She seeks a judicial declaration that the Rule is unlawful, a stay and vacatur of the Rule, a permanent injunction against its enforcement, restoration of the investigation and conciliation processes for affected claimants, attorney’s fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper

Nov. 25, 2025: The court dismissed the case and denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.

1:25-cv-04073

Complaint

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14168, which directs government officials to prohibit transgender and intersex individuals from using intimate spaces that align with their gender identity. On Jan. 29, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) issued a memorandum implementing the EO and directing agencies to ensure restrooms are “designated by biological sex” (rather than identity). In May 2025, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) withdrew its 2016 directive that federal agencies using spaces managed by GSA must allow individuals to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity. On Nov. 20, Plaintiff Leanne Withrow, a transgender woman who serves in the military, filed a class action complaint asserting that the EO has caused emotional/psychological harms and professional harms, and is discriminatory. Defendants are OPM, GSA, the United States of America, and numerous federal agency officials. Plaintiff argues that the EO and the subsequent implementation actions constitute discrimination on the basis of sex and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff further argues that the EO and implementation actions are arbitrary and capricious and also conflict with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, constituting a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiff requests that the court prevent Defendants from enforcing any policies that prevent her and other class members from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, and to also order Defendants to provide and continue providing Plaintiff and the class members access to restrooms that align with their gender identity.

1:25-cv-04206

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2026-01-12

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (“EO”) 14151, which instructed federal agencies to coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including “illegal DEI” and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (“DEIA”) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the federal government. On Jan. 21, 2025, Trump issued EO 14173, which reiterated the illegality of DEI programs. On Dec. 3, 2025, four former federal employees filed suit on behalf of a class of federal workers. Plaintiffs allege that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) issued directives to federal agencies to implement the EOs, resulting in the Plaintiffs and the class of federal workers being subject to Reductions in Force (“RIFs”). Plaintiffs also allege that the Trump Administration carried out a targeted purge of career civil servants based on their perceived political affiliation, race or gender, or advocacy for protected groups. The Defendants are President Donald Trump and 27 federal agencies and their directors. Plaintiffs argue that the EOs constitute retaliation against the Plaintiffs and the class of federal workers for their association or perceived association with DEIA based on their job title, perceived job duties, or government jobs performed, in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants’ implementation of the EOs constitutes both intentional discrimination of the Plaintiffs’ advocacy, gender, and race, as well as disparate impact discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the RIFs are unlawful because the removals violate RIF procedures and are prohibited under the Civil Service Reform Act. Plaintiffs request that the court declare that the EOs and their implementation directives are unlawful, require Defendants to expunge termination records and restore government service seniority, and order Defendants to reinstate the terminated employees and provide back pay, lost benefits, and compensatory damages to Plaintiffs.

Jan. 12, 2026: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding four plaintiffs and substituting the newly confirmed CFTC chair for the acting one.

1:25-cv-00628

Complaint

First Amended Complaint

2025-03-05

Second Amended Complaint

2025-07-17

On Feb. 14, 2025, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights published a Dear Colleague Letter announcing its intentions for enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which bans race-based affirmative action. According to the complaint, the Letter threatened to withhold federal funding from schools with DEI programs, programs that teach about “systemic and structural racism,” or programs that otherwise factor race into educational environments. Plaintiffs, professional membership associations representing teachers and sociologists, allege that the Letter violates the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process protections, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory judgment that the Letter is unlawful and unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction against any steps taken to implement the Letter.

March 5, 2025: Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a plaintiff (a school district in Oregon), additional factual allegations regarding the DOE’s “End DEI” portal and Feb. 28 “FAQs” guidance document, and additional Oregon law relevant to the new plaintiff.

March 28, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to enjoin defendants from initiating any investigations under both the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter and the Feb. 28 FAQs, to order that the End DEI Portal be inactivated and removed from the DOE website, and to order that the DOE restore public website guidance related to Title VI that was removed after Jan. 20, 2025.

April 9, 2025: Plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited preliminary injunction and stay of agency action, after the DOE sent state and local education agencies a Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard (the “Certification”) on April 3.

April 14, 2025: The DOE filed an opposition to both of Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction. On April 17, Plaintiffs filed a further reply in support of both of their motions for preliminary injunction.

April 18, 2025: Judge Stephanie Gallagher held a hearing on both motions for preliminary injunction and requested additional information on final judgment and remedies. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental response to the court’s request on April 20, and Defendants filed theirs on April 21.

April 24, 2025: Judge Gallagher granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ March 28 motion for preliminary injunction, preventing the Dear Colleague Letter from being implemented pending the proceedings. Judge Gallagher also denied Plaintiffs’ April 9 motion for preliminary injunction seeking to stay the Certification deadlines, because Plaintiffs did not include a challenge to the Certification in their Amended Complaint. The court’s memorandum opinion found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims and that they face irreparable harm.

July 17, 2025: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which addresses the DOE’s notification of Certification to state education agencies (SEAs). Plaintiffs add three additional claims for relief specific to this Certification, including an additional First Amendment (Free Speech and Free Association) claim, an additional Fifth Amendment (Due Process Vagueness) claim, and an additional APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (arbitrary and capricious) claim. Plaintiffs also request that their prayer for relief be extended to the Certification and request a permanent injunction against implementation of this Certification and actions taken on the basis of the aforementioned interpretation of Title VI.

Aug. 14, 2025: Judge Gallagher issued a memorandum opinion granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part, as to finding the Letter and Certification Requirement unlawful under APA 5 U.S.C. § 706, Counts One (First Amendment, Free Speech and Free Association), Two (Fifth Amendment, Due Process Vagueness), Three (APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (arbitrary and capricious)), Five (Fifth Amendment, Due Process Vagueness), and Six APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (arbitrary and capricious). Judge Gallagher granted the government’s motion, constructed as a motion for summary judgment, in part, as to Count Four (First Amendment, Free Speech and Free Association).

Oct. 13, 2025: Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal.

1:25-cv-00091

Complaint

First Amended Complaint

2025-03-21

Second Amended Complaint

2025-05-12

On Feb. 14, 2025, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights published a Dear Colleague Letter announcing its intentions for enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which bans race-based affirmative action. According to the complaint, the Letter threatened to withhold federal funding from schools with DEI programs, programs that teach about “systemic and structural racism,” or programs that otherwise factor race into educational environments. Plaintiffs, a professional association that represents approximately 3 million educators and an affiliate, allege that the letter violates the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process protections, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They seek declaratory judgment that the Letter violates the APA and is unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctions against any steps taken to implement the letter.

Update 1: On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include an additional plaintiff (Center for Black Educator Development (CBED)), factual allegations related to CBED, additional factual allegations related to NEA, and an additional cause of action under the Higher Education Opportunity Act–which prohibits DOE from directing or controlling the curriculum of institutions of higher education. On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On Apr. 3, DOE issued a Certification Requirement to state and local education agencies requiring them to certify that they are currently in compliance with “Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard,” as interpreted by DOE through its Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter.

Update 3: On Apr. 7, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin DOE from implementing the Certification Requirement it announced on Apr. 3 while awaiting the court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. DOE objected to the emergency motion on Apr. 8.

Update 4: On Apr. 9, DOE and Plaintiffs negotiated an agreement that prevents DOE from initiating enforcement action with respect to the Dear Colleague Letter and subsequent actions until after Apr. 24. Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO was declared moot the following day.

Update 5: On Apr. 11, DOE filed its objection to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. DOE claimed Plaintiffs lack standing and that their APA claims will fail because the Dear Colleague Letter is not a final agency action. On Apr. 15, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 6: On Apr. 24, Judge Landya McCafferty granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McCafferty enjoined DOE from enforcing and/or implementing the Dear Colleague Letter and the Apr. 3 certification requirement against plaintiffs and members associated with plaintiffs pending further court order.

Update 7: On May 12, Plaintiffs amended their complaint.

1:25-cv-01120

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-05-09

Case Summary: On Feb. 14, 2025, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights published a Dear Colleague Letter (Letter) announcing its intentions for enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which bans race-based affirmative action. The DOE subsequently issued an accompanying Frequently Asked Questions Document on Feb. 28 and a certification of compliance requirement on Apr. 3 (collectively, Title VI Documents). The NAACP filed suit against the DOE, the Secretary of Education, and the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the DOE alleging that the Title VI Documents violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association; the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process protections; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to being arbitrary and capricious, contrary to constitutional rights and separation of powers, and for exceeding statutory authority. Plaintiffs allege that by targeting programs that address racism and support equal educational opportunity, prohibiting policies that ensure equal access to selective programs, prohibiting curricula based on viewpoint, and prohibiting practices that address discrimination, the Title VI Documents are disproportionately harming Black students, including NAACP members. (In a separate lawsuit, the DOE reached an agreement not to enforce the directives in the Title VI Documents until at least April 24. However, the NAACP contends that the DOE continues to coerce schools to comply, as some schools have lost funding and others have cancelled programs under fear of future enforcement.) The NAACP seek a declaratory judgment that the Title VI Documents violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by evincing racially discriminatory intent, the First Amendment by infringing on the rights to receive information and freedom of association, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, for failure to follow required procedures to provide opportunity for participation in a rule making process, and in excess of statutory authority under Title VI, Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C §§4071-73 and Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C §7907. Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining the DOE from implementing or enforcing the Title VI Documents.

Apr. 24, 2025: Judge Dabney Friedrich granted a preliminary injunction.

May 9, 2025: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

3:25-cv-00038

Complaint 2025-02-19

Amended Complaint 2025-06-16

Second Amended Complaint 2025-10-24

In the previous presidential term, President Joe Biden withdrew parts of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf from future oil and gas leasing in the interest of environmental conservation, pursuant to his authority under Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued EO 14148, which, among other actions, purported to reverse those withdrawals made by President Biden and thereby reopen formerly protected areas to oil and gas leasing. Plaintiffs argue that neither OCSLA nor any other law authorizes presidents to undo withdrawals. They allege that President Trump “acted in excess of his authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and intruded on Congress’s non-delegated exclusive power under the Property Clause, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.” They seek injunctive and declaratory relief to block the revocation of President Biden’s withdrawals.

Update 1: On Apr. 17, the American Petroleum Institute (API) filed a motion to intervene as a Defendant, which was unopposed by Plaintiffs and granted by Judge Sharon Gleason on May 5.
Update 2: On May 7, API answered the complaint and argued that Plaintiffs lack standing, are not entitled to relief, and have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Update 3: On June 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added the Conservation Law Foundation as a plaintiff.

Update 4: On June 17, Judge Sharon Gleason ordered that the State of Alaska be admitted into the case as an intervenor-defendant.

Update 5: On June 24, Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ complaint.

Update 6: On June 30, Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Update 7: On October 23, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, permitting defendants to refile in response to the amended pleading. On October 24, plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint.

2:25-cv-00054

Complaint

President Donald Trump has issued Executive Orders 14154, 14156, and 14261 with the objective of increasing fossil fuel use and production while reducing reusable energy sources. Plaintiffs are a group of children and young people seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the executive orders on the basis that their lives allegedly are and will be harmed by an increase of fossil fuel pollution resulting from increased fossil fuel usage. They allege that the executive orders violate Fifth Amendment substantive due process by depriving Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life and liberty and are ultra vires.

June 13, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the court prohibit Defendants from implementing the Executive Orders (EOs). Plaintiffs filed a supporting memorandum with this motion.

Aug. 13, 2025: Montana, 18 other states, and Guam were permitted to intervene as defendants (State Intervenors).

Oct. 15, 2025: Following a Sept. 16–17 hearing on (1) Plaintiffs’ PI motion, (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and (3) the State Intervenors’ motion to dismiss, Judge Christensen dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding the requested relief was not judicially redressable under Juliana v. United States and would intrude on separation of powers. The court wrote: “As is likely clear from the foregoing analysis, the Court reads Juliana to mandate this outcome. If the Ninth Circuit disagrees, the undersigned welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits.” The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and the state intervenors’ motion to dismiss, and denied plaintiffs’ PI motion as moot, and the clerk entered judgment the same day.

Oct. 20, 2025: Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-6714).

1:25-cv-00209

Complaint

On April 17, 2025, President Trump announced Proclamation 10918, purporting to strip core protections from a Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument site near Howland Island and Baker Island, Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, Jarvis Island, and Johnston Atoll. On April 25, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sent a letter to fishing permit holders purporting to open this site to commercial fishing. On May 22, two environmental non-profit organizations, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner and an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, filed suit challenging President Trump’s Proclamation 10918, alleging that the Proclamation violates the Antiquities Act (as ultra vires and exceeding Presidential authority), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as not in accordance with laws and arbitrary and capricious, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, as well as Constitutional violations, including the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine and the Take Care Clause. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Proclamation and against agencies in carrying out the duties imposed by the Proclamation.

Update 1: On August 8, Judge Micah W.J. Smith granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their fifth and sixth claims for relief—holding that NMFS violated the MSA, NEPA, and the APA by issuing its April 25 letter purporting to open the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing without engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court held that Plaintiffs have Article III standing and that the letter is reviewable “final agency action.” Citing Trump v. CASA, the court concluded that a “wholesale vacatur” of the April 25 letter was necessary to provide “complete relief” so that no commercial fisher could reasonably rely on the letter.

1:25-cv-12249

Complaint

In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established and utilized a Climate Working Group composed of individuals skeptical of mainstream climate science to produce a report that informed EPA’s proposed rescission of the 2009 determination that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people (the “Endangerment Finding”). The group was formed and operated without public disclosure, and its report was published concurrently with EPA’s proposed rulemaking, which cited the report extensively. On August 12, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed a complaint challenging the administration’s conduct regarding the Climate Working Group. Plaintiffs allege that the formation and use of the Climate Working Group violated procedural and transparency requirements under federal law, depriving them and the public of access to meetings, records, and balanced representation. They claim these violations hinder their ability to participate in public comment processes and to advocate for science-based climate policy. Plaintiffs allege that the administration’s action violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, and without observance of procedure required by law, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and constitutional and statutory provisions. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to vacate the establishment and actions of the Climate Working Group, prohibit reliance on its report, compel disclosure of related records and extend public comment periods on EPA’s proposed rulemaking.

Update 1: On Sept. 17, Judge Young denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they had not demonstrated irreparable harm, while at the same time granting partial summary judgment that the Climate Working Group is subject to FACA because the 3.40(e) “exchange of facts” exception does not apply.

1:25-cv-01529

Complaint

On Jan. 30, 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) removed climate change-related data from many of its websites. Plaintiffs, including environmental organizations and a nonprofit representing farmers, gardeners, and consumers, allege that the removal of data violates the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. They seek declaratory judgment that the removal of information is unlawful; injunctions on further removal of information from agency websites; notice of any further modifications to webpages; and restoration of previously publicly-available datasets.

March 17, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that the Court order USDA to restore all webpages removed on Jan. 30 and prevent USDA from removing or substantially modifying additional webpages.

March 31, 2025: USDA filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

April 7, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

May 12, 2025: USDA wrote a letter to notify the court that it would restore the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-Inauguration, including all USDA webpages and interactive tools enumerated in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

July 2, 2025: USDA filed a status report updating the court on the progress it has made in restoring the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-Inauguration. USDA noted that the “vast majority of webpages–including all webpages that plaintiffs attached as exhibits to their complaint–have been restored.”

Jan. 13, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a status report indicating that the parties were continuing to assess whether an amicable resolution is possible and requested that the court grant the parties additional time to contemplate settlement.

1:25-cv-11221

Complaint

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum that categorically and indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore- and onshore-wind energy, pending an inter-agency review. The Memorandum orders that federal agencies “not issue new or rendered approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects pending the completion of a comprehensive assessment and review of Federal wind leasing and permitting practices”. Plaintiffs, 17 States and the District of Columbia, seek a declaration that the adoption and implementation of this directive is a violation of the APA, a violation of federal environmental laws, and ultra vires. They also seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from implementing or otherwise giving effect to any action that halts or impedes wind energy development based on the directive.

Update 1: On Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the Court enjoin the defendant federal agencies from implementing or giving effect to the directive.

Update 2: On May 29, the defendant federal agencies filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 3: On July 3, the Court affirms the lawsuit can proceed in part, dismissing the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims but allowing the claims related to the Administrative Procedure Act to proceed.

Update 4: On Dec. 8, Judge Patti Saris granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the administration’s order halting federal approvals for development of wind energy was arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

3:25-cv-06890

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-07-04

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum that indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of wind energy and required that the Secretary of the Interior investigate all offshore wind projects to determine if they will cause ecological, environmental or economic harm. Plaintiffs are fisheries and fishing industry participants, trade groups, coastal environment nonprofits, and the mayor of Seaside Park, New Jersey, who are all claiming harm from the offshore wind Empire Wind project. Defendants are the United States, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and its Acting Director Walter Cruickshank, Empire Wind, Equinor (owner of Empire Wind), and the Kingdom of Norway (the controlling owner of Equinor). Pursuant to the Memorandum, a stop work order was issued on Apr. 16, 2025, that stopped all work on Empire Wind until an investigation was completed. On May 19, 2025, the stop work order was reversed by BOEM and a reinstatement order allowing work to resume on Empire Wind was issued. Plaintiffs are arguing that the May 19 reinstatement order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Plaintiffs also claim that the reinstatement order violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which prohibits Norway, as a foreign government, from acquiring a lease on the outer continental shelf of the U.S. Plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare that the May 19 reinstatement order was unlawful and an injunction directing that the reinstatement order be vacated and BOEM to resume investigating Empire Wind.

Update 1: On June 12, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for order to show cause, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from proceeding with installation and construction activities for Empire Wind.

Update 2: On July 4, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which it added additional plaintiffs.

1:25-cv-02999

Complaint

Following the Jan. 20, 2025 issuance of a Presidential Memorandum restricting offshore wind development and a subsequent order by the Secretary of the Interior, on August 22, 2025 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a Stop Work Order requiring Revolution Wind, a company constructing an offshore wind project intended to provide energy to the New England region, to halt construction of the Revolution Wind Project (the “Project”). The Project commenced in 2023 following a multi-year process of review that resulted in a consensus decision of 15 federal and state agencies that the Project was both safe and consistent with federal and state law. Construction is now 80% complete at a cost of billions of dollars.

Revolution Road filed a complaint on Sept. 4, 2025, alleging that the Stop Work Order significantly harms its financial obligations and commercial commitments and endangers the energy, environmental and public health benefits of the Project. (An additional complaint was also filed by the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut, alleging that the Stop Work Order harms the states and their residents).The Plaintiff claims that the Stop Work Order is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law as a violation of the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and a violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief staying and vacating the Stop Work Order and preventing any further interference with the Project.

Sept. 22, 2025: District Court Judge Lamberth enjoined the administration’s Stop Work Order which halted construction on Revolution Wind’s two-year offshore wind project intended to provide energy to the New England region. In a bench ruling, Judge Lamberth reportedly called the administration’s decision the “height of arbitrary and capricious action” and said it failed to offer any factual findings justifying the reversal.

Jan. 12, 2026: The court granted the Revolution Wind’s motion for a preliminary injunction, pausing the implementation of the government’s Stop Work Orders.

1:25-cv-04328

Complaint

Following the Jan. 20, 2025 issuance of a Presidential Memorandum restricting offshore wind development and a subsequent order by the Secretary of the Interior, on August 22, 2025 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a Stop Work Order requiring Revolution Wind, a company constructing an offshore wind project intended to provide energy to the New England region, to halt construction of the Revolution Wind Project (the “Project”). The Project commenced in 2023 following a multi-year process of review that resulted in a consensus decision of 15 federal and state agencies that the Project was both safe and consistent with federal and state law. Construction is now 80% complete at a cost of billions of dollars.

The States of Connecticut and Rhode Island filed suit on Sept. 4, 2025, alleging that the Stop Work Order harms the energy, economic and contractual interests of their states and undermines their ability to meet state energy and environmental requirements. (An additional complaint was filed the same day by Revolution Wind.)The Plaintiff States claim that the Stop Work Order is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, as well as contrary to law and ultra vires as not in accordance with BOEM’s authority. The complaint also includes a citizen suit under the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1349, which provides that “any person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected” may commence a civil action to compel compliance with the Act and alleges that the Stop Work Order violates the procedural requirements of the OCSLA. The Plaintiff States seek declaratory and injunctive relief preventing any further interference with the Project.

Dec. 11, 2025: The court transferred the case from the District of Rhode Island to the District of Columbia.

Jan. 12, 2026: The court granted the State Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, pausing the implementation of the government’s Stop Work Orders.

1:26-cv-00004

Complaint

[Coming soon]

On Jan. 2, 2026, Plaintiffs Empire Leaseholder and Empire Offshore Wind filed a complaint alleging that the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) unlawfully and without due process suspended construction of the fully permitted, multi-billion-dollar Empire Wind offshore wind project based on unsupported and pretextual “national security” claims.

Jan. 15, 2026: Judge Nichols granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and stay.

1:26-cv-00028

Complaint

[Coming soon]

On Jan. 6, Sunrise Wind sued the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, alleging that the agencies unlawfully halted its almost half-completed offshore wind project based on a conclusory national security rationale.

1:26-cv-00071

Complaint

Since June 2024, Empire Offshore Wind LLC and Empire Leaseholder LLC (together, Empire Wind) has been constructing a commercial wind installation (the Empire Wind Project) in federal waters on the Outer Continental Shelf, around 14 miles southeast of Long Island, under contract with the State of New York and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and with the approval of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior. On Dec. 22, 2025, BOEM issued an order directing Empire Wind to “suspend all ongoing activities related to [the Empire Wind Project] on the Outer Continental Shelf for the next 90 days for reasons of national security.” On Jan. 9, 2026, the State of New York and NYSERDA filed a complaint seeking to overturn the suspension, alleging the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious due to the breadth of the suspension and the failure to provide a reasoned explanation or justification for the change in position, which they contend is due to the administration’s opposition to wind energy rather than national security concerns. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the suspension order and enjoining its enforcement.

1:26-cv-00072

Complaint

Since June 2024, Sunrise Wind LLC (Sunrise Wind) has been constructing a commercial wind installation (the Sunrise Wind Project) in federal waters on the Outer Continental Shelf, around 30 miles east of Long Island, under contract with the State of New York and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and with the approval of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior. On Dec. 22, 2025, BOEM issued an order directing Sunrise Wind to “suspend all ongoing activities related to [the Sunrise Wind Project] on the Outer Continental Shelf for the next 90 days for reasons of national security.” On Jan. 9, 2026, the State of New York and NYSERDA filed a complaint seeking to overturn the suspension, alleging the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious due to the breadth of the suspension and the failure to provide a reasoned explanation or justification for the change in position, which they contend is due to the administration’s opposition to wind energy rather than national security concerns. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the suspension order and enjoining its enforcement.

1:26-cv-10156

Complaint

Since 2021, Vineyard Wind has been constructing a commercial wind installation (the Vineyard Wind Project) in federal waters on the Outer Continental Shelf, around 14 miles from Massachusetts, with the approval of and a lease from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The construction was approved by the Department of Defense and subject to litigation, which was successfully defended by BOEM and is now approximately 95% completed. On Dec. 22, 2025, BOEM issued an order directing Vineyard Wind to “suspend all ongoing activities related to [the Vineyard Wind Project] on the Outer Continental Shelf for the next 90 days for reasons of national security.” On Jan. 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to overturn the suspension, alleging the order violates BOEM’s regulations as well as procedures set out in the lease and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Plaintiff also claims that the suspension violates their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious due to the failure to follow procedures and the failure to provide a reasoned explanation or justification for the change in position, which they allege is due to the administration’s opposition to wind energy rather than national security concerns. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the suspension order and enjoining its enforcement.

2:25-cv-00830

Complaint

Coming soon.

On Dec. 23, 2025, Dominion Energy Virginia (DEV) filed a complaint against the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against the implementation of a stop-work order issued by BOEM on the grounds that the order violated the APA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Constitution.

1:25-cv-04400

Complaint

Plaintiffs are not-for-profit organizations interested in the promotion of renewable energy. Defendants are the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury. Plaintiffs allege that the IRS recently decided—allegedly at the direction of President Trump—to eliminate a longstanding method for most solar and wind facilities to demonstrate eligibility for federal tax credits (the “Five Percent Safe Harbor Test,” which requires “paying or incurring five percent or more of the total cost of the facility.”) Plaintiffs argue that the decision is arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it provides no statutory or evidentiary justification for eliminating the Five Percent Safe Harbor Test for wind and solar facilities while retaining it for all other energy technologies. The decision allegedly provides no reason for ignoring the longstanding and ongoing industry reliance interests on the Five Percent Safe Harbor. The decision also allegedly does not discuss any alternatives to the elimination of the Five Percent Safe Harbor that might better accommodate these reliance interests. Plaintiffs primarily ask the court, therefore, to declare that defendants’ decision to end use of the Safe Harbor Test is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious; and hold the decision unlawful.

1:25-cv-01982

Complaint

In February 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the direction of President Trump, began eliminating the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program, which was created by Congress and funded by specific appropriations through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA directs the EPA to award grant program funding to disadvantaged communities. On Jun. 25, 2025, Appalachian Voices and various organizations filed a class action complaint against the EPA alleging that the termination violates the separation of powers, the Presentment Clauses, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Update 1: On Jun. 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking reinstatement of the grant program, and a motion to certify the class. 

Update 2: On Aug. 29, Judge Leon granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court concluded that Plaintiffs’ APA claim was, in substance, a contract claim over disbursed grant funds that must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, and that their constitutional claim could not proceed independently where the alleged violation (failure to continue the Grant Program) was rooted in a statutory obligation under the Clean Air Act.

Update 3: On Sept. 16, Plaintiffs noticed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit from Judge Leon’s Aug. 29 dismissal order and denial of preliminary relief and class certification. On the same day, Plaintiffs, filed an emergency motion in district court asking Judge Leon for an injunction pending appeal.

2:25-cv-02758

Complaint

Since the mid-1900s, the United States government has recognized and protected the religious significance of Oak Flat in Arizona as a site of religious significance to Western Apaches, which was taken by force from the Western Apache over 150 years ago. In 1995, a large copper deposit was discovered beneath Oak Flat and in 2014, the Secretary of Agriculture transferred the title of Forest Service lands, including Oak Flat, to Resolution, a foreign-owned copper mining company, and revoked previous protections for Oak Flat, subject to the publication of an environmental impact statement (EIS). On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14241 titled "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production", stating that the United States must “take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent” and ordering agencies to “identify priority projects that can be immediately approved or for which permits can be immediately issued.” An EIS relating to Oak Flat,, which confirmed that the surface mining project will destroy Oak Flat, including for use by Western Apaches for religious practice, and that other, more expensive but less destructive mining techniques are allegedly available, was published on June 20, 2025 and the government then stated its intent to transfer Oak Flat to Resolution on August 19, 2025.

On July 24, members of the Apache community filed a complaint challenging the administration’s plan to develop a mine on Oak Flat. The Plaintiffs allege the plan violates multiple statutes including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for arbitrary and capricious conduct,, and seek a permanent injunction to prevent the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution and a declaration that the transfer and destruction of Oak Flats would be invalid.

Update 1: On July 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the court enjoin Defendants from conveying Oak Flat to the mining company on August 19 or otherwise allowing or authorizing the company to take any action affecting Oak Flat’s physical integrity.

Update 2: On Aug. 1, D.C. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an order and opinion that the case be transferred to the District of Arizona, where it is now proceeding as Lopez v. United States of America, No. 2:25-cv-02758 (D. Ariz.).

Update 3: On Aug. 15, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that, if the court denied their July 25 motion for a preliminary injunction, it should instead enter an expedited injunction pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Update 4: On Aug. 17, Judge Dominic W. Lanza denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and their emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal the same day,

Update 5: On Oct. 26, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 7, 2026.

2:25-cv-00657

Complaint

In August 2019, the former Assistant Secretary of Lands and Minerals Management approved a potash mining project on public lands in Utah’s West Desert and Sevier Lake region following an environmental impact statement (EIS). In 2025, the mining company, Peak Minerals, proposed a different plan with a longer timeline and expanded production that would allegedly significantly impair the natural habitat for migratory birds and create considerable light pollution in the area. In the winter of 2025, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced it would conduct a supplemental environmental assessment to study the expanded project plans. However, in April 2025, BLM stopped this new environmental assessment and approved the new plan through a Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy (DNA), that had been conducted to support the original, smaller 2019 plan, which allegedly did not cure NEPA violations over which the Plaintiff, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), previously sued.

On August 7, 2025, a Utah-based nonprofit environmental membership organisation that works to protect public land in Utah filed a complaint challenging the administration’s approval of the modified 2025 mining plan from Peak Minerals. The Plaintiff alleges that the administration used the 2019 DNA “to circumvent the necessary supplemental environmental analysis” for the modified plan and that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and NEPA, and seeks to halt the mining plan until the administration has complied with the law.

3:25-cv-00319

Complaint

3:25-cv-00316

Complaint

1:25-cv-04285

Complaint

[Coming soon - On Dec. 10, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture and the National Park Service for placing pictures of President Donald Trump on national park passes in violation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.]

3:25-cv-00356

Complaint

[Coming soon - On Dec. 11, 2025, a grassroots organization comprising Iñupiat Peoples and community members, along with environmental non-profits, sued the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management over the approval of drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.]

4:25-cv-09109

Complaint

Two environmental organizations filed suit against the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which requires the USCG, which regulates vessel traffic off the California coast, to consult with the NMFS to ensure that its actions do not endanger any protected species. They argue that USCG violates the ESA by failing to ensure that its actions, such as creating revised shipping lanes, do not jeopardize ESA-listed species, and further contend that because USCG’s previous biological opinion was vacated by a court in 2017 and USCG’s reliance on that biological opinion was declared unlawful, there is currently no valid biological opinion covering USCG’s actions. Plaintiffs also claim that because USCG’s routing measures are major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act, they violate that statute by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement. Plaintiffs further allege that NMFS violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying completion of the consultation on USCG’s actions. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

1:26-cv-00043

Complaint

[Coming soon]

On Jan. 8, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the administration for refusing to protect the Rio Grande cooter (a freshwater turtle) under the Endangered Species Act, arguing that climate change and current conditions place it at risk of extinction.

26-298

Petition

Coming soon.

On Jan. 15, 2026, two non-profits petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review and set aside as violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) an EPA final order approving the registration of isocycloseram as a new active ingredient and attendant registrations of products containing it.

3:20-cv-00204

Complaint

Coming soon.

On Jan. 13, 2026, a tribal organization and several environmental non-profits requested leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint to renew litigation originally commenced in 2020. The groups seek vacatur and declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish & Wildlife Service for actions and decisions relating to the administration’s plans to allow oil drilling across the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR).

4:25-cv-04966

Complaint

Coming soon.

1:25-cv-01807

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-07-07

Starting in 1934, the National Firearms Act (NFA) as well as several subsequent Congressional acts have regulated the manufacture, importation, sale, or other disposal of certain types of firearms, including weapons defined as “a machinegun”. Machinegun conversion devices (MCDs) are devices that are used to convert a semi-automatic firearm, which requires a shooter to release and pull the trigger for each shot they fire, into a machinegun that fires automatically. The “forced reset trigger,” or “FRT,” is a type of MCD that is designed to replace the standard trigger assembly on an AR-15-type rifle. Since the 1970s, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has consistently classified devices functionally similar to FRTs as prohibited machineguns under federal law.

Over the last few years, ATF undertook enforcement efforts that succeeded in enjoining distributors from selling FRTs and FRT equipped weapons, and conducted extensive retrieval operations, seizing nearly 12,000 FRTs from the field. In 2023, ATF brought an enforcement action against Defendant Rare Breed Triggers (RBG) in New York, after which the district court issued a preliminary injunction against the continued distribution of FRT’s (subsequently appealed to the Second Circuit), and a civil forfeiture action in the District of Utah against certain of RBG’s subcontractors (collectively, the RBG Defendants).

In August 2023, Defendant National Association of Gun rights (NAGR) challenged the ATF’s classifications of the FRT-15 as machineguns in the Northern District of Texas, and in July 2024, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and vacated and set aside the challenged classifications, enjoined the United States from implementing or enforcing ATF’s “expanded definition of ‘machinegun’” against the plaintiffs to the suit, enjoined the United States from pursuing criminal enforcement actions against the RBT Defendants, and ordered the United States to return any FRTs “seized pursuant to their unlawful classification” to all parties in that litigation within 30 days. The United States appealed the NAGR decision.

On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14,206 titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” which directed Defendant Bondi to review, among other things, all rules ATF promulgated between 2021 and 2025, and all positions taken by the federal government in lawsuits related to firearms. On May 16, 2025, Defendants entered into a settlement agreement (the Agreement), which resolved all three of the above actions in New York, Utah and Texas. The Agreement states that the Government will not enforce any statute or agency interpretation under which an FRT is “contended to be” a machinegun provided that the FRTs are not designed for use in handguns, and purports to bind the government perpetually and universally from enforcing the NFA against FRTs.The Agreement also commits the federal government to return FRTs that any federal agency “has seized or taken as a result of a voluntary surrender” in response to any request received by September 30, 2025 (the “Redistribution Policy”). This Redistribution Policy is not limited to the states that are the subject of the Agreement and instead requires the government to return FRTs to any entity or individual from whom they were seized. The Agreement includes no carve outs on its face that would exclude returns to individuals or entities located in States that bar the possession of FRTs or FRT-equipped firearms or individuals who are barred from possessing firearms by federal law such as convicted felons.

Plaintiffs, a coalition of 14 states, the District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Plaintiff States”), filed a complaint with an accompanying memorandum of support on June 9, 2025, contending that the government’s decision to reverse its position on the redistribution of FRT’s will impose “serious sovereign and fiscal injuries” on them by increasing the number of FRTs in their jurisdictions. The complaint notes that at least 14 of the Plaintiff States have state laws that independently prohibit FRTs or FRT-equipped firearms, and since the Redistribution Policy does not include a carve out for individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms under state laws, ATF is injuring the States’ sovereign interests by facilitating the violation of their laws. Plaintiffs also contend that States will incur greater law enforcement costs from having to enforce these state prohibitions, and that because it is substantially likely that the Redistribution Policy will lead to the increased use of FRTs, including in criminal incidents, they will incur additional law enforcement costs in general as well as increased health care and emergency medical response costs.

The Plaintiff States seek a declaration that the Redistribution Policy is ultra vires as it contravenes NFA laws regulating machine guns and violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as an action by an administrative agency in excess of statutory right. They ask the court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Redistribution Policy and to vacate and set aside the Agreement.

July 7, 2025: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which the State of California was added a Plaintiff.

July 11, 2025: Plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction.

July 24, 2025: All Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulated the dismissal of the non-federal defendants–specifically Kevin Maxwell; Lawrence DeMonico; Rare Breed Triggers, LLC; Rare Breed Firearms, LLC; National Association for Gun Rights, Inc.; Texas Gun Rights, Inc.; Patrick Carey; James Wheeler; and Travis Speegle.

Aug. 15, 2025: The parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings in this matter for six months.

Aug. 19, 2025: The court granted the motion to stay proceedings through Feb. 19, 2026.

3:25-cv-04870

Complaint

June 10, 2025: Judge Breyer scheduled a hearing on California’s request for a temporary order restraining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from ordering National Guard troops and Marines to support immigration raids in Los Angeles. In a brief submitted on June 11, the Department of Justice called the claims “baseless,” arguing that judicial intervention “would not only hinder federal law enforcement but also expose federal employees and property to violence and vandalism by the rioters in Los Angeles.”

June 12, 2025: Judge Breyer heard arguments on California’s request for a temporary order restraining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from ordering National Guard troops and Marines to support immigration raids in Los Angeles.

June 12, 2025: Judge Breyer granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the administration from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles and directing the administration to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.

June 12, 2025: The Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay before midnight on June 12.

June 19, 2025: The Ninth Circuit granted the federal government a stay pending appeal.

June 24, 2025: Judge Breyer approved California’s request for “expedited and limited” discovery regarding the administration’s claim that it acted beyond the limitation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids federal troops from engaging in civil law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law. Judge Breyer directed the administration to respond to the discovery request by 9:00 AM the following day.

July 29, 2025: Judge Breyer issued an order scheduling a three-day bench trial to begin August 11.

Sept. 2, 2025: Judge Breyer ruled that the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act when President Trump ordered the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles in June 2025. The court found that the deployment, which involved federal troops performing law enforcement functions, fell outside any statutory exception and directly contravenes the 1878 Act, which prohibits the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law. Judge Breyer issued an injunction barring the use of federal troops to perform law enforcement functions in California, though he allowed the 300 remaining troops to continue performing permitted activities such as security for federal buildings.

Sept. 2, 2025: Following the trial, Judge Breyer ruled that the use of the National Guard for peacetime law enforcement was unlawful and actions carried out by the Guard in and around Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

Sept. 2, 2025: California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the extension of time for the deployment of 300 National Guard troops to California and restore control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. California now seeks an injunction against future similar violations.

Sept. 4, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the implementation of the injunction barring the use of federal troops to perform law enforcement functions in California, while the matter is on appeal.

Oct. 22, 2025: The Ninth Circuit rejected a request to rehear en banc the panel’s June 19 stay of Judge Breyer’s original TRO.

Dec. 10, 2025: Judge Breyer granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the administration from deploying members of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The ruling is stayed until Dec. 15 to allow for appeal.

Dec. 11, 2025: Defendants appealed Judge Breyer’s Dec. 10 preliminary injunction order to the Ninth Circuit.

1:25-cv-02678

Complaint

On August 11, 2025 President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14333 “Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” in which he invoked his authority under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, though without identifying any new or exigent circumstances for the invocation of Section 740 beyond a general allegation that violent crime in DC is “increasing”, and announced that he was placing the DC Police Department under direct federal control. On August 15, Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued Order No. 6372 , a directive implementing the EO. On August 15 the District of Columbia filed a complaint challenging the administration's actions and the directive as beyond the scope of narrow Section 740 authority. The District alleges that the administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as exceeding statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious, the Separation of Powers, the Take Care Clause, and the District Clause, and ultra vires regarding the DC Home Rule Act, and seeks an injunction to halt the implementation of the executive order and federal takeover of the DC Police Department. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order concurrently.

Update 1: On Sept. 26, the court dismissed the case without prejudice following Plaintiffs’ notice of voluntary dismissal.

1:25-cv-03005

Complaint

On Aug. 11, 2025 President Donald J. Trump announced that he was deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order, and public safety in Washington, D.C., and issued a memorandum titled “Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia” directing the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the District of Columbia National Guard “to address the epidemic of crime in our Nation’s capital.” On August 25, 2025, President Trump issued an additional Executive Order 14339 (EO) entitled ” Additional Measures to Address the Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia”, after which National Guard troops from at least seven states were mobilized into the District.

The District of Columbia filed suit on Sept. 4, alleging that the deployment of the National Guard for public safety reasons, and without the mayor’s consent, violates DC’s autonomy under the Home Rule Act, a federal law that established local self-governance for the District, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, since National Guard units from other states were sent despite a lack of mutual agreement or a request from the District, the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of federal troops for peacetime law enforcement activities, and the District Clause which vests authority over legislation in the District exclusively with Congress. The complaint also alleges that the deployment is a violation of the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to law. The District seeks a declaration that the deployment is unlawful and an injunction against further unauthorized troop deployments.

2025-11-20: Judge Cobb temporarily blocked the administration from using the D.C. National Guard for crime control in the District and from using out-of-state Guards. The order is slated to take effect on Dec. 11 in order to “permit orderly proceedings on appeal.”

2025-12-17: The D.C. Circuit granted the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal, temporarily allowing the deployment of National Guard troops in D.C. while the appeal proceeds.

3:25-cv-01756

Complaint

On Sept 27, 2025, President Donald J. Trump posted on social media that “I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.” On Sept. 28, Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memorandum to the Oregon National Guard Adjunct General and the Oregon Governor stating that 200 members of the Oregon National Guard would be called into federal service, referencing 10 U.S.C. §12406.

That same day, Oregon and the City of Portland filed a complaint alleging that the statutory conditions for federalizing the Guard under §12406 were not met. Plaintiffs note that the President’s authority over a state’s National Guard pursuant to § 12406 is limited to circumstances involving a foreign nation’s “invasion,” an outright “rebellion,” or where the President has been “unable with regular forces” to execute Federal Law through ordinary means, and argue that Defendants’ invocation of the prerequisites for federalization in § 12406 was wholly pretextual, motivated by the desire to normalize the use of military troops for ordinary domestic law enforcement activity while also punishing politically disfavoured jurisdictions like Portland, Oregon.

The complaint asserts violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids Defendants from employing the armed forces to engage in law enforcement “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress” ,18 U.S.C. § 1385; the Tenth Amendment as disparate treatment based on a politically motivated retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ adoption of policies and thus in violation of the equality of state sovereignty; the Separation of Powers and the Militia and Take Care Clauses; and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and contrary to law. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that any order federalizing and deploying members of the Oregon National Guard is ultra vires and contrary to law and a preliminary and permanent injunction against their deployment.

Sept. 29, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to stay Hegseth’s memorandum, arguing they were likely to succeed on their claims and that the diversion of Guard members from their state responsibilities constitutes an ongoing harm to public safety and economic stability.

Oct. 2, 2025: The Department of Justice filed a “Suggestion of Recusal,” seeking Judge Simon’s recusal from the case because his spouse, Representative Suzanne Bonamici, has publicly opposed the deployment. Defendants state that they “recognize that Judge Simon and Representative Bonamici speak for themselves, not for each other” but argue that the “unique” role that Representative Bonamici has played in this case “create[s] the appearance of partiality.”

Oct. 4, 2025: District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut granted a temporary restraining order blocking the Sept. 28 memorandum ordering the federalization and deployment of Oregon National Guard service members to Portland. In granting the TRO, the court found that the administration likely exceeded its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment. On Oct. 5, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the State of California and moved for a second temporary restraining order after the administration ordered the deployment of the California National Guard to Oregon under the same authority, seeking to circumvent the initial order. Judge Immergut quickly granted the second TRO, extending her order to prohibit the deployment of any federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon, regardless of their state origin. The administration has announced it intends to appeal both decisions.

Oct. 8, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut’s Oct. 4 Temporary Restraining Order blocking the Sept. 28 memorandum authorizing the federalization of the Oregon National Guard. Because the Oregon National Guard had already been federalized, the court said, the “administrative stay will best preserve the status quo” while the appeal is pending. Today’s order does not address the underlying merits or Judge Immergut’s further Oct. 5 order, which prevents the deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops to Oregon.

Oct. 15, 2025: District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut reportedly extended two Temporary Restraining Orders by 14 days, one blocking a Sept. 28 memorandum authorizing the federalization of the Oregon National Guard and the second preventing the deployment of federalized National Guard troops, including from other states, to Portland. The orders were set to expire on Oct. 17. On Oct. 8, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of the TRO blocking federalization of the National Guard, holding that the “administrative stay will best preserve the status quo” while the appeal is pending, although it left in place the order prohibiting the deployment of the Guard.

Oct. 20, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration’s emergency motion to stay a district court order that had blocked the federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. In a 2-1 decision, the panel concluded that the President likely lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), finding his decision “reflect[ed] a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’” The majority found that the district court had erred by minimizing evidence of violence in the months before the federalization order was issued and that it placed too much emphasis on Trump’s social media remarks, writing that the deployment constituted a “proportionate” and “measured” response by “sending only a minimal number of Guardsmen to restore order around a federal building” and that the decision of how many troops to send “warrants the highest possible deference.” Judge Graber dissented, warning that the ruling “hands the President a blank check to militarize domestic disputes whenever he declares himself dissatisfied with civilian law enforcement.” The stay reinstates the administration’s power to deploy the Oregon National Guard while the appeal proceeds.

Oct. 24, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied an administrative stay on an earlier order temporarily blocking the administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard while the legal challenge against it proceeds. The ruling temporarily reinstates the district court’s order while the full court determines whether to rehear the case en banc.

Oct. 28, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case en banc, vacating a panel decision to grant the administration’s stay on a previous order temporarily blocking the administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard while the legal challenge against it proceeds.

Nov. 2, 2025: District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut granted Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction enjoining the administration from federalizing and deploying members of the National Guard in Oregon until November 7, when the court intends to issue its final opinion on the merits. The court found that Plaintiffs met requisite thresholds for likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and balance of equities to merit a preliminary injunction on their claims that the federalization and deployment of the National Guard violates 10 U.S.C § 12406 and the Tenth Amendment.

Nov. 7, 2025: The district court issued a permanent injunction blocking the deployment of the federalized Guard to Oregon. The federal government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 14.

Nov.16, 2025: The administration filed an emergency motion for a stay of the District Court’s ruling pending resolution of their appeal.

Nov. 19, 2025: The Ninth Circuit granted a partial administrative stay of Judge Karin J. Immergut’s November 7 permanent injunction, staying the injunction “to the extent that it enjoins the federalization of the Oregon National Guard” while the panel considers the government’s stay motion. The court further stayed consideration of the stay motion pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the government’s application for a stay in Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443.

Jan. 5, 2026: The court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to stay remaining claims until the Ninth Circuit resolves defendants’ consolidated appeals or until further order of the court.

1:25-cv-12174

Complaint

Following a series of social media posts by President Donald J. Trump and members of his administration in which they called for increased immigration enforcement operations in the greater Chicago metropolitan area, in September 2025 the administration deployed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and ICE officers in the city. After protests began against the presence of and tactics used by these agents, the administration then claimed that the presence of Department of Defense (DOD) personnel was needed to combat “coordinated assault by violent groups . . . actively aligned with designated domestic terror organizations”. In response, on October 4th DOD Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memorandum stating his intention to federalize and bring under DOD control up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and on October 5th, sent another memorandum which ordered another up to 400 National Guard from the State of Texas to deploy into Chicago. The memoranda invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which gives the President authority over a state’s National Guard in circumstances involving a foreign nation’s “invasion,” an outright “rebellion,” or where the President has been “unable with regular forces” to execute Federal Law through ordinary means.

On Oct. 6, 2025, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed suit to stop the administration’s federalization of Illinois National Guard troops and deployment of the Texas National Guard to Chicago, arguing that the invocation of the prerequisites for federalization in § 12406 was wholly pretextual, motivated by the desire to normalize the use of military troops for ordinary domestic law enforcement activity while also punishing politically disfavoured jurisdictions like Chicago. The complaint alleges that Defendants actions are ultra vires as actions taken outside the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 12406, as well as violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, which forbids the armed forces from engaging in law enforcement “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress”, the Tenth Amendment, provisions of the Constitution protecting equal sovereignty among states, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as exceeding statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious, Separation of Powers and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution Militia Clauses. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the deployment of the Illinois and Texas troops. On the same day Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to stay the deployment.

Oct. 9, 2025: District Court Judge April Perry granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the “federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois,” which was subsequently followed by an opinion. The administration appealed the order on the same day to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 11, 2025: The Seventh Circuit denied the request for an administrative stay as to the deployment of the federalized National Guard to Chicago. However, the appeals court granted an administrative stay for the part of the lower court order blocking the federalization of the Guard. “Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so,” the appellate court said in its brief order.

Oct. 16, 2025: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per curiam opinion denying the Trump administration’s request to stay a district court order that blocked deployment of the Illinois National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court agreed with the lower court that the President’s Oct. 4 federalization order, issued to suppress protests against “Operation Midway Blitz,” lacked statutory justification finding that the demonstrations at an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, did not constitute a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” nor did they show the President was “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” The panel rejected the claim of unreviewable presidential discretion and found the administration unlikely to prevail under § 12406 or the Tenth Amendment. While allowing Guard troops to remain temporarily under federal control, the court kept in force the injunction barring their deployment in Illinois pending appeal.

Oct. 17, 2025: The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal of the district court’s order to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for the order enjoining the deployment to be stayed and requesting an immediate administrative stay. Describing the protests in Chicago as “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance”, the administration argued that the lower court decision “improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.” The filing contends that only the President can determine whether the conditions for federalizing troops has been met and that the Seventh Circuit had placed itself “in the untenable position of controlling the military chain of command and judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.” The Supreme Court instructed the State of Illinois and City of Chicago to file their responses by 5pm on Monday, Oct. 20.

Dec. 23, 2025: The Supreme Court denied the government’s stay request, concluding that 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the U.S. military and that the government failed at this preliminary stage to show authority to deploy the National Guard in Illinois.

1:25-cv-01413

Complaint

Intervenor Complaint - Rider's Alliance & Sierra Club

2025-03-28

Intervenor Complaint - NYCDOT

2025-04-10

Consolidated First Amended Complaint

2025-04-18

Amended Intervenor Complaint - Rider's Alliance & Sierra Club

2025-04-18

Consolidated Second Amended Complaint

2025-05-06

On Feb. 19, 2025, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy sent a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul saying that the Trump administration was rescinding authorization for New York’s congestion pricing plan. Plaintiffs allege that the action violates the Administrative Procedure Act’s ban on arbitrary and capricious decisions, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process guarantees, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and exceeds executive authority. They seek declaratory relief and a court order vacating the decision to terminate the program.

March 19, 2025: NYSDOT filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff and on April 2, NYCDOT filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff, both of which were granted by the Court.

March 28, 2025: Riders Alliance and the Sierra Club, two nonprofit organizations with members in New York City, filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, claiming that the declaration ending New York City’s congestion pricing plan violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy acted ultra vires in terminating the program. Riders Alliance and Sierra Club asked the Court to vacate Secretary Duffy’s decision to revoke the congestion pricing plan.

April 10, 2025: NYCDOT filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, claiming that the termination of the congestion pricing plan violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and ultra vires as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the National Environmental Policy Act. On April 18, this was consolidated into the Consolidated First Amended Complaint, on behalf of Plaintiffs MTA and TBTA and Intervenor-Plaintiffs NYSDOT and NYCDOT. The Consolidated First Amended Complaint included additional facts related to Secretary Duffy’s alleged legal rationale for terminating the congestion pricing plan and posts on social media about ending federal funding.

April 18, 2025: Intervenor-Plaintiffs Riders Alliance and Sierra Club filed an Amended Complaint amending their March 27 complaint, adding allegations related to Secretary Duffy’s claimed legal rationale for terminating the congestion pricing plan.

May 5 2025: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a memo in support of the motion on May 6. They claimed that they are likely to be successful on the merits, will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, and that the public interest and equities favor granting that relief.

May 6, 2025: The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging ten counts of legal violations and asking the court to declare that Defendants’ purported termination of the VPPP agreement and rescission of tolling authority under the agreement is a violation of the APA and NEPA.

May 27, 2025: Judge Liman temporarily barred the Trump administration from withholding federal funds for New York City in an effort to pressure the city to drop its congestion pricing plan.

May 28, 2025: Judge Liman granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits for their claims and that the Plaintiffs adequately showed they would be irreparably injured absent an injunction.

June 27, 2025: Plaintiffs Riders Alliance and Sierra Club filed a motion for partial summary judgment and supporting memorandum. Plaintiff NYSDOT also filed a motion for partial summary judgment and supporting memorandum on that same day. Plaintiff Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) filed a motion for partial summary judgment and supporting memorandum. Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum.

Dec. 23, 2025: The court scheduled oral argument for the summary judgment motions to be held on Jan. 28, 2026.

1:25-cv-00239

Complaint

The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The plaintiff organizations, represented by Democracy Forward, are small businesses and nonprofits that receive federal funds. The suit sought a temporary restraining order to allow the Court “an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions,” alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.

Update 1: On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government.

Update 2: On Jan. 29, 2025, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”

Update 3: On Feb. 3, 2025, Judge Alikhan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the OMB from implementing its funding freeze, finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the directive was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and that the post-complaint rescission of the memorandum was “disingenuous” and still causing irreparable injury. The order directed the OMB to release the frozen funds, notify agencies of this TRO, and file a status report on compliance by Feb. 7, 2025.

Update 4: On Feb. 11, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Trump Administration from reinstating the funding freeze. The Government filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion, and plaintiffs replied. The hearing was held on Feb. 20.

Update 5: On Feb. 25, the court issued a memorandum opinion and granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Trump administration from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the blanket freeze on disbursement of Federal funds.

Update 6: On Apr. 14, the Defendants filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ complaint, responding paragraph-by-paragraph to the Plaintiffs’ allegations and claiming that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the relief that Plaintiffs seek is barred by sovereign immunity and not available under the APA.

Update 7: On Apr. 24, Defendants appealed the Feb. 25 preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit.

1:25-cv-00039

Complaint

The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the policy. The suit alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.

Update 1: On Jan. 28, responding to National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government.

Update 2: On Jan. 29, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”

Update 3: On January 31, Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow the states to file their motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McConnell’s order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims."

Update 4: On Feb. 10, Judge McConnell granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the temporary restraining order. Judge McConnell noted the Plaintiff States presented evidence suggesting that Defendants “have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” (citing three exhibits). Judge McConnell emphasized that this is a violation of the TRO and ordered Defendants to immediately restore frozen funding.

Update 5: On Feb. 14, the First Circuit issued a voluntary dismissal of defendants’ motion to appeal the decision.

Update 6: On Mar. 6, Judge McConnell granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants were enjoined from in any way impeding the disbursement of appropriated federal funds to the states.

Update 7: On Mar. 10, the defendants filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction.

Update 8: On Mar. 24, the plaintiffs filed a renewed second motion to enforce the Court’s preliminary injunction order entered on Mar. 6 as it pertains to the freezing of FEMA funds, claiming that the plaintiff states have continued to experience significant obstacles to accessing federal funds despite the Court’s order.

Update 9: On Mar. 26, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motion for a stay pending the appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction order. The First Circuit noted defendants did not meet their burden of proof in their motion.

Update 10: On Mar. 27, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' renewed second motion to enforce the Court’s preliminary injunction order on Mar. 6 as it pertains to the freezing of FEMA funds. Defendants argue the manual review process delaying the payment of FEMA funds is not equivalent to a pause or freeze of funds and is accordingly compliant with the district court’s preliminary injunction order.

Update 11: On Mar. 31, plaintiffs filed their reply in support of renewed second motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, offering new facts regarding FEMA’s manual review of grant programs and requesting that FEMA be ordered to halt its funding freeze.

Update 12: On Apr. 4, Judge McConnell held that the government was not in compliance with the preliminary injunction. “FEMA's manual review process violates the Court's preliminary injunction order,” the court wrote with instructions to cease the manual review process.

Update 13: On Apr. 28, Defendants appealed the Apr. 4 order enforcing the preliminary injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

1:25-cv-00740

Complaint

On Feb. 19, 2025, FEMA placed a hold on grant funds that are due and owed under a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA to the Plaintiff relating to the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) for the nation’s emergency alert system. FEMA has not identified any reason for this hold. Plaintiff claims that FEMA’s failure to allow CPB to submit reimbursements and receive payments owed to 42 sub-awardee public media stations, which have committed funds to purchase critical equipment for NGWS program upgrades and enhancements, is arbitrary and unlawful. Plaintiffs bring the suit under the Administrative Procedure Act arguing the government conduct is arbitrary and capricious, and they seek a TRO and preliminary injunction.

Mar. 13, 2025: Plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the TRO on Mar. 15, and Plaintiff filed a reply on Mar. 16.

Mar. 17, 2025: Judge Timothy Kelly denied Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.

July 15, 2025: Judge Kelly denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction. Following this order, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or grant summary judgment in their favor on July 22.

Sept. 23, 2025: In a minute order, Judge Kelly granted the parties’ joint motion to stay. The case is stayed, including any deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, until further order of the Court. Judge Kelly also ordered the parties file a joint status report by December 30, unless a stipulation of dismissal is filed.

2:25-cv-00763

Complaint

The Plaintiffs—Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and four Pennsylvania governmental departments—allege that five Executive Orders and a subsequent OMB Directive froze funds already appropriated to various departments and projects in Pennsylvania. The complaint describes five different communications from EPA, HHS, and DOE after the Jan. 27 OMB Directive. None of these communications identified specific programs or funds that would be terminated, and none cited any legal authority. Much of this funding was appropriated under either the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) or the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The plaintiffs allege that, in total, the funding freeze jeopardizes at least $5.5 billion that had been committed to Pennsylvania, and over $1 billion of which had already been obligated. The plaintiffs note the ongoing litigation on the funding freeze, but they claim that, despite the court action – Jan. 31 TRO (D.R.I.), the Feb. 3 TRO (D.D.C.), the Feb. 7 motion to enforce the TRO (D.R.I.), and the Feb. 11 denial of the defendants’ motion for an administrative stay (1st Cir.) – as of Feb. 13, over $1.2 billion in grant funding is suspended and more than $900 million is marked as requiring further federal review before being approved. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are contrary to law (contrary to the IRA and the IIJA) and are arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants’ actions are unconstitutional, violating both the Take Care Clause and the Spending Clause. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that defendants’ actions are illegal and seek an injunction to prevent defendants from freezing or interfering with congressionally appropriated funds.

Update 1: On Aug. 13, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice because all previously-withheld funding at issue in the case was made available to Plaintiffs.

1:25-cv-00605

Complaint

On Jan. 27, 2025, the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” Despite the purported rescission of the memo days later, and temporary restraining orders requiring agencies to disburse funding, as of Mar. 3, 2025, federal funding apparently remained frozen. Plaintiffs, who receive federal funding through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, allege that the funding freeze violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Refugee Act of 1980. They seek declaratory judgment that the spending freeze violates statutory law and the Constitution and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against enforcement of any funding freeze against the plaintiffs.

Update 1: On Apr. 3, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order; on Apr. 7, the Defendants filed an opposition to TRO; and on Apr. 10, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the Defendants’ opposition.

Update 2: On Apr. 29, the case was dismissed and motion for TRO denied as moot (joint stipulation of the parties to dismissal).

1:25-cv-00208

Complaint

First Amended Complaint

2025-07-08

On April 24, 2025, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued a letter to recipients of Department of Transportation (DOT) funding announcing a policy of withholding funding to any state or local government entity that does not comply with the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement policies. Plaintiffs, 20 state governments, sued, alleging that the action violates Constitutional protections for separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.They seek declaratory judgment that the effort to condition funding is unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctions against further efforts to condition or terminate federal funding based on immigration policy.

June 19, 2025: Judge McConnell granted a preliminary injunction.

July 8, 2025: Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include the District of Columbia and the Governor of Kentucky as plaintiffs.

Nov. 4, 2025: District Court Judge McConnell granted summary judgment in favor of twenty states challenging the Department of Transportation’s imposition of conditions requiring state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement as a prerequisite for receiving federal transportation grants, pursuant to Executive Order 14159, and an order and directive issued by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Judge McConnell found that the administration engaged in “lawless behavior,” “blatantly overstepped their statutory authority,” and “transgressed well-settled constitutional limitations on federal funding conditions.” He further concluded that the condition exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and violates the Spending Clause.

Nov. 18, 2025: Judge McConnell granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify Scope of Summary Judgment Order and Final Judgement, clarifying that the permanent injunction extends to all Plaintiff States and instrumentalities and local subdivisions thereof. Judge McConnell ordered Defendants to remove all conditions requiring cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement from future grant agreements and to issue notice to grant recipients that the DOT will not include any conditions requiring such cooperation in any agreement administered by Defendants.

Jan. 2, 2026: Defendants appealed to the First Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2026: Defendants voluntarily moved to dismiss their First Circuit appeal.

1:25-cv-02429

Complaint

On Jan. 29, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.” On Feb. 3, a task force was formed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to carry out the mandate of the EO, and on that same day, the Department of Education (DOE) announced a Title VI investigation into Columbia University, which was followed by a review and termination of the university’s federal contracts and grants for approximately $400M as well as a Mar. 13 letter to the university demanding certain structural changes. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, brought a suit against the DOJ, DOE, and multiple other federal agencies and their respective officers arguing that the Trump Administration’s actions violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Administrative Procedure Act; the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine, and the Spending Clause of the Constitution, as well as separation of powers and ultra vires doctrines. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare unlawful the termination of funding to Columbia University and the demands made in the Mar. 13 letter. Plaintiffs also request a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendants to reinstate all federal grants and contracts and not withhold such funds in the future, and enjoining Defendants from enforcing the demands in the March 13 letter. Plaintiffs are also requesting compensatory and nominal damages.

Update 1: On Apr. 3, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On May 1, the Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction and standing and their claims also fail on the merits.

Update 3: On May 8, the Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that they have standing, that the Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and will suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest support granting preliminary injunctive relief.

Update 4: On June 16, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case. That day, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit.

1:25-cv-10910

Complaint

First Amended Complaint 2025-05-05

Second Amended Complaint 2025-05-06

On March 31, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration announced they were undertaking a “comprehensive review” of approximately $9 billion of federal contracts and grants with Harvard University to ensure compliance with civil rights laws. The review is part of the DOJ’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism’s efforts to give effect to Executive Order 14188. On April 3, the Task Force sent Harvard a letter outlining immediate steps Harvard needed to take to maintain federal funding. The Plaintiffs, nonprofit membership organizations of faculty, are suing the agencies comprising the Task Force to challenge the March 31 announcement of the funding review, as well as the April 3 list of demands. The Plaintiffs allege that their members are harmed by the threats to withdraw funding because much of faculty research is funded by federal grants. They also argue that members are harmed because the Defendants’ actions have chilled speech and infringed upon academic freedom. The Plaintiffs allege multiple legal violations. They argue that the Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by acting contrary to procedure, contrary to the law, and arbitrarily and capriciously. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violate the First Amendment in multiple ways, including by targeting specific areas of scholarship on the basis of content and viewpoint and by coercing Harvard to suppress disfavored speech. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants acted ultra vires by usurping Congress’s spending power and making an unconstitutional effort to amend Congressional appropriations. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by failing to provide fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the review of funding, along with the March 31 threat to terminate funding and the April 3 set of demands, is unlawful. They also seek preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing further review of Harvard’s federal funding in the absence of legal authority, preventing the Defendants from using the threat of withdrawing funds to coerce Harvard to suppress viewpoints or speech, and preventing the Defendants from using government power to target Harvard for the viewpoints and speech of the Plaintiffs and their members.

Update 1: On Apr. 11, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to enjoin any further review and/or termination of Harvard’s federal funding by the administration.

Update 2: On Apr. 15, Plaintiffs requested to withdraw their motion for a temporary restraining order and filed a notice of supplemental materials based on the Trump administration’s Apr. 14 freeze of $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, an action which allegedly caused a material change in circumstances since the original TRO filing. This request was promptly approved by the Court.

Update 3: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which included recent actions by the Trump administration and litigation by Harvard University (see President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services) and reiterated the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Update 4: On May 6, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which described actions relevant to their claims taken by the Defendants on May 5. Leave to file was granted on May 20, at which time the second amended complaint was filed.

Update 5: On Sept. 3, Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a joint memorandum opinion in this case and a related case, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. HHS, case no. 1:25-cv-11048, granting in part and denying in part both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants motions for summary judgment. In this case, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim for retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion and denied the equitable and ultra vires claim and APA separation of powers claim, and granted in part Defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to Termination Letters, which the court held it lacks jurisdiction to review , and the ultra vires and equitable claims and denying in part Defendant’s other competing motions. The court granted Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction against any funding freezes or Termination Letters to “prevent[] Defendants reimposing any unconstitutional conditions imposed to date, and enjoins Defendants from issuing any other termination, freezing of funds, stop work orders, or withholding of payment on existing grants or other federal funding, or refusal to award future grants, contracts, or other federal funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of its First Amendment rights, or on purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the requirements of Title VI.” The court also vacated and set aside all freezes and terminations of funding to Harvard pursuant to the Apr. 14 letter.

Update 6: On Sept. 10, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to the remaining claims.

Update 4: On October 2, 2025, Judge Burroughs granted and denied in part Defendants’ motion to stay based on lapse of appropriations and extended the deadline to file a status report to October 10, 2025; Defendants may renew their motion by that date.

Update 5: On October 20, Judge Burroughs issued an order of final judgment.

1:25-cv-11048

Complaint

First Amended Complaint 2025-05-13

On Mar. 31, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration announced a review of approximately $9 billion in federal contracts and grants issued to Harvard University to ensure compliance with civil rights laws. The review is part of the efforts of the DOJ’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism to give effect to Executive Order 14188. On Apr. 3 and Apr. 11, the government sent Harvard letters outlining steps that it must take to maintain federal funding. Harvard refused to comply and on Apr. 14, the government froze approximately $2.8 billion in funding to Harvard (the “Freeze Order”). Harvard filed suit challenging both the conditions set out in the letters and the Freeze Order. Harvard alleges that the government’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways. It argues the government has acted contrary to constitutional rights because its demands regarding hiring decisions, admissions practices, and student group recognition, among others, violate Harvard's First Amendment rights. The Freeze Order is also alleged to be in violation of the First Amendment because it was issued in retaliation for Harvard’s engagement in protected speech. Harvard argues that the government acted in excess of statutory authority, not in accordance with the law, and without observing procedures required by law because the government failed to follow mandatory procedures for terminating federal funding in connection with Title VI violations. Harvard additionally claims that the government’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. Finally, Harvard makes a standalone First Amendment claim and argues that the government’s actions are ultra vires. Harvard seeks an order declaring unlawful and setting aside the Freeze Order and the conditions in the April letters. Harvard also seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting the government from violating the university’s First Amendment rights and from terminating federal funding without complying with the applicable laws.

Update 1: On May 13, the Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint adding to its filings. The amended complaint includes: additional Defendants, the US Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and additional factual allegations relating to letters received in May from the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Agriculture, the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the US Department of Education.

Update 2: On June 2, President and Fellows of Harvard College filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Court should grant summary judgment to Harvard, vacate and set aside the Government’s unlawful freeze and termination of Harvard’s funding, and permanently enjoin any similar action such as the termination of other contracts.

Update 3: On September 3, Judge Burroughs ruled that the administration’s attempt to condition Harvard University’s federal funding on changes to its campus policies violates the school’s First Amendment as well as Title VI procedural requirements and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the government “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities,” and held that the administration attempted to coerce the school to adapt its chosen policies that infringed on its constitutional and statutory rights.

Update 4: On October 2, 2025, Judge Burroughs granted and denied in part Defendants’ motion to stay based on lapse of appropriations and extended the deadline to file a status report to October 10, 2025; Defendants may renew their motion by that date.

Update 5: On October 9, 2025, Judge Burroughs denied Defendants’ motion to stay based on lapse of appropriations and extended the deadline to file a status report to October 17, 2025.

Update 6: On October 20, Judge Burroughs issued an order of final judgment.

1:25-cv-11472

Complaint

Along with other US colleges and universities, Harvard hosts international students with F-1 visas, which permits international students to be present in the United States, under a program called the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The SEVP program is overseen by the DHS. On April 16, 2025, Kristi Noem, the Secretary of DHS, sent Harvard University’s International Office (HIO) a letter (the “Records Request”) criticizing Harvard for alleged failures in condemning antisemitism and demanding that HIO produce a wide range of information for each student visa holder across Harvard’s 13 schools within ten business days. Failure to do so would be treated as a voluntary withdrawal from the F-1 visa program. Among other things, the information requested included all records of the participation of international students in protests on Harvard’s campus.

Harvard produced information in response to this demand on April 30 and again on May 14, after a follow up request. On May 22, Secretary Noem sent Harvard a letter (the “Revocation Notice”) which stated that DHS deemed Harvard’s responses insufficient and that Harvard’s SEVP certification was revoked, effective immediately. The Revocation Notice stated that all Harvard international students on non-immigrant visas must transfer to another university to maintain their non-immigrant status, and that Harvard is prohibited from having any international students for the 2025-2026 academic school year.

Harvard filed suit the following morning, on May 23, claiming that the Revocation Notice is the culmination of a retaliatory attack on academic freedom at Harvard which they allege had been developing over the last few months. They emphasize in particular an April 11 letter to Harvard from a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism (Federal Task Force) conditioned Harvard’s continued receipt of numerous federal funding benefits on accepting changes to Harvard’s governance, admissions, hiring and academic programs, as well as numerous public statements by the administration about Harvard.

Harvard alleges that the Revocation Notice is a violation of its First Amendment right to be free of retaliatory action for engaging in protected speech, pointing out that the April 11 demand letter goes to the core of Harvard’s constitutionally protected academic freedom by asserting governmental control over Harvard’s teaching community and governance. The suit contends that the Revocation Notice constitutes First Amendment viewpoint discrimination and violates the APA because it conditions government benefits on relinquishing constitutional rights, as well as violating Due Process rights by failing to follow codified procedural protections. It claims the government’s actions are ultra vires and arbitrary and capricious.

The complaint asks for a declaration that the actions to revoke SEVP certification through Revocation Notice are unconstitutional and unlawful because they violate the First Amendment, Due Process Clause, and APA, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin them from implementing, or otherwise initiating proceedings to withdraw Harvard from the program due to its First Amendment exercise or refusal to comply with April 11 demand letter. On the same day, Harvard also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and accompanying memorandum, citing immediate and irreparable harm.

On May 23, Judge Allison Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order.

Update 1: On May 29, Judge Burroughs ruling from the bench reportedly said the court would issue a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On Jun. 4, the president issued a new Proclamation titled “Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University” that suspends entry of foreign nationals who plan to attend Harvard University. On Jun. 5, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order with a memorandum.

Update 3: On Jun. 5, Judge Burroughs temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to prevent foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, halting the policy while legal challenges continue.

The court found that the administration’s proclamation would cause “immediate and irreparable injury” to Harvard and its international students.

Update 4: Judge Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction on Jun. 20 barring that administration from banning Harvard from participating in the State Department’s Student and Visitor Exchange Program.

Update 5: Judge Burroughs issued an order on Jun. 23 halting the administration’s proclamation to suspend entry for any international students studying at Harvard. Judge Burroughs had issued a preliminary injunction on Jun. 20 to similar effect, but provided reasoning for her injunction this time. In the order, she wrote, “the government’s misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration’s own views,” threatened core constitutional rights, which she notes “must be safeguarded.”

Update 6: On June 27, Defendants appealed Judge Burroughs’ Jun, 23 preliminary injunction order to the First Circuit.

Update 7: On Oct. 2, Judge Burroughs granted and denied in part Defendants’ motion to stay based on lapse of appropriations and extended the deadline to file a status report to October 10, 2025; Defendants may renew their motion by that date. On Oct. 10, the court denied Defendants’ second motion for a stay and extended the status-report deadline to Oct. 17.

Update 8: On Nov. 19, the First Circuit lifted its Oct. 7 stay of proceedings after the government reported that appropriations had been restored, and reset the briefing schedule.

3:25-cv-04737

Complaint

Faculty members and researchers from the University of California filed a class action lawsuit challenging the termination of federal research grants across multiple agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Science Foundation (NSF). These cuts were implemented through the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE). The plaintiffs allege that the funding cancellations cut off funds awarded by Congress without notice, explanation, or legal authority to do so and seek for themselves (and the class of University of California faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees) an injunction to restore lost funding, enjoin further unlawful grant terminations or suspensions, and provide grant extensions necessary to complete the work for which grants were originally approved.

Update 1: On June 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order with a memorandum in support.

Update 2: On June 23, Judge Rita Lin granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants appealed this preliminary injunction order to the Ninth Circuit on July 10.

Update 3: On July 11, the administration filed a motion for a stay of preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit, seeking to reverse Judge Lin’s order blocking the administration’s mass termination of University of California research grants tied to DEI-related topics.

Update 4: On August 12, Judge Lin issued an order requiring the administration to reinstate grants issued to UCLA researchers, ruling that the administration’s “suspension” of the grants violated an earlier preliminary injunction against terminating such grants, calling it “termination by another name.”

Update 5: On August 21, in a 26-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit denied the Defendant’s request to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction.

Update 6: On September 22, District Court Judge Lin granted Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, ordering the administration to reinstate over $500 million in research grants awarded to the University of California on behalf of University of California researchers whose grants were terminated by the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Health and Human Services. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claim, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that the agencies’ form termination letters were arbitrary and capricious. The court also found that the Department of Transportation likely committed “an unconstitutional effort to suppress . . . researchers’ viewpoints and ideas, and drive those viewpoints from the marketplace of ideas,” in violation of the First Amendment.

3:25-cv-07864

Complaint

On July 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a “Notice of Findings Regarding the University of California, Los Angeles” in which DOJ stated, “[W]e have found that UCLA’s response to its students’ complaints of antisemitism on UCLA’s campus violated its obligations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d (Title VI).” The following day, on July 30, 2025, three funding agencies— the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), U.S. National Science Foundation (“NSF”), and the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”)— cut off a combined $584 million in research funds from UCLA. On August 8, 2025, the University of California (UC) received a document (“Demand Letter”) from the DOJ demanding that UCLA pay $1 billion or more as part of a settlement to restore the $584 million that had already been cut. The Demand Letter included requirements that the UC agree to measures to limit diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and dictated actions relating to activities relating to speech, policies, academic programs, disciplinary records, transgender students and athletes, and other areas.

On September 16, a collection of labor unions and associations that represent students and employees within the University of California system filed a complaint challenging the funding cuts and the Demand Letter. The Plaintiffs portray the administration’s actions against UC and other universities nationwide as a “campaign” to undermine free speech and academic freedom at America’s universities. The complaint alleges violations of the First Amendment, by unconstitutional coercion, retaliation and content and viewpoint discrimination; the Spending Clause, as a violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Tenth and Fifth Amendments; and the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) as without observance of required procedure, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief vacating and setting aside the termination of funds, vacating the Demand Letter, enjoining Defendants from withholding payments on any federal funding based on any purported violation of Title VII, and forbidding the further use of financial threats to coerce the University to agree to the administration’s demands.

Update 1: District Court Judge Rita F. Lin granted a preliminary injunction against Trump administration actions conditioning grant funding on universities’ compliance with administration priorities such as reviewing DEI programs, changing their handling of student protests, and adopting the administration’s views on transgender students’ access to bathrooms and sports teams.

7:25-cv-07826

Complaint

On January 27, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14185 that reads, in part, “The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall carefully review the leadership, curriculum, and instructors of the United States Service Academies and other defense academic institutions associated with their respective Departments to ensure alignment with this order. In addition, these institutions shall be required to teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.” The United States Military Academy at West Point (USMA) subsequently issued a new policy in February 2025, the Academic Engagement Policy, stating that faculty cannot engage in external writing or speaking activities tied to their USMA role without prior approval from their department heads. USMA civilian law professor Tim Bakken filed a class action complaint against the USMA on Sept. 22, alleging that the Academic Engagement Policy has chilled both on-duty and classroom speech and thus unlawfully infringes upon faculty members’ academic freedoms, and delegates overly-broad licensing discretion to a government official, without narrow, objective and definite standards, allowing for arbitrary application, viewpoint discrimination, and the suppression of protected speech. Plaintiffs allege prior restraint and freedom of speech violations of the First Amendment and seek an order declaring the Academic Engagement Policy unconstitutional and preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Academic Engagement Policy.

1:25-cv-10338

Complaint

The National Institutes of Health’s guidance imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research, which research institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. Plaintiffs, 22 state governments whose public research institutions will face hardship under the policy, allege that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act – including as an “arbitrary and capricious” change that failed to weigh reliance interests and that involves a reversal of fact-finding and as an action in excess the NIH’s statutory authority and in violation of Congress’s express directives in appropriating NIH funding. They seek declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against implementing the policy in the plaintiff states. On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Angel Kelley granted the plaintiffs emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and imposed a regular reporting requirement on the part of the administration to confirm compliance.

Mar. 5, 2025: Judge Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance “in any form with respect to institutions nationwide.”

Apr. 4, 2025: Judge Kelley granted NIH’s motion to convert the Mar. 5 order on a preliminary injunction to an order on a permanent injunction and final judgment, so as to facilitate prompt appellate review of the nationwide block on implementation of the NIH Guidance.

Apr. 8, 2025: NIH appealed the final judgment and permanent injunction issued by Judge Kelley on Apr. 4 to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jan. 5, 2026: In a memorandum opinion, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s final judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance that capped indirect costs reimbursement at 15 percent.

1:25-cv-10346

Complaint

National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidance imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research, which research institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. Plaintiffs, including associations representing universities and college and individual universities, allege the reduction in indirect cost rate to 15% will have immediate destructive effects on NIH-funded research. They sued, arguing the policy is unlawful under of the Administrative Procedure Act in that it (1) is contrary to law in that it departs from the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2024; (2) is contrary to law as it violates the Constitution’s Appropriation Clause; (3) is contrary to law as it departs from negotiated cost rates provided by 45 C.F.R. 75.414 and NIH Grants Policy Statement; (4) is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; (5) is contrary to law as it departs from HHS cost recovery regulations and policy guidance; (6) fails to observe required notice-and-comment procedures; (7) is contrary to law violates the Public Health Service Act; and (8) is in excess of statutory authority as a retroactive action. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unlawful and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Later on Feb. 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit Defendants from implementing the policy.

Mar. 5, 2025: Judge Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance “in any form with respect to institutions nationwide.”

Apr. 4, 2025: Defendants filed an assented-to motion for a permanent injunction, seeking to convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction and enter final judgment in order to facilitate the appeals process. On that same day, Judge Kelley granted the motion and entered a final judgment and permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Apr. 8, 2025: Defendants appealed the final judgment and permanent injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jan. 5, 2026: In a consolidated memorandum opinion, the First Circuit affirmed a lower court’s final judgment and permanent injunction in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (Case No. 1:25-cv-10338) that had prohibited implementation of the NIH Guidance that capped indirect costs reimbursement at 15 percent.

1:25-cv-10340

Complaint

The National Institutes of Health’s guidance imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research, which research institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. Plaintiffs, including associations representing universities, hospitals, and health systems across the country, allege that the Rate Change Notice is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and seek to enjoin any actions taken to implement its directives. They argue that the Rate Change Notice is contrary to Health and Human Services’s (HHS) existing regulations and the 2024 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. Moreover, they contend that it is arbitrary and capricious and failed to undergo required notice and comment rulemaking. On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Angel Kelley issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against the NIH policy.

Mar. 5, 2025: Judge Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance “in any form with respect to institutions nationwide.”

Apr. 4, 2025: Judge Kelley granted NIH’s motion to convert the Mar. 5 order on a preliminary injunction to an order on a permanent injunction and final judgement, so as to facilitate prompt appellate review of the nationwide block on implementation of the NIH Guidance.

Apr. 8, 2025: Defendants appealed the final judgment and permanent injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jan. 5, 2026: In a consolidated memorandum opinion, the First Circuit affirmed a lower court’s final judgment and permanent injunction in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (Case No. 1:25-cv-10338) that had prohibited implementation of the NIH Guidance that capped indirect costs reimbursement at 15 percent.

1:25-cv-10912

Complaint

The Department of Energy (DOE) on Apr. 11, 2025 issued a new “Rate Cap Policy”, which imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of research, which academic institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. The DOE also announced that it will terminate all university grant awards that do not conform with the new policy. Plaintiffs, including associations representing universities and colleges and individual universities, sued on Apr. 14, alleging that the reduction in indirect cost rate to 15% will have immediate destructive effects on DOE-funded research. The academic institutions argue that the Rate Cap Policy violates the Office of Management and Budget’s indirect cost regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The academic institutions also argue that the DOE’s Cap Rate Policy is substantially similar to the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s policy capping indirect costs, the implementation of which courts have blocked nationwide. The academic institutions ask that the court vacate the Rate Cap Policy and declare it unlawful. They also seek a preliminary and permanent block on the DOE’s implementation of the Rate Cap Policy or modification of negotiated indirect cost rates and termination of any grants pursuant to the Policy.

Update 1: After filing their complaint on Apr. 14, Plaintiffs immediately filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Plaintiffs request that the court block Defendants from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the Rate Cap Policy in any form; from terminating grants pursuant to the Rate Cap Policy; and from otherwise modifying negotiated indirect cost rates (except as permitted by statute and regulations). The next day, Plaintiffs notified the court of Defendants’ actions to proceed with the implementation of the Rate Cap Policy and urged the court to grant the TRO.

Update 2: On Apr. 16, Judge Allison Burroughs granted the TRO against Defendants.

Update 3: On Apr. 22, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO in which they claim that the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dep’t of Education v. California.

Update 4: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a TRO in which it emphasized the arbitrary and unlawful nature of the Rate Cap Policy.

Update 5: On Apr. 29, Judge Burroughs extended the TRO until further order is issued resolving the request for a preliminary injunction.

Update 6: On May 15, Judge Burroughs granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the DOE’s Rate Cap Policy likely violates the APA—by taking agency action that conflicts with existing regulation, is arbitrary and capricious, and is impermissibly retroactive—and poses a risk of irreparable harm to research institutions.

Update 7: On June 30, at the request of Defendants, Judge Burroughs entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendants reserve their right to appeal the order.

Update 8: On July 31, Defendants appealed Judge Burroughs’ May 15 preliminary injunction order and June 30 final judgment order to the First Circuit.

1:25-cv-11740

Complaint

On May 14, 2025, Secretary of the Department of Defense (DOD) Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum implementing a 15% cost cap on indirect cost assistance awards to higher education institutions. On June 12, 2025, Under Secretary of Defense Emil Michael signed the “formal policy guidance.” Together, the memos (the Hegseth and Michael Memos) constitute the “Rate Cap Policy” that plaintiffs challenge. As authorized by Congress, the DOD has funded indirect costs, also known as overhead costs, for scientific research at American higher education institutions for decades. Historically, federal research funding to such institutions has been negotiated in a bespoke manner, with funding often covering between 50-65% of indirect costs. However, the new DOD policy implements a much lower universal rate of 15% funding. Plaintiffs are a group of leading research universities, education councils and university leaders which conduct robust scientific and technological research in reliance on federal funding. They allege that the rate cut would have devastating impacts on their ability to continue critical research. They allege that the DOD’s Rate Cap Policy is contrary to law, in excess of statutory authority, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and seek a vacatur of the Hegseth and Michael Memos instituting the Rate Cap Policy and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Update 1: On Jun. 17, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the DOD from enforcing the Rate Cap Policy.

Update 2: On Jul. 18, Judge Murphy granted a preliminary injunction, barring the administration from enforcing a Department of Defense policy capping indirect cost reimbursements at 15 percent for higher education institutions. The court found this was the “fourth time” the administration has attempted “to announce a policy that has consistently been deemed unlawful” and ordered the administration not to reject or treat adversely grants that are negotiated at a rate higher than 15 percent.

Update 3: On Oct. 10, Judge Murphy granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion. On Oct. 15, the court entered final judgment for Plaintiffs on Counts I–V, vacated the Hegseth and Michael Memos under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), declared DoD’s Rate Cap Policy invalid, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious, and dismissed Count VI without prejudice as moot.

1:25-cv-02114

Complaint

On June 20, 2025, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a new set of rules and standards, entitled the “2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Final Rule” (the 2025 Rule), that significantly altered the requirements and procedures for individuals to enroll in health insurance on marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (42 U.S.C. Section 157). The numerous changes aimed to limit costs and to minimize fraud in the insurance system by: reducing the number of individuals enrolling in insurance with unresolved insurance debts, offering insurers more flexibility regarding the value of the coverage they provide to beneficiaries, incentivizing beneficiaries to confirm their income by imposing monthly fees for non-confirmation, shortening enrollment periods, and increasing beneficiary cost-sharing responsibilities. In a suit filed on July 1, Plaintiffs – the cities of Columbus, Baltimore, and Chicago, and the civil society organizations, Doctors for America and Main Street Alliance – claim that these rule modifications violate multiple provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A)). First, they allege that the actions are contrary to the statutory text of the ACA, particularly Section 1554’s prohibition on “any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care.” Second, they allege that the 2025 Rule is arbitrary and capricious given both its flagrant ignorance of evidence concerning the negative impacts of the rule changes and its failure to adequately respond to comments filed by interested parties. Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctions vacating the 2025 Rule.

Update 1: In an Aug. 22 order and opinion, Judge Brendan Hurson granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705. The court temporarily stayed several provisions that (i) added a $5 surcharge on automatic re-enrollees, (ii) revoked guaranteed coverage for individuals with past-due premiums, (iii) tightened “failure-to-reconcile” rules, (iv) added new special-enrollment and income-verification hurdles, (v) changed the de minimis ranges for actuarial value, and (vi) rescinded self-attestation of projected income. The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their APA and statutory challenges to those provisions, that they faced irreparable economic harm, and that the equities and public interest supported relief. It left two provisions in effect—the change to the premium adjustment percentage formula and elimination of the automatic 60-day income-verification extension—concluding plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on those claims. The court also held that CASA does not bar preliminary vacatur/stays of new rules under the APA.”

Update 2: On Aug. 25, at Plaintiffs’ request, Judge Hurson issued an order clarifying the scope of his Aug. 22 stay order, expressly listing the seven provisions whose effective dates were stayed pending final judgment and the two provisions that were not stayed.
Update 3: On Aug. 28, the government noticed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit from Judge Hurson’s Aug. 22 stay order and Aug. 25 clarification order.

Update 4: On Aug. 29, the government filed motions before both Judge Hurson and the Fourth Circuit to stay pending appeal paragraph 2(f) of Judge Hurson’s Aug. 22 order, which blocked changes to the actuarial-value de minimis ranges.

Update 5: On Sept. 18, the Fourth Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay pending appeal paragraph 2(f) of Judge Hurson’s Aug. 22 order. On Sept. 29, Judge Hurson likewise denied a stay of that provision, leaving the entire set of seven provisions under the district-court stay.

1:25-cv-00364

Complaint

The Family Planning Association of Maine (MFP) filed a complaint on July 16, 2025, challenging the administration’s defunding of Medicaid payments to providers that also offer abortion services. This “Defunding Provision,” which stems from Section 71113 of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” bars federal Medicaid funding for all health care services offered by non-profit community providers that also provide abortion services, including MFP. The Plaintiff alleges the Defunding Provision violates the 5th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, as it deprives MFP of the same Medicaid funding available to other health care providers throughout the United States. It seeks to vacate the underlying action or preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.

July 16, 2025: Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Aug. 25, 2025: Judge Walker denied a motion for a preliminary injunction challenging portions of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that bar federal funding for major abortion providers. The court held that Plaintiff’s equal protection argument was likely meritless and that Congress was entitled to “an exceedingly deferential standard of constitutional review” when regarding its power of the purse.

Aug. 29, 2025: Plaintiff noticed an appeal from Judge Walker’s Aug. 25 order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Sept. 8, 2025: Judge Walker denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal from his Aug. 25 order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Sept. 16, 2025: The district court granted a consent motion to stay further district-court proceedings pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ appeal.

Sept. 17, 2025: In the First Circuit, Plaintiffs moved for an injunction pending resolution of their appeal.

Oct. 16, 2025: The First Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal, holding they had not met the demanding standard for such relief.

Oct. 23, 2025: The district court granted a consent motion to stay proceedings due to the government shutdown and, on Nov. 21, continued the stay pending the appeal of its order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Nov. 24, 2025: The government filed its appellee brief.

Dec. 29, 2025: The First Circuit dismissed the Family Planning Association of Maine’s appeal after both parties voluntarily agreed to drop the case. The dismissal leaves in place the administration’s bar on federal Medicaid funding for major abortion providers.

1:25-cv-12019

Complaint

On June 20, 2025, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a new set of rules and standards, entitled the “2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Final Rule” (the Final Rule). The new regulations significantly altered the requirements and procedures for individuals to enroll in health insurance on marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (42 U.S.C. Section 157), ostensibly to limit costs and minimize fraud in the insurance system.A coalition of 21 States filed a complaint on July 18 claiming that these rule modifications violate multiple provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They allege that the Final Rule creates substantively invalid and illegal changes to the ACA marketplace, and that it unlawfully prohibits coverage of any “sex-trait modification procedure” as an essential health benefit. The States contend that the Final Rule violates the APA by failing to follow correct procedure as required by law, as arbitrary and capricious, and in excess of statutory authority, and is ultra vires as agency action not authorized by Congress. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the Final Rule and enjoining its implementation.

Update 1: On July 17, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and an accompanying memorandum of law in support.

Update 2: On October 1, District Court Judge Gorton denied a coalition of 21 states’ motion for a preliminary injunction against certain provisions of a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation published in June. Plaintiffs challenged several provisions, including (1) new income verification requirements for Advanced Premium Tax Credit (“APTC”) eligibility, (2) a one-year Failure to Reconcile (“FTR”) grace period, and (3) exclusion of “specified sex-trait modification procedures” from the essential health benefits. The court found that plaintiffs were unlikely to show direct and imminent irreparable harm and likely success on the merits. Judge Gorton observed that plaintiffs’ projections, like claims that 1.8 million people might drop coverage, were “exaggerated and largely speculative” and noted that many such projected losses would occur in states not parties to the suit. The court also held that the administration’s actions did not warrant a finding that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.

1:25-cv-12118

Complaint

As part of the “One Big Beautiful Act,” Congress passed Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) which stripped federal Medicaid funding from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Plaintiffs, a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia, filed suit on July 29, 2025, alleging that the removal of Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood unconstitutionally seeks to punish the organization for their advocacy on reproductive rights. They also contend that the defund provision will force states to either defund critical healthcare or cover the costs themselves, undermining Medicaid’s cooperative federal-state framework and causing vulnerable populations to lose access to essential healthcare services. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Spending Clause due to lack of clear notice and for unconstitutional provisions, including violations of their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights and Article I’s prohibition on bills of attainder, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the Defund Provision.

Dec. 2, 2025: Judge Talwani granted plaintiff states’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Section 71113 of the Budget Reconciliation Act likely attaches conditions to federal funding without clear notice to states that participate in the joint Federal/State Medicaid program as required by the Spending Clause.

Dec. 8, 2025: The First Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to grant an administrative stay of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.

Dec. 30, 2025: The First Circuit vacated its previously issued administrative stay and granted the administration’s motion to stay the lower court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. This allows enforcement of Section 71113, which prevents healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for one year.

6:25-cv-02409

Complaint

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are 18 states and the District of Columbia. Defendants include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the HHS Inspector General. Plaintiffs allege that, on December 18, 2025, the HHS Secretary posted to the HHS website a “Declaration” titled ‘Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents.” Plaintiffs also allege that the Declaration appears to set a new quality standard for healthcare for the entire United States by presuming that certain medical treatments for gender dysphoria or related disorders for children and adolescents are neither safe nor effective. Plaintiffs further allege that, pursuant to the Declaration, HHS can bar healthcare providers and institutions from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal healthcare programs if they treat any children or adolescents with these medical procedures, even if the treatment occurs outside federally funded health programs. Plaintiffs assert that the Declaration harms the plaintiffs’ abilities to administer approved state Medicaid plans in compliance with state laws that protect and guarantee medically necessary gender-affirming care. They also allege that the Declaration harms their administration of state Medicaid plans by announcing a decision-rule that HHS will use as a basis to exclude from Medicaid many medical clinicians—e.g., pediatricians, family medicine doctors, and endocrinologists—without process or authority. Plaintiffs further allege that the Declaration also purports to permit the exclusion of any “entity” employing those clinicians—e.g., hospitals, clinics, and family practices—many of which plaintiffs rely on to operate their Medicaid and other health care programs. Plaintiffs argue that the Declaration exceeds the Secretary’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes. Plaintiffs primarily ask the court to rule that the Declaration is unlawful, set the Declaration aside, and issue an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Declaration.

1:25-cv-11916

Complaint

First Amended Complaint 2025-07-23

Second Amended Complaint 2025-09-03

Third Amended Complaint 2025-11-05

On May 27, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on social media site “X” that the COVID vaccine was removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended immunization schedules for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. The directive was documented in a “Secretarial Directive” dated May 19, 2025 (the Directive). In a suit filed on Jul. 7, Plaintiffs claim the Directive adversely affects the physician-patient relationship because it places physicians in the conflicting position of advising patients on what they believe is the proper standard of care or adhering to conflicting federal guidance in addition to reducing vaccination rates and compromising communal immunity. They allege that the Directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious as it removes the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedules without a reasoned or rational explanation supporting such changes and also as not in accordance with the law as it is in contravention to Congress’s statutory scheme governing vaccines and ask the court to vacate the Directive and reinstate COVID vaccine recommendations.

Update 1: On Jul. 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, and a request for expedited consideration. Plaintiffs withdrew the motion on Jul. 9.

Update 2: On Jul, 23, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding two additional Plaintiffs – Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (MCAAP) and Jane Doe 2 – and provided amended and additional factual allegations and legal background.

Update 3: On Sept. 3, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding Jane Doe 3 as an additional individual plaintiff and building out factual/standing allegations about the Directive’s impact on her and her family (including her immunocompromised status and confusion around Covid vaccination), while leaving the defendant set and causes of action otherwise unchanged.

Update 4: On Oct. 22, the case was reassigned from Judge William G. Young to Judge Brian E. Murphy.

Update 5: On Nov. 5, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which keeps the same organizational and individual plaintiffs (including all three Jane Does) but narrows the defendants to HHS, Secretary Kennedy, and CDC/Acting Director O’Neill (dropping FDA, NIH, and their officials). It reframes the case to challenge three final agency actions—CDC’s designation of COVID-19 vaccination for children and adults as “shared clinical decision-making” recommendations, and the Secretary’s June 2025 removal and reconstitution of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and CDC’s adoption of the new ACIP’s votes—alleging that these actions are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law under the APA because they violated the ACIP charter and advisory-committee safeguards, including the required Evidence to Recommendation process.

1:25-cv-01510

Complaint

First Amended Complaint

2025-03-20

Second Amended Complaint

2025-06-16

On Feb. 11, 2025, FEMA clawed back $80 million that it had disbursed to New York City one week earlier. The funds had previously been approved by FEMA as reimbursement under the Shelter and Services Programs (SSP) to offset the City’s costs of providing housing and services for noncitizen migrants. Plaintiff alleges that FEMA had “reviewed and approved the City’s request [for funds], and issued payment, [and yet] Defendants grabbed the money back without any administrative process whatsoever.” The complaint alleges that Defendants attempted to cloak their actions “with a veneer of administrative process,” including by issuing a “noncompliance” letter to the City’s Office of Management and Budget with “Findings” that SSP funds were being used for “illegal activities.” Plaintiff alleges that the noncompliance letter was pretextual and that Defendants’ “real intent … is to withhold the funds permanently because they oppose the purposes for which the funds were appropriated, awarded, approved, and paid.” Plaintiff sues for injunctive relief to compel Defendants to return the funds to the City. Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that Defendants’ actions are arbitrary and capricious, in excess of authority, and without observance of lawful procedures.In the interim, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to return certain funds and to enjoin Defendants from taking further relevant grant money from the City.

Feb. 28, 2025: Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Mar. 3, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Mar. 20, 2025: Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (redline here).

June 16, 2025: Plaintiff filed their second amended complaint (redline here).

1:24-cv-00698

Complaint

Plaintiff Climate United Fund has brought suit against the EPA and Citibank for the withholding of its grant funding obtained from the EPA in 2024 through the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), a program under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). The grant requires Climate United’s grant funds to be held at Citibank under a Financial Agent Agreement (FAA) between Citibank and the U.S. Treasury Department, and an Account Control Agreement (ACA) between Citibank, Climate United, and EPA that sets forth the specific details for EPA to exercise “control” as a secured party. On Feb. 12, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made a public statement announcing EPA’s goal of taking back grant funds disbursed to Climate United Fund and other recipients pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA and Zeldin then started to take multiple actions designed to suspend or terminate Climate United’s grant. Citibank is now refusing to honor Climate United’s disbursement requests despite contractual obligation to do so, citing the need for further direction from the EPA before disbursing any grant funds. Climate United Fund has been forced to defer compensation for some employees and will shortly run out of funds to pay operating expenses. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to order Citibank to disburse funds, enjoin the EPA and Zeldin from impeding Citibank from disbursing funds, and enjoin the EPA and Zeldin from unlawfully suspending or terminating Climate United’s grant award.

Update 1: On Mar. 10, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). On Mar. 12, both Citibank and the EPA filed motions in opposition to the TRO.

Update 2: On Mar. 11, the EPA terminated Climate United Fund’s grant. On Mar. 17, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to include the unlawful termination of the grant.

Update 3: On Mar. 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO, enjoining the EPA and Citibank from implementing the grant termination and transferring the funds elsewhere.

Update 4: On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated motion for a preliminary injunction to request that the Court prevent the Federal Defendants from (1) effectuating the EPA’s Mar. 11 termination of Climate United Fund’s grant, (2) unlawfully limiting access to the funds related to Plaintiffs’ grants, and (3) impeding Citibanks’ access to funds related to the grants.

Update 5: On Mar. 26, the Federal Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ consolidated motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 6: On Mar. 28, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of Plaintiffs’ consolidated motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 7: On Mar. 31, the Federal Defendants filed an opposition to the Subgrantee Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On that same day, Judge Chutkan ordered the extension of the TRO.

Update 8: On Apr. 8, Judge Chutkan ordered the extension of the Mar. 18 TRO for another 7 days.

Update 9: On Apr. 15, the Federal Defendants filed a contingent emergency motion requesting a stay pending the appeal to the D.C. Circuit of any order or preliminary injunction that requires the disbursement of federal funds from the Citibank accounts. On the same day, Plaintiffs responses (here, here, and here) in opposition to the contingent emergency motion.

Update 10: On Apr. 15, this case was consolidated with the suits against Defendants of other nonprofit plaintiffs who were also National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) grantees.

Update 11: On Apr. 15, Judge Chutkan granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied Defendants’ contingent emergency motion requesting a stay pending appeal, ordering that the Federal Defendants are prevented from unlawfully suspending or terminating Plaintiffs’ grants and impeding Citibank from disbursing funds for the grants, and that Citibank is prevented from transferring or otherwise moving funds from accounts related to the grants and must disburse funds incurred before the mid-February suspension of disbursement. On Apr. 16, Judge Chutkan published a memorandum opinion in conjunction with the order granting the preliminary injunction.

Update 12: On Apr. 16, the EPA filed a notice of appeal of the Apr. 15 preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit.

Update 13: On Apr. 17, Plaintiffs Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities filed a motion requesting the District Court to clarify the obligations imposed on Citibank by the Apr. 15 preliminary injunction and to amend the time period of funds to be disbursed.

Update 14: On Apr. 18, the Federal Defendants filed a response, arguing that the pending appeal prevents the District Court from having the authority to grant Plaintiffs’ request.
Update 15: On Apr. 19, Judge Chutkan granted Plaintiffs’ motion to clarify and amend the Apr. 15 preliminary injunction.

Update 16: On Sept. 2, on a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated an injunction and upheld the administration’s termination of $16 billion in climate funds authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act. The majority ruled that plaintiffs’ constitutional claims were meritless and their remaining claims were contractual in nature and therefore fall within the jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. The court rejected the Separation of Powers arguments, determining there was “no statutory provision [in the Inflation Reduction Act] that barred the cancellation of the grants.” Judge Pillard dissented, stating that the majority’s “version of events fails to contend with the government’s actual behavior and misapprehends Plaintiffs’ claims, leading the majority to the wrong conclusion at every step of its review.” The Court also directed that the mandate be withheld until seven days after any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is resolved.

Update 17: On Sept. 10, appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On Sept. 15, the Clerk ordered responses to the rehearing petitions. On Sept. 30, EPA and Citibank filed their responses.

3:25-cv-30041

Complaint

At the direction of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Executive Order (EO) 14158, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) terminated 78 Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) grants on February 27, 2025. The Plaintiffs to this class action are several non-profit fair housing organizations whose FHIP grants were terminated. FHIP grants are congressionally-appropriated funds, and the termination of the FHIP grants impacts the fair housing initiatives in 33 states and has resulted in the halt of programming to groups protected by the Fair Housing Act (FHA). HUD terminated these grants on the basis that they “no longer effectuate[] the program goals or agency priorities,” which Plaintiffs allege constitutes an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful action by HUD and an ultra vires action by DOGE. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to reinstate the terminated grants.

Update 1: On Mar. 13, the same day the complaint was filed, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).

Update 2: On Mar. 21, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO.

Update 3: On Mar. 24, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of its emergency motion for a TRO updating its motion to seek preliminary relief against the HUD defendants only.

Update 4: On Mar. 26, following a hearing the day prior, the court granted the motion for an emergency TRO to temporarily enjoin the HUD defendants from terminating relevant FHIP grants and to reinstate those already terminated.
Update 5: On Apr. 7, Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the emergency TRO following the Supreme Court’s grant of emergency relief in Dep’t of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025) (per curiam), in which the Court found the government defendants were likely to succeed in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants also argued in their memorandum that the district court should stay proceedings. On Apr. 11, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion to dissolve and stay proceedings, however Judge Stearns granted Defendants’ motion on Apr. 14. The court stated that it “was “merely deferring (as it must) to the Supreme Court’s unmistakable directive that, for jurisdictional purposes, the proper forum for this case is the Court of Federal Claims.”
Update 6: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs appealed Judge Stearns’ Apr. 14 order granting Defendants’ motion to dissolve the emergency TRO to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Update 7: On Nov. 18, after oral argument on July 30, the First Circuit construed Plaintiffs’ Sept. 5 Rule 28(j) letter—arguing that “[f]urther proceedings are required to determine the appropriate forum” and that plaintiffs should be allowed to develop the record to show that (as in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Ass’n, 145 S. Ct. 2658) the challenged, agency-wide conduct is properly heard in federal district court—as a motion to remand, and remanded to the district court to litigate APHA’s impact on subject-matter jurisdiction/appropriate forum, expressing no view on the merits.

1:25-cv-10787

Complaint

After President Trump issued Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, directing that federal funds should not be used to promote “gender ideology” or DEI, the NIH issued a series of documents articulating areas of research that “no longer effectuate[] agency priorities” (the “Directives”) and labelling certain topics of research, including DEI, transgender issues, vaccine hesitancy, and Covid, as forbidden topics. The NIH has allegedly subsequently terminated at least 678 research projects on a wide range of public health issues. Plaintiffs consist of four researchers who have either lost funding for grants or have had an application for a grant not considered, as well as the American Public Health Association (APHA), whose members have had grants canceled and whose journal is funded by the NIH; the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) which represents many academic workers and graduate students who have had grants terminated, and Ibis Reproductive Health, which also had a grant terminated. The complaint alleges that the NIH violated the APA in several ways: the terminations are “arbitrary and capricious”; were not in accordance with law, in particular 2 C.F.R. §200.340 (b) (2020), as they include no evidence as to why the grants were terminated; exceeded statutory authority as the congressional mandates specifically encourage studies involving diverse populations; and violated constitutional rights because of their failure to properly consider applications. Plaintiffs also allege that the vagueness of the criteria used for the terminations violates Fifth Amendment due process protections. Plaintiffs seek to have the terminations declared unlawful and both temporary and permanently enjoined, order NIH to restore grant awards, and order them to review all properly submitted applications.

Apr. 25, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from implementing the EOs, along with a memorandum of law supporting the motion.

May 12, 2025: Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, they are not certain, imminent, and irreparable, and an injunction would be contrary to the public interest.

May 30, 2025: Judge William Young collapsed the motion for a preliminary injunction into a motion to dismiss and granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss three counts but denied the motion to dismiss on all other counts.

June 16, 2025: Judge Young reportedly found that the administration’s termination of certain NIH research grants—particularly those focused on gender, diversity, equity, and inclusion—was unlawful and discriminatory.

June 23, 2025: Judge Young granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and held the challenged Directives and resulting grant terminations were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. On that same day, Defendants appealed Judge Young’s order and partial final judgment to the First Circuit.

July 18, 2025: The First Circuit denied Defendants’ motion to stay Judge Young’s order.

Aug. 21, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, stayed the lower court decision thus allowing the Government, for now, to halt the grants. The Court’s majority ruled that the grantees should have sought to have the funding reinstated in the Court of Federal Claims, and lifted a lower court order directing the NIH to restore the grants while litigation over the funding termination proceeds.

Jan. 6, 2026: The court approved a joint stipulation requiring the NIH to process a defined set of grant applications without applying the challenged directives. In return, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their outstanding claims without prejudice.

1:25-cv-10814

Complaint

Following President Trump’s issuance of Executive Orders 14151, 14168 and 14173, which directed that federal funds should not be used to promote “gender ideology” or DEI, federal agencies issued policy directives implementing the executive orders at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). On Apr. 4, 2025 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the attorneys general of 15 additional states sued the NIH and various institutes and centers administered by the NIH, as well as NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for failure to properly review or administer NIH grants and grant renewals. Plaintiffs allege that since January, all upcoming meetings for NIH grant applications by the two NIH bodies who review grants (a group of subject matter experts and an advisory council that considers funding availability and agency priorities) have been cancelled and that scheduling of future meetings has been delayed and minimized. In addition, they claim that the NIH has indefinitely withheld issuing final decisions on applications that have already received approval from these review bodies, including grant renewals, and that the NIH has terminated large numbers of already-issued grants for projects deemed to be connected to certain topics, including DEI, transgender issues, and vaccine hesitancy, in response to Executive Orders 14151, 14168 and 14173. These grants were terminated on the basis that they “no longer effectuate[] agency priorities”. Plaintiffs argue that the actions by the NIH violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they are both contrary to NIH regulations and statutes and “arbitrary and capricious”, and that they also violate the Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses of the Constitution. They allege that these delays and terminations have caused significant harm to public research institutions within their states and are seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling the defendants to review delayed applications and barring them from carrying out terminations of grants.

Apr. 14, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction (along with a memorandum of law) seeking to block Defendants from implementing policy directives issued pursuant to the EOs at issue.

May 1, 2025: Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. Among its arguments in opposition, Defendants assert that the court lacks jurisdiction in part because the Plaintiffs’ challenges are not to final agency actions and the grant terminations are not subject to APA review.

May 5, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, rebutting the arguments of the Defendants put forth in their May 1 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion and reiterating the arguments in favor of a Preliminary Injunction.

May 12, 2025: The court found that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

June 23, 2025: Judge William Young issued a partial final judgment declaring that the administration’s termination of hundreds of NIH grants was “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA and ordering the affected grants reinstated. This decision follows Judge Young’s earlier bench ruling, in which he reportedly described the cancellations as “bereft of reasoning, virtually in their entirety” and stated, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.”

June 23, 2025: Defendants immediately filed an appeal of Judge Young’s partial final judgment order.

July 2, 2025: Judge Young issued a findings of fact and rulings of law setting forth his reasoning.

July 18, 2025: The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant’s request for a stay of the district court’s order.

Jan. 6, 2026: The court approved a joint stipulation requiring the NIH to process a defined set of grant applications without applying the challenged directives. In return, Plaintiff States agreed to dismiss their outstanding claims without prejudice.

1:25-cv-02990

Complaint

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Covid appropriated funds to strengthen and support Plaintiffs’ education programs under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSA). These grants were specifically made available through Sept. 2023 (for CRRSA grants) and Sept. 2024 (for ARP grants) and had an additional 120 day period (the liquidation period) to draw down the funds after that date. States were invited to request extensions of these liquidation periods, and Plaintiffs did so at various points after May 2023 (when the federal government declared the pandemic over), including in their requests detailed information about how the funds would be spent. These extensions were granted through March 2025 for CRRSA funds and March 2026 for ARP funds. Plaintiffs allege that based on these extensions, they made significant budgetary decisions and earmarked (and in some cases, spent money for which reimbursement has not yet been requested) funds for various critical programs and infrastructure improvements for schools.

On Mar. 28, Plaintiffs received a letter (the Rescission Letter) notifying them that the liquidation period for these funds was ending on that day, and stating that the prior approvals of requests to extend the liquidation periods were not justified or consistent with their priorities. Plaintiffs filed a suit on Apr. 10 claiming that the rescission decision was a violation of the APA as arbitrary and capricious and that the blanket rescission of all extension approvals was a final agency action that was contrary to law. They asked the Court to set aside the Rescission Letter and any further actions taken to implement or enforce it, declare the rescissions an unlawful violation of APA, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Rescission Letter.

Update 1: On April 11 Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Apr. 25, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, arguing that since both the Rescission Letter and a subsequent letter on Apr. 3 lay out a procedure for seeking project-specific extensions of the liquidation period, there is a revised procedure in place so the Rescission Letter does not represent a final agency action. They also contend that Plaintiffs have not suffered irreparable harm since they have not sought extensions under these procedures, and that the rescissions are within the discretion of the DOE.
Update 3: On Apr. 29 Plaintiffs filed a reply arguing that the new process does not render the prior rescission not final, and reasserting that the removal of the funds has caused them irreparable harm.
Update 4: On May 6, after argument, Judge Ramos granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they were likely to succeed on their APA claims and preliminarily enjoining DOE from enforcing the Rescission Letter. The court also barred DOE from modifying previously approved liquidation periods without at least 14 days’ advance notice and required DOE to notify all personnel of the order..

Update 5: On Jun. 3, following DEO’s May 11 “Dear Colleague” letter, Judge Ramos entered a second preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of both the Mar. 28 Rescission Letter and May 11 letter, extending the notice requirement to 30 days before any future attempt to change Plaintiffs’ liquidation periods, and directing DOE to promptly process pending and future payment requests and file a status report on outstanding requests, while again requiring notice of the order to all DOE staff. Judge Ramos also denied Defendants’ request to stay the injunction pending appeal, and Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit the same day.

Update 6: On Jun. 6, in the Second Circuit, Defendants moved for a stay pending appeal and requested an immediate administrative stay. On Jun. 10, the Second Circuit referred the stay motion to the Jun. 17 motions panel and denied the request for an administrative stay in light of the expedited schedule.

Update 7: On Jun. 20, the Second Circuit denied Defendants’ motion to stay the district court’s order, finding DOE’s actions likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA—without any particularized assessment and insufficiently attentive to reliance interests—and concluding that a stay would substantially injure the plaintiff States.

Update 8: On Aug. 11, the parties withdrew the appeal in the Second Circuit and the case returned to the district court. On Oct. 1, the court extended the DOE’s deadline to respond to the complaint by one week, to Oct. 8, noting progress toward a consensual resolution; no response was filed by Oct. 8.

Update 9: On Nov. 17, the court approved the parties’ stipulation staying the case while keeping the May 6 and June 3 orders in effect and obligating DOE not to rescind the extensions, to process payment requests on agreed timelines, and to permit limited extensions of affected contracts.

8:25-cv-01230

Complaint

Institute of Education Services (IES) is a federal agency under the Department of Education (DOE) responsible for education statistics research. On Feb. 13, 2025, the DOE cancelled all federal contracts for all ten IES Regional Educational Offices and on Mar. 11, 2025, DOGE announced a mass reduction in force (“RIF”) that placed roughly 90 percent of IES’s staff on leave, pending final termination in June. Plaintiffs, two national education research nonprofits, American Educational Research Association (AERA) and Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), filed suit on Apr. 14, 2025 contending that the cancellation of contracts and staff layoffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the administrative procedures required under the Education Science Reform Act (ESRA) (which created IES), the Appropriations Act, and other related federal statutes, as well as being a violation of ultra vires and separation of powers principles. Plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare that the Feb. 13 termination of contracts and the Mar. 11 staff terminations unlawful, and to order Defendants to: reinstate the cancelled contracts in within 30 days, prevent the destruction of data by contractors, vacate the Mar. 11 staff termination action, and reinstate terminated staff back in their IES roles.

Update 1: On Apr. 29, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction with accompanying memorandum, on the grounds that irreparable harm will be caused by preventing IES from disseminating research and data to its members, and by the data and findings of the research contracts being lost permanently. On May 12, Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and proposed an alternative order on the motion. On May 19, Plaintiffs filed a reply further supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On June 12, Judge Stephanie Gallagher denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, on the basis that the request is overbroad given factual discrepancies and that Plaintiffs have not shown they are entitled to extraordinary relief based on the alleged harms.

1:25-cv-01275

Complaint

On Mar. 24, 2025, the heads of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) unilaterally eliminated over $11 billion in federal grant funding from several COVID-related appropriations acts, including the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020; the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act); Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA); American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA); and Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Paycheck Protection Act), aimed at helping local governments and other entities prepare for future pandemics. Plaintiffs, local governments and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), sued, alleging that the termination violates constitutional protections for separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act’s bar on actions contrary to statute or agency regulations. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions are unlawful and injunctions mandating that Defendants reinstate eliminated grant funding and spend appropriated funds.

Update 1: On June 17, Judge Christopher Cooper issued a memorandum opinion that granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Cooper granted relief to some of the grants held by four local-government plaintiffs (Harris County, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Davidson County and Nashville, Tennessee; and Kansas City, Missouri) and decided against granting relief to all terminated grants nationwide. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing or otherwise giving effect to the March 2025 terminations of grants issued directly or indirectly to these four plaintiffs under the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020, the CARES Act, and the CRRSAA.

1:25-cv-11116

Complaint

Following a series of Executive Orders (EOs) by President Trump aimed at eliminating (DEI) programs and practices in schools, the DOE Office for Civil Rights published a Dear Colleague Letter on Feb. 14, 2025 announcing its intentions for enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which bans race-based affirmative action and which the administration views as restricting DEI. While State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) routinely provide written assurances that they will comply with Title VI as a requirement for receiving federal funds for education, on Apr. 3, the DOE informed SEAs that they would now be required to complete a new form of certification showing compliance with the principles underlying the Students for Fair Admissions decision. The new certification requires SEAs to affirmatively investigate whether LEAs are supporting DEI, report on any non-compliance, and develop plans to enforce compliance. It requires SEA’s to obtain separate certifications for each LEA in their state. Continued federal financial assistance was made expressly contingent upon certification, and the SEAs were threatened with potential liability and litigation consequences for failure to certify. The DOE reached an agreement to postpone the deadline of certification to Apr.24, and on Apr. 25 nineteen states sued to block enforcement of the certification requirement. The plaintiffs allege that the certification requirement is an unjustified interference with state and local control of education and that many of the federal funding statutes under which the states receive funding specifically require the implementation of a number of practices relating to DEI. They also assert that the certification requirement is an unlawful interpretation of existing civil rights laws, and that compliance is impossible due to the impermissibly vague language of the requirement. The complaint alleges that the certification requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act as contrary to law including Title VI, DOE enabling legislation and other statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, in excess of statutory and regulatory authority, without observance of procedure, and arbitrary and capricious. The Plaintiffs also assert violation of Separation of Powers due to usurping of legislative authority, the Appropriations Clause, the Spending Clause, and ultra vires doctrines. The Plaintiffs ask the court to declare the certification requirement unlawful, null and void, and vacated, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from implementing the certification requirement.

June 3, 2025: Judge Edgardo Ramos granted a preliminary injunction, and the Government appealed to the Second Circuit the following day.

June 20, 2025: The Second Circuit denied the Government’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

1:25-cv-01334

Complaint

Since 2010, Congress has sponsored the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP Program), a bipartisan public-health initiative to fund diverse organizations working to give adolescents the knowledge and tools needed to improve sexual and reproductive health. In 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implemented new requirements for certain organizations seeking to receive funding through this program. In particular, the requirement articulated that these organizations must demonstrate “alignment with current Presidential Executive Orders” and identified several Executive Orders that may be of most relevance to the work of the TPP Program (including EOs 14168, 14190, 14187, 14151, and 14173). Plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood organizations across the country that have historically received funding from the TPP Program, allege that Defendants have violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) “contrary to law” and “arbitrary and capricious” standards. They also bring an ultra vires action, alleging that HHS exceeded its authority by imposing additional obligations on TPP grantees not contemplated by the statutory framework established by Congress for the TPP Program. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent HHS from implementing, maintaining, or giving effect to the new HHS requirements.

Update 1: On May 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of HHS’s new requirements on certain TPP recipients.

Update 2: On May 28, 2025, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 3: On June 26, the court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that Plaintiffs “will not face irreparable harm for at least another few months.” The court ordered the parties to meet, confer, and jointly propose an expedited briefing schedule for future proceedings on the merits.

Update 4: On Jun. 27, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit from the district court’s denial of preliminary relief.

Update 5: On Jul. 11, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the district court case, which the court closed on Jul. 14. 

Update 6: On Jul. 29, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation.

Update 7: On Jul. 29, a subset of Plaintiffs from the dismissed case filed a new, similar action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-02453 (D.D.C.). Defendants filed a notice of related case and a motion to transfer on Aug. 11, which the court in the new matter denied on Aug. 13.

1:25-cv-05462

Complaint

Amended Complaint

2025-06-16

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is mandated by statute to run Securing the Cities (STC), a counterterrorism program under which local governments deemed to be at high risk of nuclear or other terrorist attack obtain funding from DHS to counter such threats. Plaintiff City of Chicago has entered into cooperative agreements with DHS since 2016 and was allegedly granted over $4 million in funding to use during the period of 2021 to 2030. Since Feb. 21, 2025, Chicago has submitted five reimbursement requests to DHS totalling over $1 million, none of which have been paid. DHS later announced that STC’s funding for equipment was being paused as part of DHS’s funding freeze. Chicago filed suit on May 16 against DHS and Kristi Noem, in her capacity as the Secretary of DHS, to challenge the funding freeze.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants have acted ultra vires and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by freezing STC’s funding because Congress, which holds the power of the purse, enacted STC and repeatedly appropriated funds for it. Plaintiff argues that failure to issue said funding is a usurpation by the Executive of Congress’s authority. Plaintiff further claims that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act because DHS has a non-discretionary duty to issue reimbursements within 30 days of receipt and failure to do so qualifies as inaction subject to review. Plaintiff also argues that the Defendants violate the APA because they took action that was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Constitution and federal law, and without observing the procedures required by law. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from freezing STC funding and failing to issue reimbursements.

Update 1: On Jun. 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle as plaintiffs. The amended filing described each city’s reliance on the Securing the Cities program and the harms from DHS’s freeze on 2025 reimbursements and failure to release approved 2024 funds, shifted emphasis from primarily APA claims to a stronger Appropriations Clause theory challenging DHS’s withholding of congressionally allocated funds, and stressed the need to restore funding before major events requiring heightened security, including political conventions and national holidays.

1:25-cv-05463

Complaint

On Feb. 10, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) abruptly paused all federal grants previously disbursed or made available under the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), cancelling them completely a few weeks later. The actions followed a tweet on Feb. 10 by Elon Musk claiming that the program was unlawfully assisting undocumented people in New York. The complaint alleges that while FEMA sent the Plaintiffs similar letters with deadlines to respond to an investigation into unlawful use of the funds to shelter undocumented people, FEMA preemptively terminated the program in its entirety before the deadlines. Plaintiffs allege that the termination violates the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause as the Shelter and Services Program was enacted and funded by Congress, and any rescinding or deference of funding by the Executive requires the approval of Congress which was not sought. Further, plaintiffs allege that the Defendants acted in ultra vires, beyond their legal authority, by terminating the Shelter and Services program, and that Defendants actions constitute several substantive and procedural violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including being arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The Plaintiffs requested that the Court vacate FEMA’s termination of the Shelter and Services Program, restore funding, and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendants to undo the removal of funds and eliminate impediments to the Plaintiffs’ ability to submit future drawdown requests under the Shelter and Services Program and to process future requests.

Update 1: On July 12 Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 2: Judge Matthew Kennelly granted a TRO on July 12, temporarily prohibited DHS and FEMA from reallocating certain SSP funds, but then vacated the TRO on July 15 following a hearing.

Update 3: On Oct. 31, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from (1) eliminating or terminating the SPP in the 2023 and 2024 congressional appropriations and (2) withholding FY2023 and FY2024 SPP funding for the reasons identified in the Mar. 11 and Apr. 1 letters. The court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their separation-of-powers and APA arbitrary-and-capricious claims because DHS/FEMA lacked discretion to ignore Congress’s directive that SSP funds “shall be transferred” to FEMA to support sheltering and offered only shifting, unsupported rationales (including generalized assertions of illegality and changed enforcement priorities) that failed to provide a reasoned explanation or account for grantees’ reliance interests

Update 4: On Nov. 3, Judge Kennelly issued an order confirming his Oct. 31 preliminary-injunction decision.

Update 5: On Nov. 13, Judge Kennelly denied the government’s motion to clarify the Oct. 31 preliminary injunction.

8:25-cv-01620

Complaint

Following several executive orders (EOs 14168, 14151, 14173) and directives targeting “diversity”, “gender ideology” and “wokeness”, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancelled hundreds of research grants totalling over $800 million, which were previously dedicated to addressing the health needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) Americans. Plaintiffs represent several healthcare practitioners and a nonprofit who work in the LGBTQI+ health industry and who anticipate their work to be significantly harmed by the cancellation of NIH grants. Defendants are the NIH, the NIH Director, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the HHS Secretary. Plaintiffs allege that the actions of the NIH and HHS constitute ten violations of law, including violations of the Separation of Powers, several violations of the APA (for being arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, contrary to regulation, contrary to a constitutional right, and for being unreasonably delayed), and violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Component. They seek declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Update 1: On Aug. 1, Judge Griggsby granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, barring NIH and HHS from enforcing any directives or guidance that terminate or deny funding because a project involves LGBTQI+ health, gender identity, diversity, equity, or related topics. It also vacated the prior cancellation of the plaintiffs’ grants and ordered the agencies to process their (and GLMA members’) applications in the normal course. The judge denied the portion of the plaintiffs’ motion based upon their APA claims, determining that the plaintiffs have not established that the court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction.

Update 2: On Aug. 14, Judge Griggsby issued a memorandum opinion to her Aug. 1 preliminary injunction.

1:25-cv-01643

Complaint

Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations that have been receiving federal grants from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for a variety of services at the community level, including training law enforcement, developing initiatives to prevent crime and address its drivers, assisting crime victims, and working to interrupt gun crime. Many of these organisations had been receiving grant funding for numerous years. In April 2025, OJP informed Plaintiffs and other grantees that they were terminating their agreements and grants as the “awards no longer effectuate[] the program goals or agency priorities.” OJP ordered the grantees to stop work immediately and informed them that they would be reimbursed only up to the date of the termination letter. Plaintiffs state that they received no advance notice of the terminations and have substantial unreimbursed expenses incurred prior to termination. They allege that the terminations have caused immediate and irreparable harm to both their organisations and to the recipients of their services. The Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on May 21, seeking to represent a class of all entities whose OJP grants were terminated in April 2025.They argue that the termination violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause due to vagueness and the failure to provide reasonable notice and due process, as well as the Separation of Powers, Spending and Appropriations Clauses, and the Take Care Clause as an unlawful exercise of the exclusive right of Congress to appropriate federal money. They also argue that the terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to a constitutional right, and contrary to law on the basis that OJP did not “clearly and unambiguously” state in Plaintiffs’ award documents that it could terminate an award because an award no longer effectuates program goals or agency priorities. Plaintiffs seek to declare the terminations unlawful and unconstitutional and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and their agents from enforcing or implementing the terminations.

Update 1: On Jul. 7, Judge Mehta denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed their challenge to the administration’s grant termination from the Office of Justice Programs for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. While calling the administration’s actions “shameful” and “likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,” the court concluded it lacked the power to hear claims under the Administrative Procedure Act—finding these should instead be brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims—and that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation. Plaintiffs immediately appealed this decision to the D.C. Circuit.

Update 2: On Jul. 21, Judge Mehta granted in part Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal of its order denying their preliminary-injunction motion and dismissing the case. Although the court declined to reinstate Plaintiffs’ grants pending appeal, it found a narrower injunction appropriate—“one that prevents the re-obligation of the five named Plaintiffs’ cancelled grant funding … [and] prohibits Defendants from re-obligating or otherwise diminishing the sums awarded but terminated under Plaintiffs’ grant agreements.”

Update 3: On Aug. 1, an appeals court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal, declining to reinstate the terminated grant funding from the Office of Justice Programs. Without specific reasoning, the court found the plaintiffs did not substantiate “the stringent requirements” for an injunction pending appeal, particularly their claims of irreparable harm. However, the court granted the motion to expedite the litigation.

Update 4: On Sept. 30, Judge Mehta extended his Jul. 21 injunction pending appeal through Dec. 1.

1:25-cv-04452

Complaint

On April 18, 2025, the National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent federal agency established by Congress to support and fund scientific and engineering research and contribute to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (“STEM”) education, announced a new directive (the Priority Directive) for NSF funding programs which purported to the change the objectives of the agency, particularly with respect to efforts to increase the participation of women, minorities, and people with disabilities in STEM. Shortly thereafter the NSF began terminating awards to such programs which it claimed were not aligned with the new priorities. The NSF issued another directive (the Indirect Cost Directive) on May 2, 2025, capping the available reimbursement of “indirect costs” in awards to 15 percent, which have historically been negotiated by research institutions on an individual basis and were often much higher.

A group of sixteen Plaintiff States brought a suit against the NSF on May 28, alleging that the directives will damage state and nationwide development of the STEM workforce and will make it impossible to sustain research, and claiming that the directives are unconstitutional and violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In particular, the States claim that the Priority Directive is directly contrary to a number of congressional statutes which both broadly and explicitly direct the NSF to promote the participation of underrepresented populations in STEM fields, and violates the APA as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious as well as violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and Take Care clause of the Constitution. The States also allege that the Indirect Cost initiative violates the APA as contrary to law, as existing law does not authorize the NSF to unilaterally impose a cap on the existing rate, and is arbitrary and capricious. The Plaintiff States seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that holds both Directives as unlawful and enjoining any implementation of the Directives.

Update 1: On June 30, Judge Cronan denied the National Association of Scholars’ (“NAS”) motion to intervene but allowed NAS to file a brief as an amicus curiae.

Update 2: On August 1, Judge Cronan denied the states’ motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that the court likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Update 3: On Aug. 22 (corrected in an Aug. 25 filing), Plaintiffs notified the court of their voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

1:25-cv-00998

Complaint

On March 7, 2025, the Deputy Administrator of AMS sent a letter to PDA notifying the state agency that the existing contract for the LFPA funding would be terminated in 60 days because the program no longer effectuates agency priorities. Plaintiffs are Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, Russell Redding, Secretary of the PDA, and the PDA. In a suit filed Jun. 4, Plaintiffs allege that cancelling this contract will have a negative impact on Pennsylvania food banks, will deprive low-income Pennsylvanians of food and nutrition, and remove an important market for 190 Pennsylvania farmers who sell to the PDA. Plaintiffs allege that the termination violates the APA, arguing that the decision is arbitrary and capricious, constitutes unlawful agency action, violates controlling regulations regarding grant termination, and deprives Plaintiffs of due process required under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have requested the court vacate the termination.

Dec. 3, 2025: The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This order also denied Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion as moot.

Jan. 2, 2026: Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s Dec. 3, order to the Third Circuit.

1:25-cv-01775

Complaint

Throughout the initial weeks of his administration, President Donald Trump issued a series of Executive Orders – EOs 14151, 14173, and 14154 – seeking to end federal support for initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and to climate change mitigation. Defendants terminated plaintiffs’ previously awarded grant funds, notifying plaintiffs that the grants were “inconsistent with, and no longer effectuate” the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) priorities under 2 C.F.R 200.340(a)(4), as determined by Trump’s recently issued EOs. Plaintiffs claim that these sudden terminations occurred without the notice and individualized consideration required by law, and that they harm the plaintiff organizations, the plaintiff organizations’ clients, and the plaintiff organizations’ communities by forcing plaintiffs to layoff employees, to discontinue services, and, in some cases, to shut down completely. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the grant terminations 1) deprive plaintiffs of the notice and due process mandated by the Fifth Amendment, 2) are contrary to the statutory law and regulations governing the grants (Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 400.1; Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978; Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) and thereby violate § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 3) are arbitrary and capricious under § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 4) violate the Constitution’s separation of powers (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 1) by withholding funds previously appropriated by Congress, and 5) constitute an ultra vires action that exceeds the USDA’s authority. Plaintiffs request that the court vacate the grant terminations through temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions.

June 24, 2025: The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Aug. 14, 2025: The court granted in significant part a preliminary injunction protecting the Plaintiffs’ grant awards.

Oct. 10, 2025: Defendants appealed the Aug. 14 preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit.

Dec. 5, 2025: The D.C. Circuit granted Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of two related cases (Vera Institute of Justice v. Dept. of Justice, No. 25-5248; Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122)

1:25-cv-00279

Complaint

Plaintiffs are a coalition of domestic violence and sexual assault groups that have received federal grant funding from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), which supports services for victims and survivors, including emergency shelters, legal assistance, counseling, and community education. Many of these non-profit organizations and coalitions have received OVW funding for decades. In June 2025, OVW issued a set of new certification requirements for grantees, which prohibits the use of federal funding to “promote gender ideology,” operate “DEI programs,” or "prioritize illegal aliens[.]” Plaintiffs allege that new OVW requirements are overbroad, go against the core values of the Violence Against Women Act, and terminate funding that keeps life-saving programs running. Alternatively, Plaintiffs allege that agreeing to new OVW requirements will expose them to liability under the False Claims Act, which carries financial penalties and allows private parties to sue for alleged misuse of federal funds. On June 16, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the District of Rhode Island. Plaintiffs allege that new OVW requirements violate the Spending Clause and the Separation of Powers Clause for imposing unauthorized and coercive grant restrictions; infringe on First Amendment rights for compelling and chilling speech; and violate the Due Process Clause for crafting vague and ambiguous conditions. Plaintiffs also allege that the new requirements exceed the Executive’s power, and the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act for being arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law and constitutional right, and exceeding Defendants’ statutory authority. Plaintiffs seek to declare the new requirements as unlawful and to enjoin the DOJ and OVW from enforcing the new certification conditions as part of the OVW grant process. 

Update 1: On August 8, Judge Smith granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a Section 705 preliminary stay, halting the administration from imposing additional conditions on grants involving domestic violence programs, including conditions stemming from the administration’s Executive Order 14168 (“gender Ideology) and Executive Order 14173 (DEI). The court ruled that the challenged conditions violated the Administrative Procedure Act regarding arbitrary and capricious agency action.

Update 2: On Nov. 19, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion (and memorandum in support) for partial summary judgment and permanent relief on their claims challenging those same New Conditions, requesting vacatur under Section 706 and a permanent injunction barring enforcement or re-imposition of the conditions (including where certifications were already signed). The motion requests summary judgment on Claim VII and, as to the remaining claims, on all challenged OVW conditions except the OJP Anti-DEI Certification Requirement, which they plan to address in a later motion once the administrative record is produced.

1:25-cv-00342

Complaint 2025-07-21

Amended Complaint 2025-09-15

The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Health and Human Services (HHS) have imposed new conditions on grantees requiring them to certify compliance with certain ideological positions related to gender; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and abortion. Plaintiffs are 22 non-profit organizations that receive federal grants to assist victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and individuals and families facing homelessness. They filed suit against HUD, HHS, and other agencies and government officials to challenge the new conditions, arguing that they are being forced to make an impossible choice of either fundamentally changing their programming and exposing themselves to civil and criminal liability under the False Claims Act or ending their federally funding programs, which would have devastating impacts on those they serve. Plaintiffs argue that the government violated the separation of powers, spending clause, First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. They also argue that defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act for acting in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, contrary to constitutional right, arbitrarily and capriciously, and without observance of procedure required by law. Plaintiffs further argue that defendants acted ultra vires. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, a stay of the new conditions, and preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Update 1: On July 28, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 2: On August 7, the district court granted plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 3: On August 20, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 4: On September 15, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include additional defendants and to provide updated factual information.

Update 5: On September 16, the district court granted plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 6: On October 1, all defendants filed and the district court denied a motion to stay given the government shutdown. The district court granted plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 7: On October 10, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge DuBose held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as the agencies “engaged in a baseless and arbitrary process” and could not provide an explanation for the added conditions. The court also held that the requirements likely violated the First Amendment for imposing a viewpoint-based condition on the receipt of federal funds, and the Fifth Amendment, for being unconstitutionally vague, emphasizing “[t]he phrases ‘promote gender ideology’ and ‘promote elective abortion’ obscure meaning like Russian dolls stacked inside each other.”

Update 8: On Oct. 23, the court issued an amended preliminary injunction.

Update 9: On Dec. 5, the court denied plaintiffs’ Dec. 3 emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, finding that HUD’s November NOFO already made clear that the enjoined conditions would not be enforced while the Oct. 23 injunction remained in effect, but ordered HUD to issue clarifying guidance by Dec. 10. On Dec. 9, before that clarification was issued, HUD withdrew the challenged NOFO, and the parties agreed the clarification requirement was moot.

1:25-cv-01923

Complaint

Part of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) congressional mandate is to expand the participation of underrepresented persons in STEM fields. In line with this mandate, the NSF has long been a major source of federal funding for projects to broaden participation of underrepresented populations in the STEM field. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” Pursuant to this EO, the NSF updated its priorities for funding research and terminated over $1 billion of previously awarded scientific grants, cooperative agreements, and other financial awards. Plaintiffs are organizations of educators, professors, researchers, graduate students, and organizations whose NSF awards have recently been terminated by NSF. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on June 18, 2025, alleging that Defendants’ actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of agency discretion, not in accordance with law, and unlawfully withheld under the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, they allege that Defendants violated separation of powers, the Spending and Appropriations Clauses of the Constitution, as well as procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs request a declaration that Defendants’ actions are unlawful and to enjoin them from withholding funds and further terminating funds.

June 23, 2025: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

Sept. 10, 2025: The court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

2:25-cv-00586

Complaint

On June 20, a New Mexico school district (the “School District”) filed suit against the Trump administration, alleging that its effort to rescind $6 million in federally appropriated school mental health grants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The Department of Education terminated these grants on April 29, 2025, declaring that the funding of mental health grants did not reflect the priorities of the Trump administration. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants (Linda McMahon, in her capacity as Secretary of Education, and the US Department of Education) violated the First Amendment by restricting speech between mental health professionals and School District staff, the Fifth Amendment due process clause, the spending clause,and the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Plaintiff further alleges that the Department exceeded its statutory authority. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Update 1: On June 23, Plaintiff filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). A supporting memorandum for the TRO motion was filed on June 26.

Update 2: On July 18, Judge Thompson denied a motion of preliminary injunction from the Board of Education for the Silver Consolidated Schools and dismissed their lawsuit, which seeks to restore the grant terminated by the administration. The court noted the lawsuit is a contractual claim and belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, and even though “the grant seems like a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer funds” and seems to be lawful under relevant laws, “there isn’t jurisdiction in this Court for these claims.”

Update 3: On Sept. 5, the court issued a final order of dismissal, closing the case.

1:25-cv-11816

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-07-31

A coalition of 21 states filed suit on June 24, 2025 against the Trump Administration for terminating billions of dollars worth of grants, appropriated by Congress, previously awarded to these states for critical funding. The Administration has grounded its authority to slash this funding in a subclause (the “Clause”) found within federal regulations promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which provides that federal agencies may terminate grants “[...] to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” Calling the terminations “unprecedented and unlawful,” the Plaintiffs allege that the Administration’s actions violate separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek a declaration that the Clause and agency regulations incorporating the Clause do not authorize the terminations of awards and declaratory and injunctive relief barring the Defendants from using the Clause to terminate grants.

Update 1: On Jun. 27, Judge Julia Kobick recused herself from participating in this matter. Judge Indira Talwani was reassigned to the matter on that same day.

Update 2: On Jul. 31, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Governor Laura Kelly (Kansas) and the Office of the Governor ex rel. Andy Beshear (Kentucky) as Plaintiffs, and adding the U.S. Department of the Interior and Doug Burgum, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, as Defendants.

1:25-cv-01965

Complaint

The National Fair Housing Alliance and Tennessee Fair Housing Council filed a class action complaint against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), challenging the administration’s refusal to release congressionally appropriated grants under HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), a program that supports investigations, outreach, and enforcement related to housing discrimination. Plaintiffs allege that HUD has neither administered existing grants, nor awarded new grants from pending application cycles, and refuses to facilitate second and third year funding from previously approved multi-year grants that have only been partially funded, and upon which recipients have relied on to engage in ongoing activities that take multiple years. Plaintiffs contend that HUD’s actions constitute violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the unlawful withholding of agency action and arbitrary and capricious, as well as violating the Appropriations Clause, Separation of Powers, and Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief ordering the agency to administer existing grants and to award and obligate outstanding appropriations. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to expedite the proceeding.

Update 1: On Jul. 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

Update 2: On Jul. 28, Judge Sooknanan granted in partPlaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, though on narrower terms than Plaintiffs requested. The court focused on HUD’s failure to award new FY 2024 FHIP grants, while deferring ruling on the multi-year grant claims at Plaintiffs’ request. The court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims under the APA (unreasonable-delay) and separation of powers claim (because HUD may not allow duly appropriated FHIP funds to lapse). The court ordered HUD to comply with its statutory obligations to obligate FY 2024 FHIP funds before they lapse on Sept. 30, to file by Aug. 4 a detailed plan explaining how it will meet that deadline, and to submit weekly status reports thereafter, but declined for now to order that FY 2024 funds remain available past the lapse date or to impose more prescriptive deadlines.

Update 3: On Aug. 11, with both sides agreeing no further briefing or evidence was needed, the court converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction, again ordering HUD to make FHIP funds available before Sept. 30, 2025 and to continue filing weekly status reports on new grant awards. The injunction remains in effect until further order of the court.

2:25-cv-01228

Complaint

On April 29, 2025, the Department of Education (DOE) announced that due to the current Administration’s priorities they would be discontinuing mental health funding previously provided to high-need, low-income, rural schools pursuant to two different grant programs, the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH), which were designed to expand the pipeline of mental health professionals and increase the number of professionals in grantee schools. A group of 16 states filed suit to challenge the withdrawal of funding, asserting that the action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law as it violates regulations addressing continuation funding for multi-year grants awards, and failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures. The Plaintiff States also claim that the withdrawal violates the Spending Clause and Separation of Powers and is ultra vires as conduct outside the authority granted to the Executive branch. The Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring implementation of the DOE’s decision and declaratory judgement holding the DOE’s decision unlawful.

July 8, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, on the grounds that irreparable harm to schools, students, and mental health service trainees will be caused by withdrawing the planned funds, noting that the funding helps reduce suicide rates, train new mental health counselors, and avert gun violence and drug overdoses.

Oct. 27, 2025: District Court Judge Evanson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Education from terminating $1 billion in funding for school-based mental health services in fifteen states. Judge Evanson held that the administration’s decision to cancel the grants was “wholly conclusory,” and thus likely arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction applies to all plaintiff states except Nevada, whose funding was set to expire before the effective data of the administration’s decision.

Dec. 4, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction that blocks the administration’s effort to terminate $1 billion in funding for school-based mental health services in 15 states.

Dec. 19, 2025: Judge Evanson granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Evanson vacated the Department of Education’s Directive procedure, discontinuation notices, and letters denying reconsideration with respect to discontinued Grantees in Plaintiff States and permanently enjoined the Department of Education from considering any new priorities or any other information not in keeping with the existing rule when determining grant eligibility.

Jan. 14, 2026: The Ninth Circuit granted the Defendants’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal.

3:25-cv-00141

Complaint

Launch Alaska, a nonprofit startup accelerator that helps startup companies develop their businesses, received grant funding from the Office of Naval Research (ONR) through the Alaska Regional Collaboration Technology Innovation and Commercialization (ARCTIC) program – a joint public-private initiative aiming to strengthen energy, transit, and industrial capacity in Alaska. On April 30, 2025, Launch Alaska received notice from ONR that its funding was terminated as it no longer effectuates the goals of the ARCTIC program as defined in a new memo from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (SECDEF Memo) of March 20, 2025. The notice cited a general decision to end funding for research activities in areas of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), climate change, social science, Covid-19 pandemic response, and related programs. After ONR sustained the termination on appeal, the Plaintiff filed suit asserting that the funding termination and ONR’s response on appeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to sustain the previously awarded funding from ONR’s ARCTIC program.

Update 1: On July 3, Launch Alaska filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On Aug. 5, Judge G. Murray Snow granted Launch Alaska’s preliminary injunction motion and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants are now preliminarily enjoined from treating Plaintiff’s grant award as terminated.

Update 3: On Aug. 19, the Defendants answered the complaint, but on Oct. 3 all parties served notice to dismiss the case with prejudice, which the court granted the same day.

1:25-cv-11231

Complaint

Plaintiffs, Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and several universities bring suit against Defendants, National Science Foundation (NSF) and Brian Stone, in his official capacity as NSF’s acting director. The suit challenges the unilateral decision of the NSF to cut “indirect cost rates” for government-funded research. Indirect costs are costs necessary for research to occur but harder to attribute to individual projects. This policy is identical in key respects to policies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Energy (DOE) that district courts have already enjoined. Plaintiffs allege that NSF has not attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s policies.

On May 2, 2025, NSF issued a new policy imposing a 15% cap on all new grant and cooperative agreement awards to universities, which is applied only to universities. Plaintiffs allege that the Rate Cap Policy is unlawful as it violates the governing statutes, which authorize agencies to provide for reimbursable indirect costs via a tailored approach, as well as the indirect cost regulation that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) promulgated, which provides that indirect cost rates must be accepted by all federal agencies. The Rate Cap Policy is also alleged to have violated OMB’s requirement that notice be provided for any departure from the negotiated rates. Plaintiffs also allege that the Rate Cap Policy’s explanation falls short of satisfying the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) reasoned-decisionmaking requirements; arbitrary and capricious, the Policy also singles out universities without explaining why it exempts other recipients. In addition, the effects of the Policy are alleged to be immediate and irreparable.

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: expedited resolution the action to prevent harm to Plaintiffs; vacatur of the Rate Cap Policy; declaratory judgment finding the Policy invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law; an injunction prohibiting the implementation of the Policy; and an order awarding Plaintiffs’ costs of suit and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

June 20, 2025: The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Implementation of the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is vacated and declared invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The court further ordered that within 72 hours of entry of this order, Defendants provide written notice of the order to all funding recipients affected by the 15% Indirect Cost Rate.

June 23, 2025: NSF submitted a notice to notify the court regarding its compliance with the court’s summary judgment order.

Sept. 30, 2025: The appeal was ordered voluntarily dismissed.

1:25-cv-03248

Complaint

This case continues the proceedings in Right To Be v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-03676, which was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Case was opened in D.C. on Sept. 23, 2025 and is before Judge Amit P. Mehta.

On Apr. 22, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismantled the Congressionally created Community-Based Approaches to Hate Crimes grant program (Anti-Hate Crimes Grant Program) which had been awarding grants through the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Bureau of Justice Assistance. Organizations receiving these grants had been developing programs designed to promote community safety by empowering community members to combat hate crimes and other forms of bigotry, and were informed en masse by boilerplate notices that their awards were being terminated because their programs no longer effectuate “agency priorities.” Three organizations that had been receiving funds under the Anti-Hates Grant Program filed suit on July 2, 2025, alleging that the terminations violated the Due Process Clause, Separation of Powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. They seek a declaration that the terminations are unlawful and void and preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcing the terminations.

Oct. 4, 2025: The court granted parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings until Dec. 1, 2025, ordering that defendants may not re-obligate or otherwise diminish the sums awarded but terminated under Plaintiffs’ grant agreements until that time.

1:25-cv-12006

Complaint

On March 27, the newly installed Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) terminated the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, a bipartisan initiative created and funded by Congress since 2000 which provides federal grants to help States and their communities fortify infrastructure, homes, and communal resources against disasters before they occur, asserting that it failed to improve hazard mitigation and supplanted local investment in disaster preparedness. The FEMA Director further instructed FEMA to redirect the $1 billion in funds previously allocated to the program by Congress to FEMA’s disaster response programs or to the US Treasury.

On July 16, 2025, twenty States filed suit challenging the termination of the BRIC program, claiming that the termination – along with the withholding and redirection of Congressionally appropriated funds – violate the Separation of Powers, the Appropriations Clause, and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. The Plaintiff States further allege that the termination of the BRIC program violates the Administrative Procedure Act as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious agency action, and they also argue that the officials currently acting as FEMA senior officials lack legal authority to implement or ratify the termination under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) and the Appointments Clause. Plaintiffs seek the program’s restoration to its pre-April 2025 status and an injunction against the use or expiration of BRIC funds for non-BRIC purposes.

Update 1: On Aug. 5, Judge Richard Stearns granted a preliminary injunction that enjoins Defendants from spending the funds allocated to BRIC for non-BRIC purposes until the court is able to render a final judgment on the merits.

Update 2: On Dec. 11, Judge Stearns granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the administration from terminating the BRIC program without Congressional approval and ordering the administration to take “all steps necessary” to reverse its termination.

2:25-at-00931

Complaint

On June 16, 2025, the Federal Railroad Administration terminated a series of longstanding Cooperative Agreements with the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which together total over $4 billion in federal aid, pursuant to which California has been constructing a high-speed railway connecting the state. The California High-speed Rail Authority, who is responsible for the development and construction of the high-speed railway, is challenging these terminations. They allege that the termination of the cooperative agreements threatens to cause significant economic damage to California and beyond, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief setting aside the termination.

Dec. 23, 2025: California High-Speed Rail Authority dropped its lawsuit against the administration for its termination of grant funding, instead opting to seek funding from private investors for its high-speed rail project.

1:25-cv-00345

Complaint 2025-07-21

Amended Complaint 2025-08-15

Second Amended Complaint 2025-09-23

Third Amended Complaint 2025-12-4

On July 21, 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint against the U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor and their Secretaries in their official capacities. Plaintiffs allege that for nearly three decades the federal government interpreted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to require immigration‑status verification only for certain means‑tested programs, while allowing access regardless of status to community services such as soup kitchens, Head Start, shelters, and substance‑abuse treatment. They contend that, pursuant to President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14218, the agencies recently reversed these interpretations through July 2025 notices that revoke life‑and‑safety exemptions, newly classify thirteen HHS programs and multiple education and workforce‑training programs as “Federal public benefits,” and impose immediate verification obligations on States and subgrantees. Plaintiffs assert four causes of action: (1) APA procedural violations, because the HHS, ED, and DOL notices are substantive rules adopted without required notice‑and‑comment despite major economic effects; (2) APA arbitrary‑and‑capricious violations, for lack of a reasoned explanation and failure to consider reliance interests and public‑health consequences; (3) APA “contrary to law” violations, alleging the agencies’ interpretations conflict with PRWORA’s text and limits on covered benefits; and (4) Spending Clause violations, alleging the notices impose unforeseeable, coercive new conditions on existing federal funds. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments, vacatur and stays of the notices, injunctive relief barring their implementation in plaintiff States, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on the same day, which the court granted.

Update 1: On Aug. 15, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Update 2: On September 10, Judge McElroy granted a preliminary injunction to 20 states and the District of Columbia, blocking the enforcement of four agency notices that required states to verify a person’s lawful immigration status before receiving access to certain federal programs pursuant to Executive Order 14218. The court held that the notices likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Spending Clause, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

Update 3: On September 23, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

Update 4: On November 7, Defendants appealed the order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

Update 5: On December 4, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.

Update 7: On Dec. 11, the First Circuit dismissed Defendant’s appeal of the preliminary injunction pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss, and the mandate issued the same day.

1:25-cv-00347

Complaint

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would delay the disbursement of nearly $7 billion in federal education funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, despite the funding being required by law to be distributed to states on July 1, on the basis that it required time to review whether the funds aligned with the President’s priorities. A coalition of school districts, teachers’ unions, and nonprofit organizations filed suit on July 21, contending that the delay in funding will disrupt school budgets and planning, threaten staffing, programming and student services, and create uncertainty for educators and families. Plaintiffs allege that the Department’s delay violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority and contrary to law, and breaches the Separation of Powers by overriding clear Congressional mandates, and seek a court order compelling immediate release of the funds and declaratory relief.

Update 1: On July 25, the administration reportedly announced it is releasing the relevant school funding it previously withheld on June 30. According to the administration, “OMB has completed its review of Title I-C, Title II-A, Title III-A, and Title IV-A ESEA funds and Title II WIOA funds, and has directed the Department to release all formula funds."

Update 2: On August 4th, Plaintiffs gave notice of the withdrawal of their motion for a preliminary injunction because the Defendants had released the frozen funds at issue.

2:25-cv-01401

Complaint

Over the course of the spring of 2025, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency zeroed out and terminated the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), a grant program established by Congress that allows states to provide essential services to noncitizen migrants after they are processed by DHS. As part of this policy, a $4 million grant awarded to Washington State was revoked. On July 25, Washington filed a complaint challenging the administration’s termination, naming DHS, Secretary Kristi Noem, FEMA, and Senior Official David Richardson as defendants. Washington alleges that the termination of SSP funds has left the state with a $4 million funding gap, disrupting critical services for thousands of newly arrived migrants, including shelter, food, medical care, and hygiene support. Plaintiffs allege that the termination violates the Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act on several counts, and that the termination was ultra vires. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to reverse the termination of the grants, restore funding and stop future executive interference with the grants.

Update 1: On Sept. 22, petitioners filed an amended complaint.

1:25-cv-02453

Complaint

On July 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a new policy mandate for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program. The mandate imposed new requirements on grantees, including mandatory alignment with all current Presidential Executive Orders including content restrictions. In response, Planned Parenthood affiliates filed a complaint on July 29 challenging the mandate. Plaintiffs allege that the new program mandate forces them to choose between compromising their missions or lose critical funding, threatens the viability of their programs and staff employment, and jeopardizes services to vulnerable populations. The complaint asserts violations of the Fifth and First Amendments, the Administrative Procedure Act, and ultra vires action. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the program mandate, preserve their funding and allow continued operation of their TPP program without the new restrictions.

July 31, 2025: Judge Beryl Howell denied the Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order on the basis that the new program mandate has not been enforced against the plaintiffs and is not self-effectuating. While there is a risk that enforcement may occur in the future, that risk is too speculative to require a TRO.

Oct. 7, 2025: The district court issued an opinion and order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and entering judgment the same day in Plaintiffs’ favor. Summary judgment was granted on Count IV of Plaintiffs’ complaint, which challenged the July 1, 2025 OASH Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program Policy Notice (TPP Policy Notice) as arbitrary and capricious under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The court vacated the TPP Policy Notice, enjoined its application by Defendants, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

3:25-cv-00829

Complaint

Following President Trump’s 2025 executive orders, the newly created United States DOGE Service directed the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to terminate nearly all grants issued under the prior administration, dismantle its Federal/State Partnership Office, and halt funding to state and jurisdictional humanities councils, despite Congressional appropriations mandating such support. Two nonprofit organizations representing and supporting state and jurisdictional humanities councils across the United States filed suit on May 15, 2025 challenging the terminations, alleging that the abrupt termination of grants and dismantling of NEH operations have caused widespread program cancellations, staff layoffs, financial instability, and risk of permanent closure for several humanities councils, while undermining the statutory mission of NEH and harming communities nationwide. The complaint asserts violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for unlawful withholding, arbitrary and capricious conduct, and actions contrary to law and statute; constitutional violations of Separation of Powers and the Take Care Clause; and ultra vires actions by DOGE, which lacks congressional authorization. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to restore NEH grant funding and operations, reinstate terminated grants, compel lawful agency conduct, and prevent further unconstitutional interference with congressionally mandated humanities programs.

Update 1: On June 11, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint adds more detailed allegations about the NEH’s internal processes and includes new factual developments, such as NEH’s May 2025 Congressional Justification indicating plans to shut down the agency and the June partial rescission of grant terminations. A new cause of action was added under the Impoundment Control Act and the Appropriations Act alleging ultra vires conduct, and the Separation of Powers claim has been expanded to include violations of the Appropriations Clause, Spending Clause and Take Care Clause. Finally, the amended complaint requests vacatur of both the termination and rescission decisions, and seeks broader injunctive relief including restoration of full funding and reinstatement of NEH’s Federal/State Partnership office.

Update 2: On August 6, Judge Simon granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration from terminating the plaintiffs’ federal grants and prohibiting the administration from spending the appropriated money elsewhere. The court found that the administration likely violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act, emphasizing that “[t]he United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President.”

Update 3: On Sept. 2, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint.

2:25-cv-01507

Complaint

Following a series of executive orders issued in early 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) terminated two federal climate resilience awards to Washington State, citing a shift in agency priorities aligned with the Trump Administration’s new directives. In response, the State of Washington filed a complaint alleging that the termination of the “Equitable Framework for Coastal Resilience” and “Tribal Stewards” awards disrupted critical climate resilience initiatives, eliminated jobs, undermined tribal partnerships, and wasted substantial state investments. The State further asserts that the abrupt cancellation of funding impairs the state’s ability to support vulnerable communities and implement its Climate Resilience Strategy., and alleges the administration’s termination has violated the Spending Clause, Separation of Powers, Appointment Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act as not in accordance with law or procedure and arbitrary and capricious. The Plaintiff State seeks to vacate the termination and reinstate the award, as well as the prevention of future terminations unless conducted in accordance with applicable law and the original award terms.

Update 1: On Oct. 22, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On Oct. 30, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-6881).

1:25-cv-00404

Complaint

Pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) enacted by Congress in 1984, states have regularly received substantial grants to provide resources and services to victims and survivors of crime, allocated according to both fixed statutory formulas and to a competitive process. Congress specified the criteria for determining the eligibility of a victim assistance program to receive the funds, which make no reference to civil immigration policy. Many of these states have also enacted laws or policies to govern state and local engagement with immigration efforts, including policies designed to ensure that an immigrant can come forward to state and local law enforcement agencies when they have been victims or witnesses to a crime, without fear that this will lead to their deportation.

On Jan. 20, 2025 Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14159 titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion”, which mandated that “so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions … do not receive access to Federal funds”. Subsequently, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) , the program office within DOJ responsible for administering VOCA grants, implemented a policy of refusing to allow grant recipients to use any awarded funds for victim compensation and assistance unless they agree to assist federal immigration enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On Jul. 21 OVC specified new immigration-related conditions for the issuance of future funding, dictating that all programs or activities must give notice and full access to DHS agents and that funds can be denied if the program is directly or indirectly “imped[ing] or hinder[ing] enforcement of federal immigration law” in any other way.

The Plaintiff States filed suit on August 18, alleging that the new conditions are unlawful and will cause significant harm to their efforts to help vulnerable crime victims and their families. They contend that the imposition of the conditions are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as agency action in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law and constitutional right, and arbitrary and capricious, and also allege the conditions violate Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause and are ultra vires. The Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the immigration enforcement conditions are unlawful, to vacate the OVC’s adoption of the conditions, and to preliminary and permanently enjoin their implementation or enforcement.

Update 1: On October 3, the Department of Justice reportedly backed away from imposing new immigration-related conditions on Victims of Crime Act grants, following a multistate lawsuit led by New Jersey and joined by 20 others. State attorneys general had argued the conditions violated the Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act, and were rooted in Executive Order 14159, which sought to bar “so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions” from federal funding.

2:25-cv-04887

Complaint

On August 26, 2025, the Woodmere Art Museum in Pennsylvania filed a complaint challenging the administration’s termination of its federal grant by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) following the announced dismantling of the entire agency. The museum had been awarded a $750,000 grant in 2024 under the Save America’s Treasures Historic Preservation Fund (SAT), a competitive grant administered by the National Park Service and the IMLS, after a determination that the museum’s collection was “nationally significant.” The grant allowed the museum to take on a conservation project set to be finished in time for the America 250 celebration in 2026 and would have been available to the museum from October 2024 through September 2026. The museum alleges that the grant termination violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and abuse of discretion, the Appropriations Clause, the Take Care Clause, and Separation of Powers.

Sept. 5, 2025: Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the case.

1:25-cv-01432

Complaint

On Sept. 2, 2025, Plaintiff, Fairfax County School Board (FCSB), which operates Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), brought this action against Linda McMahon, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education, and the U.S. Department of Education (ED). FCSB alleges that the ED arbitrarily and unlawfully placed FCPS on “high-risk status” and restricted its access to approximately $167 million in annual federal education funds to a reimbursement-only basis, due to FCPS’s policy allowing students to access restrooms and locker rooms aligning with gender identity. The ED asserts this policy violates Title IX, but FCSB argues it is mandated by controlling Fourth Circuit precedent, specifically Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, and required by Virginia state law. FCSB further alleges that the ED’s actions—taken shortly after the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed Grimm—violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by being arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and lack proper justification under relevant regulations and risk factors. Additional causes of action include violations of the Spending Clause, for imposing ambiguous and coercive funding conditions without clear notice, and acting ultra vires by exceeding statutory and constitutional authority. FCSB seeks vacatur of the ED’s designation and funding restrictions, declaratory judgments affirming the lawfulness of FCPS’s policy and the ongoing validity of the Grimm decision, prohibitions against further enforcement or funding freezes, and restoration of any withheld funds. The complaint emphasizes the irreparable and existential harm of lost federal funds affecting vulnerable student services, and the legal conflict forced upon FCPS between following binding judicial precedent and ED directives. Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and/or TRO at the same time.

Sept. 5, 2025: The court denied Plaintiffs’ emergency motions for a preliminary injunction and/or TRO and dismissed the complaints without prejudice.

Sept. 9, 2025: The Fairfax County School Board filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 1, 2025: The Fourth Circuit denied the appellant’s emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal.

1:25-cv-00499

Complaint

On August 18, 2025, the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) notified Plaintiff States of a new condition on grants administered by OJP restricting use of those funds to provide legal services to certain aliens, including those receiving services under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG). On September 15, 2025, a revised condition was added to the DOJ Grant Financial Guide which disallowed using awarded funds to provide most legal services to “any removable alien” or “any alien otherwise unlawfully present in the United States. Funds could continue being used for orders of protection for victims of crime, services related to trafficking, obtaining T- or U-visas or “continued presence” status, and any other services expressly required by any law or judicial order governing an award. Plaintiffs States alleged the condition violates the Spending Clause because it is unconstitutionally retroactive and ambiguous. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that the condition violates the APA because it is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law because existing VOCA and VAWA regulations state that eligibility for services “is not dependent on the victim’s immigration status.” Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, a stay, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against implementing the condition on grants in or against the Plaintiff States.

1:25-cv-00510

Complaint

[Coming soon - On October 6, a coalition of labor, nonprofit, and solar energy business plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Environmental Protection Agency, seeking to block its termination of the Solar for All program, which provided low-income households and disadvantaged communities access to solar technology. Plaintiffs argue that although Congress <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill">repealed parts of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, it only rescinded “unobligated balances,” leaving intact the $7 billion Solar For All grants that the EPA had already awarded.

Plaintiffs claim that by terminating the program, the administration violated the Presentment Clauses, Separation of Powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act.]

1:25-cv-03606

Complaint

[Coming soon - On October 7, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a digital equity focused non-profit organization, filed a complaint against the administration for its repeal of the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program, which Congress established by the Digital Equity Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1721-1726, and which increases access to low-cost broadband and online devices for communities lacking reliable digital services. Plaintiffs allege the termination of the Digital Equity grant program violates the Separation of Powers, Spending Power, and the Administrative Procedure Act and seek injunctive and declaratory relief.]

1:25-cv-12419

Complaint

[Coming soon - On October 10, a national anti-human trafficking coalition filed a complaint challenging the administration’s restriction of funds to organizations conducting DEI-related work, as imposed under Executive Orders 14151 and 14173. Plaintiffs allege that the government’s conditions on funding violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment’s protections for due process, and the Spending Clause, arguing that only Congress may attach conditions or terminate congressionally appropriated funds under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). They seek declaratory judgment that the Executive Orders are unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctions against their further implementation.]

2:25-cv-01435

Complaint

The Trump administration issued two executive orders—Executive Order No. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” and No. 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which direct federal agencies to condition grants and contracts on compliance with prohibitions against diversity, equity, and inclusion and “gender ideology.” In response, the City of Seattle filed a complaint arguing that the orders interfere with congressionally authorized federal grants. Seattle alleges that the Orders jeopardize over $370 million in federal funding for critical infrastructure, housing, public safety, and health programs, as well as subjecting the City to coercive compliance requirements, budgetary uncertainty and potential liability under the False Claims Act. The City argues the orders violate the Spending Clause, Separation of Powers, Due Process, Tenth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and seeks to enjoin their enforcement.

Update 1: On Oct. 31, Judge Rothstein granted Seattle’s Aug. 26 motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the City is likely to succeed on its APA claims that the DEI and Gender Orders unconstitutionally exceed statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious, and enjoined defendants from enforcing Section 3(b)(iv) of Executive Order 14173 and Section 3(g) of Executive Order 14168 against Seattle, ordering them to treat any past enforcement as null and void and to stop applying those conditions to the City’s grant agreements.

1:25-cv-00206

Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-07-02

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald signed an executive order announcing that “so-called ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’” would no longer receive federal funds. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) subsequently announced a policy of withholding federal emergency funding to any state or local government entity that does not comply with the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement policies. Plaintiffs, 20 state governments, sued, alleging that the action violates Constitutional protections for separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory judgment that the effort to condition funding is unconstitutional, an order vacating the government’s immigration-related conditions and any actions taken to implement them, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against further efforts to condition or terminate federal funding based on immigration policy.

Update 1: On May 19, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On July 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (which did not include new claims) and motion for summary judgment.

Update 3: On July 23, Defendants moved for summary judgment as well.

Update 4: On September 24, Judge Smith granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction for 20 states and the District of Columbia, stopping DHS from enforcing immigration-related conditions to federal disaster grants and emergency management programs. The court ruled that the conditions are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, finding that DHS made no attempt to examine relevant data or articulate a reason for the conditions. The court also held the conditions unconstitutional under the Spending Clause, finding them to be overbroad, unrelated to the underlying disaster and emergency management programs, financially coercive, and lacking the clarity necessary for states to exercise their choice of participating in the programs knowingly.

Update 5: On October 14, District Court Judge Smith held that the administration violated the Sept. 24 permanent injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing immigration-related conditions on federal disaster and emergency management funding. The administration’s award letters to the plaintiff states following the judge’s prior ruling said that if the injunction were invalidated, the immigration-related conditions would become effective immediately. Judge Smith found the administration’s inclusion of the contested conditions “a ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster and other funding already appropriated by Congress.” The court ordered the administration to amend the award documents by removing the immigration-related conditions, consistent with the Sept. 24 injunction.

1:25-cv-08547

Complaint

On October 15, the New York City Board of Education filed suit against the Department of Education (DOE) challenging the federal government’s abrupt discontinuation of five-year Magnet Schools Assistance Program grants supporting nineteen NYC public schools. Plaintiff alleges that the DOE terminated approximately $47 million in promised funding based on a finding by the Department’s Office of Civil Rights that NYC’s “Guidelines to Support Transgender and Gender Expansive Students” violates 20 U.S.C § 1681 (Title IX). The Complaint calls the department’s finding “without notice, investigation, hearing, or opportunity to respond, and without a valid substantive basis.” Plaintiff argues that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of Title IX procedures, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and federal grant regulations. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the discontinuation and restoring the magnet-school funding.

4:25-cv-08859

Complaint

On October 15, a coalition of major local housing authorities—those of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Baltimore, Salem, and Portland, among others—filed a complaint challenging the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (“HUD”) newly introduced funding conditions, which require grantees to comply with a set of new terms or risk losing critical funds for 2026. The notice requires grant recipients to: 1) comply with Federal anti-discrimination laws, including laws prohibiting DEI programs; 2) certify that they will not use grant funding to facilitate or promote illegal immigration, or to shield immigrants from deportation; 3) comply with all immigration verification systems; 4) comply with the administration’s prohibition of “gender ideology”; and 5) not use grant funds for elective abortions. Plaintiffs allege that HUD unlawfully conditioned statutory housing subsidies on certifications not authorized by Congress and in contradiction to enacted statutes, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s void-for-vagueness doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in being arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to find the new conditions unlawful and to bar HUD from enforcing them.

Update 1: On Oct. 18, the court granted a temporary restraining order and on Nov. 14 the court granted a preliminary injunction.

1:25-cv-03414

Complaint

On October 15, 2025, Pro Se Plaintiff filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against President Donald Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), among others. Plaintiff is a Principal Investigator of the NSF research grant proposals at issue in this case and the President and CEO of STEMLIFE, the lead institution in the grant proposal. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s grant proposal was initially recommended for funding following the standard NSF review process. However, the proposal was then returned unfunded by the NSF after DOGE officials became involved in the review process, flagging the proposal for containing words such as “diversity.” Plaintiff alleges that these facts constitute a violation of a federal court issued temporary restraining order (TRO) directing federal grant-making agencies to not pause, freeze, block, cancel, or terminate awards and obligations to provide federal aid on the basis of President Donald Trump’s executive orders. Plaintiff also alleges that the NSF’s failure to follow proper procedures in awarding the grant is a violation of the separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, statutes requiring agencies to fulfil congressionally defined missions, and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The suit seeks the court to declare the NSF’s actions as unlawful and require that Defendants set aside the return of Plaintiff’s grant proposal. In addition, the suit requests injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from giving effect to the return of proposals otherwise recommended for funding, to restore previously awarded grants and grant procedures employed prior to January 20, 2025.

1:25-cv-03491

Complaint

On September 29, the Council for Opportunity in Education brought suit for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief against the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S. Secretary of Education. The complaint states that the DOE has rejected applications for the federal Student Support Services (SSS) grant program, statutorily authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) and administered by the DOE and its secretary. The SSS awards 5-year grants to postsecondary institutions to operate projects providing academic assistance and educational support services to low-income students, first-generation college students, and students with disabilities. The Complaint states that, at the time of awarding the new grants in 2025, the DOE rejected applications containing language that violated the Trump administration’s policies against diversity, equity, and inclusion. Plaintiff alleges that the DOE’s actions failed to adhere to the required statutory procedures, are Ultra Vires, in violation of core constitutional principles, and are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The suit seeks declaratory judgement that the DOE’s actions were ultra vires, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious; a writ of mandamus ordering and declaring that the DOE’s denial of the applications were in violation of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (Title VI); and preliminary injunctions ordering the DOE to reconsider the applications and prohibiting the DOE from denying federal financial assistance to the affected programs without satisfying the appropriate procedural requirements.

1:25-cv-03514

Complaint

On September 30, the Council for Opportunity in Education brought suit for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief against the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S. Secretary of Education. The complaint alleges that the DOE elected to terminate numerous grants that were not scheduled to expire until 2026 or later in violation of the law. The programs at issue are the TRIO programs, encompassing eight grant programs designed to help disadvantaged students pursue a postsecondary education. Plaintiff claims that the discontinuation of the grants was in excess of statutory authority and contrary to law, in violation of the procedures required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), specifically 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (Title VI) and 20 U.S.C § 1681 (Title IX) and the observance of required procedures, the applicable department regulations, and constitutional doctrines, including the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Delegation Doctrine, and the Take Care Clause. The suit seeks a court order and declaration, or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus, that the DOE’s actions are in excess of statutory authority and jurisdiction and contrary to law, are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the procedures required by law, are in violation of constitutional doctrines, and constitute ultra vires actions. The suit also seeks, among other requests, a preliminary injunction directing the DOE to vacate its non-continuation of the TRIO programs, directing the DOE to reconsider its action on the TRIO programs, and prohibiting the DOE from denying federal financial assistance without satisfying the requirements of Title XI and Title IX.

1:25-cv-12653

Complaint

Four individual plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit to stop the Trump administration for allegedly withholding funds from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). SCSEP provides employment opportunities and job training for older Americans seeking to return to the workforce. The lawsuit seeks to restore more than $300 million in grants to nationwide nonprofit organizations. Plaintiffs allege that the Department of Labor (DOL) has refused to release funds to the nonprofit organizations because it is reviewing how such funds are and should be released. Plaintiffs allege that the suspension of funds has forced SCSEP programs to shut down and furlough thousands of seniors nationwide. Plaintiffs further allege that these senior citizens lost their work experience, training, and paychecks, and that they are experiencing financial and psychological hardships. The complaint alleges that the Defendants’ actions are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for being in excess of statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious, and for agency action being unlawfully withheld or delayed. Plaintiffs are asking the court to certify their nationwide class, issue an injunction against the Office of Management and Budget and its Director, compelling OMB to make available to DOL all FY 2025 appropriations, in the amounts and at the times necessary to enable national grantees to continue their projects, and to obligate and expend their allocated funds.

1:25-cv-12765

Complaint

Plaintiffs are a consortium of local metropolitan governments. On October 20, plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The complaint states that Congress has provided through DHS and FEMA federal funding to state and local governments for disaster preparedness and relief. Plaintiffs allege that the DHS has now adopted unlawful conditions that require adherence to certain executive orders including that grant recipients agree to not operate any DEI-related programs and agreement from grant recipients to comply with all issued and future executive orders (DHS Conditions). The suit claims the conditions are ambiguous, in violation of the separation of powers, the Spending Power, an Ultra Vires agency action, and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for being arbitrary and capricious. The suit requests declaratory judgment that Defendants’ adoption and application of the DHS Conditions are unlawful, and injunctive relief barring Defendants from applying or enforcing the DHS Conditions or any materially similar conditions in connection with Plaintiffs’ DHS grants.

Update 1: On Nov. 21, Judge Judge Manish S. Shah granted a preliminary injunction.

4:25-cv-09105

complaint

On October 22, 2025 McKinleyville Union School District in Humboldt County, CA brought suit against the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon challenging the decision to discontinue a five-year grant awarded in October 2024 under the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH Grant Program). The SBMH Grant Program, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), provides funding to state and local education agencies to increase the number of credentialed mental health providers for school-based mental health services in high-need schools. The complaint alleges that just four months into the grant period, DOE issued a Notice of Noncontinuation of Grant Award (Noncontinuation Decision) explaining that it would not continue funding beyond the first year because the grant “reflect[s] the prior Administration’s priorities . . . and conflict[s] with those of the current Administration[,]” including those related to “DEI” and “gender issues.” Plaintiff alleges that the DOE’s actions failed to adhere to its own regulations, which require that grant continuation decisions be based solely on grantee performance. Plaintiff further alleges that the Noncontinuation Decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and is ultra vires in violation of the Spending Clause and Take Care Clause. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (1) preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Defendants from discontinuing SBMH Grant Program funding for the approved budget years based on the reasoning in the Noncontinuation Decision, from implementing or enforcing new grant conditions based on DOE priorities not in effect when the grant was originally awarded, and requiring Defendants to make continuation decisions based solely on grantee performance; (2) an order declaring that Defendants’ actions are unlawful and that under 34 C.F.R. § 75.253(b), Defendants may only consider grantee performance in its grant continuation determinations and may not consider DOE priorities not in effect when the grant was originally awarded; and (3) an order setting aside the Noncontinuation Decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(C).

Nov. 20, 2025: Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Dec. 29, 2025: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Plaintiff’s Nov. 20 preliminary injunction motion as duplicative because the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted plaintiff all of the substantive relief requested in the present action through its partial summary judgment order in State of Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Education. This order required Defendants to comply with the terms of the order regarding funding by Dec. 31, 2025, which thereby negated the need for injunctive relief in the present matter.

1:25-cv-08869

Complaint

On October 27, 2025, the Urban Justice Center-Safety Net Project and Ms. Laeticia Miguel, a recipient of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits living in New York City, brought suit and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction (PI) against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. The complaint and emergency motion allege that on October 3, USDA issued a notice to prematurely terminate a federally-approved waiver of the SNAP work requirements for ABAWDs. The complaint and emergency motion explain that the SNAP program allows states to receive such waivers for areas with insufficient jobs, and New York’s waiver for 61 counties (including New York City) was approved through February 28, 2026. The complaint and emergency motion allege that this premature termination gives New York City only 30 days to implement the complex work requirements for more than 100,000 recipients and will cause thousands to lose food assistance. Plaintiffs allege that the USDA’s actions are not authorized by the SNAP Act, the text of New York’s ABAWD waiver, or the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” and that they are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious and for failing to consider the administrative impossibility of compliance and harm to SNAP recipients. Plaintiffs seek certification of their proposed class defined as all New York City SNAP recipients who are classified as Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) pursuant to USDA regulations who will become subject to ABAWD work requirements effective November 2, 2025, as a result of USDA’s October 3 memorandum; a declaratory judgment that the USDA’s action violates the APA; and a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction to stop Defendants from prematurely terminating New York’s ABAWD waiver before its February 28, 2026 expiration date.

Update 1: On Oct. 30, the court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Update 2: On Oct. 31, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case

1:25-cv-13165

Complaint

On October 28, 2025, 22 states and the District of Columbia, along with the governors of Kansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, filed suit and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins; the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and OMB Director, Russell Vought. The complaint alleges that USDA directed states to withhold Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and unlawfully suspended all November 2025 SNAP benefits despite possessing $6 billion in multi-year contingency funds specifically appropriated for SNAP and access to more than $23 billion funds pursuant to Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Plaintiffs allege that these actions would suspend SNAP benefits for approximately 42 million individuals nationwide, which would be the first time in the program’s history that benefits have been interrupted by a lapse in appropriations. Plaintiffs also allege that suspension will cause irreparable harm to recipients, increase administrative burdens and costs for states, put additional strain on state and local safety net programs, and negatively impact public health and welfare. Plaintiffs further allege that the directive and suspension are contrary to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that both USDA’s directive to states and suspension of benefits are contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion; and a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction to compel Defendants to furnish the appropriated SNAP benefits and prevent Defendants from implementing or enforcing the directive or suspension.

Update 1: On October 31, District Court Judge Talwani found that State Plaintiffs have standing and are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the administration’s suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is contrary to law during the ongoing appropriations lapse. The motion for a temporary restraining order remains under advisement until Monday, Nov. 3, to allow the administration to advise the court on whether it would use contingency funds to authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025.

Update 2: On November 10, Judge Indira Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order staying a USDA memorandum directing states that had processed full SNAP payments for November to undo those actions. The court issued a memorandum opinion on Nov. 12.

3:25-cv-09277

Complaint

On October 28, 2025, the City and County of San Francisco, County of Santa Clara, and the City of Tucson filed suit and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction (PI) against the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, the Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and Acting Director of COPS Cory D. Randolph alleging that the DOJ unlawfully imposed new conditions on its COPS Act grantees that violate the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs allege that DOJ unlawfully conditioned their grant funding on (1) certification that the grantee does not operate any program (including programs with components relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)) in violation of applicable federal civil rights or antidiscrimination laws; (2) compliance with all current and future executive orders; (3) compliance with federal restrictions prohibiting the use of grant funds for various purposes that the administration does not support. These purposes include: directly or indirectly supporting educational institutions that require COVID-19 vaccination for in-person programming; promoting “gender ideology;” providing or advancing DEI, accessibility, or environmental justice programs, services or activities; or funding state and local governments and law enforcement agencies “that have failed to protect public monuments, memorials, and statues.” Plaintiffs challenge these conditions on the basis that they exceed DOJ’s statutory authority, violate Separation of Powers and Due Process, and are arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring Defendants from enforcing these conditions and from retaliating against Plaintiffs for participating in this lawsuit.

Update 1: On November 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the City of San Diego as a plaintiff.

1:25-cv-00569

Complaint

On October 30, a coalition of cities, faith organizations, nonprofits, unions, and small businesses filed suit against the administration, challenging the suspension of SNAP benefits and the early termination of existing waivers of federal work requirements for SNAP recipients classified as Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD). The suit alleges that the abrupt suspension violates the APA as unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. The complaint explains that in mid-October, USDA declared that “there will be no benefits issued November 1” and asserted that “the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists,” even though previous administrations (including the first Trump administration) had indicated that contingency funds were available if SNAP funds lapse due to a government shutdown. Plaintiffs also allege that USDA issued a memorandum announcing that ABAWD benefits would be canceled effective Nov. 2, beyond what the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” authorizes. Plaintiffs describe the situation as an “impending crisis” and argue that their harms are irreparable, stressing that cities, churches, and nonprofits will need to divert critical resources to support their residents who depend on SNAP benefits. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the release of contingency funds to pay November SNAP benefits and reinstatement of all existing ABAWD waivers.

Oct. 31, 2025: District Court Judge John McConnell, Jr. issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to distribute November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits using contingency funds effective immediately, to report to the Court on Monday, Nov. 3 regarding the status of the distribution, and to honor any existing waivers.

Nov. 1, 2025: Judge McConnell, Jr. followed up on his oral ruling with a written order requiring the administration to make full SNAP payments no later than Monday, or alternatively, partial payments by the end of Wednesday. The order further enjoins the administration from terminating any waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents before the waivers expire.

Nov. 6, 2025: Judge McConnell, Jr. reportedly rebuked the Trump administration for defying his order to make full SNAP payments by Nov. 5, and ordered USDA to make full SNAP payments by Friday, Nov. 7. Defendants appealed the temporary restraining order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 6, 2025.

Nov. 10, 2025: The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay of the District Court of Rhode Island’s temporary restraining order requiring the administration to provide full SNAP benefits for the month of November. Solicitor General John Sauer also wrote to the Supreme Court to confirm that the government would continue to seek a stay of court orders requiring disbursement of SNAP funding. On Nov. 7, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had released an order granting an administrative stay of the District Court’s order requiring disbursement of SNAP funds, pending resolution of the government’s appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Dec. 2, 2025: Defendants moved to dismiss their appeal with the First Circuit.

Dec. 4, 2025: The First Circuit granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss their appeal.

6:25-cv-02053

Complaint

On Nov. 4, 2025, twelve states filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), and their senior officials, challenging FEMA’s hold on 2025 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EPMG) funds until each state certifies its population, excluding individuals removed under federal immigration laws and reducing the period of performance for those grants as well as Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) formula grants. Plaintiffs argue that the population certification hold on grant funding exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs similarly argue that reducing the period of performance without explanation to one year is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin DHS and FEMA from enforcing the population certification hold and to restore the programs’ original performance periods of two-to-three years, which the agency had shortened to one year.

Dec. 23, 2025: Magistrate Judge Potter granted Plaintiff States’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, enjoining the administration from withholding the related FEMA grants.

1:25-cv-03899

Complaint

[Coming soon - On November 10, a group of nonprofit environmental organizations and the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota sued the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget for cancelling nearly $8 billion in federal renewable energy grants.]

Jan. 12, 2026: Judge Mehta vacated the DOE’s termination of seven grants, holding that termination primarily based on the awardees’ location in “blue states” violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.

1:25-cv-13863

Complaint

On Nov. 12, 2025, the cities of Chicago, Illinois, and Saint Paul, Minnesota filed suit challenging as unlawful certain conditions in the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act (“COPS Statute”) grants that required the cities to halt any diversity programs, agree to abide by all future executive orders, and to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal statute requiring state and local governments to share information with the federal government on sharing individual immigration and citizenship status. The Defendants are the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) (another federal agency), and Acting Director of COPS Cory Randolph. Plaintiffs argue these three imposed conditions are unauthorized by Congress, are ambiguous, and undermine the grants’ original purpose of improving community policing. Plaintiffs allege they are forced to either agree to unlawful conditions or forego funding critical to public safety. Plaintiffs claim the challenged conditions constitute a violation of separation of powers violation, an ultra vires violation, a Spending Clause violation, and a Tenth Amendment violation. Plaintiffs also argue the conditions are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs request the court declare the challenged conditions unconstitutional and prevent Defendants from enforcing the conditions and retaliating against the Plaintiffs for bringing this lawsuit.

3:25-cv-08330

Complaint

On April 18, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued new Standard Terms and Conditions for Fiscal Year 2025, which imposed new conditions required for a range of grants administered by DHS and Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). These conditions require grant recipients to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws (including those that ban DEI), to agree to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and other immigration enforcement activities, and to agree to comply with all executive orders President Trump has issued and might issue in the future. On Aug. 20, 2025, DHS and FEMA published the FEMA Preparedness Grants Manual, which repeats and implements these binding requirements on grantees of FEMA’s preparedness grant programs. DHS and FEMA have also adopted a requirement that prohibits any grantee that has been designated by the Trump Administration as a “Sanctuary Jurisdiction” from making financial obligations under grants and subgrants, and prohibits grantees from issuing subgrants or payments under subgrants to any other designated “Sanctuary Jurisdiction.” On Sep. 30, a collective of 29 cities and counties in Western states sued DHS, FEMA, and their respective head executives, challenging the imposition of these new conditions on disaster and terrorism-related funding that the cities and counties have received or expect to receive. Plaintiffs argue that these new conditions violate the separation of powers; violate the Constitution’s restrictions on Congress’ spending power; are ambiguous and lack a reasonable relationship to the grants at issue; require Plaintiffs and other grant recipients to violate constitutional rights; are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Constitution, and in excess of statutory authority, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs request that the court declare that the new conditions and their implementation are unlawful, prevent the Defendants from imposing the conditions, and prevent the Defendants from retaliating against the Plaintiffs for this lawsuit.

Update 1: On Nov. 21, Judge Orrick granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, temporarily preventing Defendants from withholding, freezing, or restricting grant funds based on the conditions requiring compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws and President Trump’s Executive Orders.

1:25-cv-00626

Complaint

[Coming soon - On Nov. 25, a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development over its Fiscal Year 2025 Continuum of Care plan, alleging it unlawfully reverses policies aimed at reducing homelessness and imposes unlawful conditions on related grants.]

6:25-cv-02186

Complaint

In July 2025, H.R.1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) was enacted, narrowing the categories of non-citizens eligible for SNAP benefits and creating penalties for State errors in issuing payments to SNAP beneficiaries. On Oct. 31, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) issued guidance to states to limit eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits for non-citizens, to implement H.R.1 (“Oct. 31 Guidance”). On that same day, the USDA also announced that on Nov. 1, 2025, the waiver period for State payment errors would end. A coalition of 21 states filed a lawsuit against USDA and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, alleging that the agency’s Oct. 31 guidance unlawfully narrows SNAP eligibility for lawful permanent residents, and that USDA misapplied the 120-day exclusionary period for payment error rate calculations. Plaintiffs argue that USDA’s actions are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), because: the Oct. 31 Guidance erroneously excludes refugees, asylum grantees, parolees, and other humanitarian immigrant groups from the categories of non-citizens who may become eligible for SNAP benefits when they adjust their status to permanent residents; and erroneously determined the 120-day waiver period allowed for calculation of States’ error rates in issuing payments to SNAP beneficiaries had ended. Plaintiffs request that the court issue an order that the Oct. 31 Guidance violates the APA, and both temporarily block and permanently prevent Defendants from implementing the Guidance.

Dec. 15, 2025: In a bench ruling, Judge Kasubhai granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the administration’s narrowing of SNAP eligibility for lawful permanent residents and extending the error-rate exclusion period for when states must begin complying with changes to SNAP to April 9, 2026.

1:25-cv-00636

Complaint

On Nov. 13, 2025, the Department of House and Urban Development (HUD) rescinded a two-year funding cycle (FY24-25 NOFO) for the Continuum of Care (CoC) program (which supports housing and other services for unhoused people) and replaced it with a new FY25 NOFO that delays funding until May 2026 at the earliest, including for programs that have grants expiring as early as January 2026. Plaintiffs are a coalition of national nonprofits, local governments, and service providers—including the National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Crossroads Rhode Island, Youth Pride, Inc., and several cities and counties. Key allegations include the capping of permanent housing funding at 30%, reductions in guaranteed renewal awards, imposition of conditions on applicants that reflect political priorities unrelated to homelessness, privileging punitive approaches over evidence-based housing solutions, and retroactive disqualification of ongoing projects. Plaintiffs allege HUD’s abrupt actions, rescinding promised renewals weeks before FY 2025 awards and imposing new eligibility conditions and procedural hurdles, violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for exceeding statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious action, procedural violations, and contravene the Constitution’s separation of powers, Spending Clause, and First Amendment. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to vacate the new NOFO, restore the original two-year application process, prohibit enforcement of the challenged conditions, and protect against retaliation.

Dec. 23, 2025: Judge McElroy granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief, enjoining the rescission of the FY24–25 and FY25 NOFOs and related conditions, barring DHS from implementing or enforcing any replacement NOFOs for FY2025 CoC grants, and ordering preservation of the pre-rescission status quo.

3:25-cv-10656

Complaint

On March 1, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) “Designating English as the Official Language of the United States." In response, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued an order on May 20, 2025, requiring that commercial motor vehicle drivers who do not comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) English language proficiency requirements be placed out of service. On August 26, 2025, FMCSA served California with a Notice of Proposed Determination and Non-Conformity in which it alleges that California was not performing in accordance with its approved Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) and thus failed to meet the qualifying conditions for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), a federal grant program managed by FMCSA that provides financial assistance to States to reduce the number and severity of crashes as well as promote the safe transportation of passengers and hazardous materials. FMCSA’s notice alleged that California had failed to adopt a compatible law, regulation, standard, or order to implement the English language proficiency requirement. Despite California’s efforts to demonstrate that its laws and regulations were compatible with the federal laws and regulations, the FMCSA issued a Notice of Final Determination and Nonconformity, thereby terminating California's MCSAP grants worth over $33 million.

On December 12, 2025, the State of California sued the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDT), alleging that the FMCSA’s decision to terminate its MCSAP funding is unlawful and imperils the safety of all persons driving in California. The State also alleges that the termination threatens significant economic damage to the State and the nation. California alleges that the decision by the FMCSA was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). California seeks a judicial declaration that the Defendant's decision to terminate the State's CVSPs was unlawful, a judgment setting aside the termination decision, and injunctive relief blocking the Defendants from re-obligating or transferring the grant funds to another recipient.

2:25-cv-02574

Complaint

[Coming soon]

On Dec. 16, 2025, a coalition of 17 Plaintiff States filed a complaint against the Department of Transportation for its suspension of two federal grant programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

2:25-cv-02578

Complaint

[Coming soon]

On Dec. 16, 2025, three climate non-profit organizations filed a complaint challenging the Department of Transportation’s suspension of a grant program for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

6:25-cv-02364

Complaint

Plaintiffs allege that they are not-for-profit organizations that until recently received grants for environmental-protection work in the western United States, Defendants include the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Secretary of DOI, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Plaintiffs allege the defendants terminated plaintiffs’ federal grants because plaintiffs’ organizations allegedly promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Plaintiffs argue, therefore, that Interior’s actions violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because plaintiffs’ statements on diversity, land acknowledgments, and use of certain words, are all protected speech. Plaintiffs further argue that defendants cannot discriminate against Plaintiffs’ viewpoints because they differ from the Administration’s stance on DEI or simply incorporate language the Administration disfavors. They further argue that this is especially true in this case, because plaintiffs’ speech is unrelated to any grant program activities, which all focus on scientific research and ecological restoration and conservation. Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants cannot impose unconstitutional conditions on Plaintiffs’ grant agreements or retaliate against grantees for their protected speech. Plaintiffs, therefore, primarily ask the court to declare that defendants’ notices of grant-termination violate the United Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendment protections of free speech and due process; preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from giving effect to the grant-terminations; restore such previously awarded grant agreements; and return to the grant procedures they employed prior to September 23, 2025, with extensions for any passed deadlines and the suspension of any grant close-out procedures initiated by the violative terminations.

1:25-cv-04505

Complaint

In this lawsuit by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit organization of pediatric physicians. The defendants include the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the Centers for Disease Control. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have terminated a number of grants to AAP for because AAP has been and is a proponent of pediatric vaccinations and gender-affirming pediatric medical care. Plaintiffs further allege that the grants “...had been used for initiatives such as providing training and technical assistance to pediatricians in rural communities, the reduction of sudden unexpected infant death, the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, and universal newborn hearing screenings…” and "largely have nothing to do” with AAP’s positions on pediatric vaccination and gender-affirming care for minors. Plaintiff alleges that it will suffer harm from the grant-terminations: “AAP does not have other sources of grant funding to replace the federal awards, and without the necessary funds it must immediately terminate its work on its dozens of programs that save children’s lives every day. Within a few weeks, AAP will have to begin laying off employees dedicated to this critically important work.” Plaintiff argues that “HHS’s actions are unconstitutional. The First Amendment does not permit HHS to retaliate against AAP for its viewpoints or for having filed a lawsuit against the federal government.” Plaintiff further argues that “HHS’s actions constitute de facto unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, in violation of the First Amendment and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And they violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee and the Administrative Procedure Act.” Plaintiff primarily asks the court to declare that the terminations of AAP’s grants are unlawful; set aside the terminations of the grants: grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that will bar defendants from enforcing or effecting the terminations of AAP’s grants; grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring Defendants from re-obligating funds used to support AAP’s terminated grants; and direct defendants to take all steps necessary to ensure that they disburse funds on AAP’s grants in the “customary” manner and schedules.

Jan. 11, 2026: The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that HHS likely terminated seven pediatric health grants in retaliation for AAP’s public advocacy on vaccines and gender-affirming care in violation of the First Amendment, ordering HHS to halt the terminations and resume funding.

1:25-cv-04523

Complaint

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs are a national teacher’s union and a not-for-profit organization in Chicago that alleges that it provides “...free and accessible programming at neighborhood public schools to meet the complex needs of children and adults in low-income families, such as workforce preparedness, education, and mental and physical health. Defendants are the Department of Education, its Secretary and other subordinate agencies of the Department. Plaintiffs allege that defendants discontinued “...19 different multi-year FSCS [Full-Service Community Schools] grants, mid-project. The Department had budgeted more than $60 million of FSCS appropriations to commit to these 19 grants in 2025, and on information and belief, the Department has not obligated those funds to other awards and does not plan to do so before the funds expire in two days, on December 31, 2025.” Defendants argue that the discontinuation of the grants for which there are lawfully obligation funds is unlawful. They further argue that “...the Department’s decision to break from its settled framework for issuing continuation awards, without adequate explanation or lawful basis, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and governing grant regulations. The Department’s letters discontinuing these awards were unlawfully based on newly articulated priorities and policy preferences that were never promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Department also ignored regulations requiring that continuation awards be based on performance, failed to give continuation awards priority over new grants, and abandoned the Department’s longstanding representation that non-continuation is ‘extremely rare.’” Plaintiffs, therefore, primarily ask the court to “...declare unlawful, vacate and set aside Defendants’ decisions to change funding priorities and to not continue FSCS grants; and “...temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing or giving effect to Defendants’ decisions to change funding priorities and to not continue FSCS grants.”

1:25-cv-04298

Complaint

On Dec. 30, 2025, two states and the District of Columbia filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, challenging the decision to discontinue grants awarded under the Full-Service Community School (FSCS) grant programs. The FSCS grant programs provide funding to nonprofit organizations, local school districts, and universities to support the planning, implementation, and operation of full-service community schools, and make continuation awards after one year based on grantees’ performance. The complaint alleges that on Dec. 12, 2025, ED issued Notices of Non-continuation of Grant Award (Non-continuation Decisions) to FSCS grantees in each Plaintiff state stating that it would not continue funding beyond the first year based on a purported conflict with the current administration’s priorities. Plaintiffs allege that the ED’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the agency failed to adhere to its own continuation regulations, 34 C.F.R. 75.253, which require that grant continuation decisions be based on published priorities issued through notice and comment rulemaking and decided solely on grantee performance. They further allege a violation of the APA as arbitrary and capricious, particularly due to a violation of the “change-in-position doctrine”, as well as the Spending Clause. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the ED from discontinuing FSCS grant program funding for the approved budget years based on the reasoning in the Non-Continuation Decision and from implementing or enforcing new grant conditions based on ED priorities not in effect when the grants were originally awarded, and requiring the ED to make continuation decisions based solely on grantee performance.

1:26-cv-00172

Complaint

Coming soon.

On Jan. 8, 2026, New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota filed suit against the administration for freezing $10 billion in federal funding for social services and child care programs for low-income families.

Jan. 9, 2026: The court granted Plaintiff States’ emergency motion for a TRO, blocking HHS’s Administration for Children and Families from implementing its funding freeze on the Child Care Development Fund, TANF, and Social Services Block Grants, ordering the agency to immediately lift all non-statutory restrictions on states’ ability to draw down those funds.