Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

Case No 1:25-cv-02886

Motion for TRO

Case Summary: On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump published a Presidential Proclamation titled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua” (Proclamation), which sought to authorize removal of noncitizens from Venezuela who are deemed to be “enemy aliens” under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Petitioners are two Venezuelan men who have been arrested and detained by immigration authorities, and allegedly face imminent deportation pursuant to the Proclamation.
Petitioners argue that the removal process established under the Proclamation is unlawful. They argue that such process is ultra vires under the AEA, as the AEA only authorizes removals during a declared war or invasion of the United States by a foreign nation or government, and further requires additional process prior to removing noncitizens. They also argue that the removal process violates various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, including those that establish procedures and mechanisms for, as well as protections against, removal (including sending someone to a country where they are more likely than not to face torture). Finally, they argue that the removal process violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the right to habeas corpus.
Petitioners have brought their petition and complaint on behalf of a similarly situated class, including all noncitizens in immigration custody who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation.
Petitioners have requested that the court certify the class, grant a writ of habeas corpus to Petitioners that enjoins Defendants from removing them pursuant to the Proclamation, and declare the Proclamation unlawful.
Update 1: On Apr. 11, the court certified the class and granted a temporary restraining order preventing their removal from the district or the United States.
Update 2: On Apr. 17, petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. The reply asserts that the government has not satisfied due process requirements in use of the AEA and that the proclamation violates both procedural requirements and Congressionally established protections for noncitizens seeking humanitarian protections.
Update 3: On Apr. 21, the government moved to vacate the class certification, alleging the class cannot be certified because the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
Update 4: On Apr. 22, Judge Alvin Hellerstein extended the temporary restraining order issued on Apr. 11 through May 6.
Update 5: On May 6, Judge Hellerstein granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 6: On May 6, the court denied respondent’s motion to decertify the class, stating that because it is unknown how many people may become subject to an order for removal, judicial efficiency and due process considerations for individuals yet to be removed support a class action.
Update 7: On May 14, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that the Plaintiffs and the certified class are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Proclamation violates the Alien Enemies Act.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00072

Emergency Motion for TRO (Apr. 9, 2025)

Case Summary: On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump published a Presidential Proclamation titled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua” (Proclamation), which sought to authorize removal of noncitizens from Venezuela who are deemed to be “enemy aliens” under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Petitioners are three Venezuelan men who have been arrested and detained by immigration authorities at El Valle Detention Center in Texas, and allegedly face imminent deportation pursuant to the Proclamation.
Petitioners argue that the removal process established under the Proclamation is unlawful. They argue that such process is ultra vires under the AEA, as the AEA authorizes removals only during a declared war or invasion of the United States by a foreign nation or government, and further requires additional process prior to removing noncitizens. They also argue that the removal process violates various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, including those that establish procedures and mechanisms for, as well as protections against, removal (including sending someone to a country where they are more likely than not to face torture). Finally, they argue that the removal process violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the right to habeas corpus.
Petitioners have brought their petition and complaint on behalf of a similarly situated class, including all noncitizens in immigration custody in the Southern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation.
Petitioners have requested that the court certify the class, grant a writ of habeas corpus to Petitioners that enjoins Defendants from removing them pursuant to the Proclamation, and declare the Proclamation unlawful. Petitioners filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) due to being in imminent danger of removal to another country.
On April 9, 2025, Judge Fernando Rodriguez granted petitioners’ TRO on an ex parte basis and blocked Respondents from transferring, relocating, or removing petitioners “or any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation, from the El Valle Detention Center; and Respondents are enjoined from transporting such persons outside of Willacy County or Cameron County, Texas, without an Order from the Court.” Absent further action, the TRO will be in place through Apr. 23, 2025.
Update 1: On Apr. 11, the TRO was extended through Apr. 25, 2025.
Update 2: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Apr. 23, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Plaintiffs failed to show they would succeed on the merits of their claims and that they failed to establish standing for injunctive relief. On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Apr. 24, Judge Rodriguez granted a superseding TRO against the Defendants (excluding Trump) that is effective through May 2, 2025. This new TRO expands the scope of the previous by blocking Defendants from removing, transferring, relocating, or deporting any person that Respondents designate as an alien enemy outside of the Southern District of Texas, whereas the former TRO applied only to the El Valle Detention Center.
Update 5: On May 1, Judge Rodriquez granted certification of the class of plaintiffs, described as: “Venezuelan aliens, 14 years old or older, who have not been naturalized, who Respondents have designated or in the future designate as alien enemies under the March 14, 2025, Presidential Proclamation … and who are detained or reside in the Southern District of Texas.”
Judge Rodriguez followed the class certification with an order granting a permanent injunction. The court wrote: “The historical record renders clear that the President’s invocation of the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.” On the scope of the injunction, Judge Rodriguez wrote: “To the extent that J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H., or any member of the certified class, have been detained or are detained in the future pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, they have not sought and do not obtain any relief. In addition, the conclusions of the Court do not affect Respondents’ ability to continue removal proceedings or enforcement of any final orders of removal issued against J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H, or against any member of the certified class, under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

Case No. 1:25-cv-00057

Summary: Daniel Enrique Zacarias Matos brought a habeas petition to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from removing him from the United States unless and until he receives a final removal order. The Government states that the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 21, authorizes his removal based on the March 15 Presidential Proclamation.
ICE officials tried to remove Zacarias Matos, a Venezuelan national who is detained at the El Valle Detention Facility, from the United States on Mar. 14, but they were allegedly unable to do so due to a problem with the flight.
Zacarias Matos claims that the attempt to remove him violates 8 U.S.C. § 1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and asked the Court to enjoin his imminent removal unless and until a removal order is entered against him.
Update 1: On Apr. 7, Judge Fernando Rodriguez granted a preliminary injunction and set an evidentiary hearing for May 5 on whether the petitioner is a member of TdA.
Update 2: On May 13, 2025, following a joint status report and motion to dismiss request, the Court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01163

Summary: On Mar. 14, President Donald Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang.
Two Venezuelan nationals in U.S. immigration custody have brought a proposed class action on behalf of all noncitizens in custody in Colorado who are, were, or will be subject to the Mar. 14 Proclamation, along with a habeas petition. They allege that the preconditions of the Alien Enemies Act have not been met and that the Proclamation is unlawful, that they have been denied the opportunity to voluntarily leave the U.S. in violation of the Alien Enemies Act, that the government has violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the Foreign Affairs and Reform and Restructuring Act, that they have been denied due process under the Fifth Amendment, and that they have been denied their right to habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs submitted an emergency application for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block any removals of plaintiffs and the class they represent from Colorado.
Update 1: On Apr. 14, Judge Charlotte Sweeney temporarily blocked removal of the plaintiffs and the class they represent.
Update 2: On Apr. 17, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ emergency application for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Defendants contend the Court lacks jurisdiction over the habeas proceeding because Plaintiffs are not subject to the Proclamation or detained pursuant to it, and Plaintiffs have yet to receive a notice that they will be removed under it.
Update 3: On Apr. 20, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for an emergency TRO and requested the Court maintain the TRO due to the government’s transfer of detainees under the AEA with less than 24 hours notice.
Update 4: On Apr. 22, Judge Sweeney granted Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO and ordered that Plaintiffs and members of the provisionally certified class to not be transferred outside of the District of Colorado. Judge Sweeney ordered the government to provide 21 day notice to plaintiffs and members of the provisionally certified class before moving said individuals and that this notice must note that the government intends to remove these individuals pursuant to the AEA and Proclamation.
Update 5: On Apr. 23, Defendants appealed Judge Sweeney’s orders granting Plaintiffs’ TRO to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 6: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants being able to send Petitioners and class members to El Salvador under the AEA and Proclamation.
Update 7: On May 6, Judge Sweeney granted a preliminary injunction and granted Plaintiffs’ class certification to include all noncitizens in custody in the District of Colorado who may become or are subject to the AEA and Proclamation.$

Case No. 1:25-cv-00766

(D.C. Cir No. 25-5067)

Supreme Court docket 24A931

Motion for TRO

Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang.
In the early hours of Saturday, Mar. 15, five Venezuelan nationals in U.S. immigration custody brought a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the government’s action on the ground that the Alien Enemies Act does not provide authority for such removals; that the removals would be in violation of immigration statutes governing deportation proceedings and the Administrative Procedure Act, in addition to a violation of habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs submitted an emergency application for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block any removals from the United States.
In an emergency hearing on Mar. 15, Chief Judge James Boasberg, first ruling from the bench, certified a class of “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the Mar. 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation,” and granted the request for a temporary restraining order to block removals of any class members from the United States.
Update 1: The same day, Mar. 15, the government submitted a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit. The judge issued a verbal order, in a ruling from the bench, and a written TRO that evening.
Update 2: On Mar. 17, Defendants moved to vacate the TRO.
Update 3: On Mar. 18, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a minute order requiring Defendants to submit a declaration explaining what time the flights that left U.S. airspace prior to the filing of the TRO departed and landed, when the individuals aboard left U.S. custody, and the number of people aboard subject to the President’s Proclamation.
Update 4: On Mar. 19, Defendants filed a motion to stay Chief Judge Boasberg’s March 18th minute order, arguing that they required more time to invoke the state secrets privilege, avoid disclosure of sensitive information, and prevent harm to foreign relations.
Update 5: On Mar. 19, Chief Judge Boasberg issued an order permitting Defendants an additional day to respond to the Mar. 18 Order, but expressing skepticism about their stated intention to invoke the state-secrets doctrine.
Update 6: On Mar. 19, Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to Defendants’ motion to vacate the TRO.
Update 7: On Mar. 20, Chief Judge Boasberg issued an order requiring Defendants to show cause for its failure to comply with the TRO, and it also granted Defendants’ delay to invoke the state-secrets privilege.
Update 8: On Mar. 24, Chief Judge Boasberg issued a memorandum opinion granting Plaintiffs’ TRO.
Update 9: On Mar. 25, Defendants filed a notice invoking the state-secrets privilege in response to the Mar. 18 minute order.
Update 10: On Mar. 26, Plaintiffs filed a Notice that they intended to file a new Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Friday, Mar. 28, to incorporate “additional factual material so that there is a more complete record.”
That same day, the D.C. Circuit. in a 2-1 decision, denied Defendants’ motion to stay the TRO.
Update 11: On Mar. 27, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the TROs set to expire on Mar. 29 for 14 days to Apr. 12, claiming that good cause exists to extend the TROs.
Update 12: On Mar. 28, the Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court asking to vacate the district court’s order and to issue an administrative stay.
Update 13: On Mar. 28, the Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to extend the TRO, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims and that the Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
That same day, the Court ordered the extension of the TROs until Apr. 12.
Update 14: On Mar. 28, Plaintiffs submitted a motion and memorandum for a preliminary injunction with exhibits including an “Alien Enemy Validation Guide,” allegedly used by the government.
Update 15: On Mar. 31, the Plaintiffs filed a response to the Defendants’ invocation of the state secrets privilege, claiming that the Court already has the information it needs to conclude that its Mar. 15 oral and written TROs were violated, and that the Plaintiffs are unaware of any case in which the state secrets privilege has been invoked to withhold evidence from a court seeking to enforce its own orders.
Update 16: On Mar. 31, the Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants’ response to an order to show cause, claiming that the Defendants violated the Court’s orders to return to the U.S. all airplanes that were going to take off or were in the air with persons potentially subject to the Alien Enemies Act.
Update 17: On Apr. 1, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally barred and fails on the merits.
Update 18: On Apr. 4, the Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In their reply, Plaintiffs requested that the Court also find the President’s Proclamation to be unlawful even if the process was provided to contest its applicability to an individual.
Update 19: On Apr. 7, the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, vacated the district court’s TROs holding that the case should have been brought as a habeas case where the plaintiffs were in custody at the time. The Court also stated, “notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
Update 20: On Apr. 16, Judge Boasberg issued an order holding that there’s probable cause to find the Defendants acted with criminal contempt in violating his orders. He offered the government to stave off a criminal referral by “purging” the contempt. He wrote, “The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.” The defendants appealed his decision to the DC Circuit.
On the same day, the Plaintiffs submitted a new motion for a TRO asking the court to direct the government to provide 30 days’ notice before seeking to remove any class member under the AEA. The Plaintiffs also stated that they intend to amend their complaint “to reinstate their habeas claim on behalf of class members detained in CECOT and to seek the return of these Plaintiffs to the United States.”
Update 21: On Friday, Apr. 18, Plaintiffs submitted an emergency motion for immediate ruling on the TRO motion. Plaintiffs alleged at the time of filing that “individuals have already been loaded on to[sic] buses” in the Northern District of Texas for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act.

At an emergency hearing, Judge Boasberg denied the motion on jurisdictional grounds.

Update 22: On Apr. 18, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, issued an administrative stay in the appeal from Judge Boasberg’s Apr. 16 contempt-related order.
Update 23: On Apr. 24, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which includes a habeas petition for the class of individuals who have already been removed to El Salvador. The following day, Apr. 25, the plaintiffs submitted a motion for a permanent injunction and a memorandum in support.
Update 24: On May 1, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ Apr. 25 motion for a preliminary injunction in which they suggest that the United States has and will continue to provide procedural due process and that Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits.
Update 25: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, urging the court to grant the motion because of the likelihood on the merits of their claims and the grave harm faced by Plaintiffs as they remain in CECOT.
Update 26: On Jun. 4, Judge Boasberg issued an order and memorandum opinion. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of the detainees in CECOT prison and a preliminary injunction stating: “The Government must facilitate the Class’s ability to seek habeas relief to contest their removal under the Act.” However, Judge Boasberg held that the detainees are not currently in the “constructive custody” of the United States for the present purposes of habeas. He also denied class certification for individuals held in the United States in criminal custody.^

Case No. 1:25-cv-00059

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang.
On Apr. 16, two Venezuelan individuals using the pseudonyms A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. who are in U.S. immigration custody, filed a habeas petition against Respondents-Defendants Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others. A.A.R.P and W.M.M. claim to be at imminent risk of removal under the AEA. They ask that the court grant class certification and issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Respondents from transferring Petitioners and similarly situated persons from the district while this suit is ongoing.
Petitioners argue that the government’s actions exceed its authority. They claim the government’s actions violate the Immigration and Naturalization Act which provides a “sole basis” for such removals, provisions for applying for asylum and withholding, and statutory protection against being sent to a country where they could face torture. Furthermore, they claim their removal would violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the right to habeas.
Petitioners also ask the court to declare the President’s Proclamation unlawful, grant a writ of habeas corpus enjoining Respondents from removing Petitioners from the district pursuant to the Proclamation, and prevent Respondents from applying the Proclamation to Respondents without giving 30-days’ advance notice and opportunity to respond. They argue that the Proclamation is unlawful and that the court’s intervention is necessary so that Petitioners and the putative class are not unlawfully sent to a Salvadoran prison pursuant to the Proclamation.

Update 1: On Apr. 17, Judge James Wesley Hendrix denied the Petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge wrote, “The United States answered unequivocally, stating that ‘the government does not presently expect to remove A.A.R.P. or W.M.M. under the [Aliens Enemies Act] until after the pending habeas petition is resolved’ and that ‘[i]f that changes, we will update the Court.’” The court reserved a decision on class certification.
Update 2: On Apr. 18, Petitioners submitted a renewed emergency TRO request. Petitioners state, “officers at Bluebonnet have distributed notices under the Alien Enemies Act, in English only, that designate Venezuelan men for removal under the AEA, and have told the men that the removals are imminent and will happen tonight or tomorrow” (emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs also submitted an appeal at the same time to the Fifth Circuit as an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The district court rejected the motion on the ground that the appeal removed their ability to rule on it.
Update 3: On late Friday night, Apr. 18, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the emergency appeal on the grounds that the appeal’s timeline was unreasonable. On Saturday, Apr. 19, the Supreme Court issued a stay writing, “The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” Justice Alito and Thomas dissented.
Update 4: On May 9, Judge Hendrix denied class certification.

Update 5: On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision. recognized the putative class in the Northern District of Texas and held that “notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster” under the Fifth Amendment. The Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit to address “(1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025, Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal.” The Court enjoined the government from removing putative class members pending the outcome of the litigation.

Justices Alito and Thomas dissented on procedural grounds.

Civil Action No. 8:19-CV-01944-SAG

(Original complaint filed July 1, 2019)

Case Summary: On July 1, 2019, four undocumented immigrants who were determined to be an “Unaccompanied Alien Child” (UAC) when entering the United States and later sought asylum sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claiming that recent policy modifications by the USCIS governing treatment of an asylum application by a UAC violated the APA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process Clause.
The Court entered a temporary restraining order which was then converted into a preliminary injunction, and the parties reached a final settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) which was approved by the court on Nov. 25, 2024. The Settlement Agreement provided that the government cannot remove a certified class of UAC asylum seekers, whose asylum application is pending with USCIS, before the final resolution of the application by USCIS.
On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued a Proclamation titled Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua,(TdA) which asserted that under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), any Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA can be apprehended, detained, and removed.
Plaintiff is a 20-year-old Class Member from Venezuela who was determined by federal immigration officials to be a UAC when he entered the U.S. He filed an asylum application with the USCIS in December 2022 when he was 18, which remains pending. ICE took him into custody in January 2025 and commenced removal proceedings against him. At a hearing on March 26, the immigration judge continued his removal proceedings and scheduled a hearing for May 2025. However, on April 11 the Defendants informed his counsel that he had been removed to El Salvador on March 15.
Defendants argued that the Plaintiff was not a Class Member by virtue of being subject to the AEA and thus not eligible for asylum. On Apr. 14, counsel for the Class Members filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, with accompanying Memorandum in Support, seeking to remedy the alleged violation of the Agreement by the return of the Plaintiff and to prevent any such further violations with respect to other Class Members.
Update 1: On April 16 Plaintiffs also filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to prevent the imminent removal of another Class Member, an 18-yr-old from Venezuela who was detained on March 19, after Defendants failed to confirm to that they would not be removing the Plaintiff Class Member. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher granted the TRO on April 16 after Defendants stated their position that they would not agree to not removing any Class Member until after the Motion to Enforce was resolved.
Update 2: On April 17 Class Counsel moved to extend the TRO to the entire class. On the same day Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce.
Update 3: On April 23, the court granted the Motion to Enforce, ruling that removal of a Class Member who has not received final adjudication on the merits by USCIS of a properly filed asylum application is a violation of the Agreement. The Judge concluded that the case is a contractual dispute over the Settlement Agreement over which it retains jurisdiction, that the Class does not exclude individuals subject to the AEA, and that removal pursuant to the AEA does not qualify as a final order of removal within the meaning of the Agreement. Judge Stephanie Gallagher held that the Defendants are obligated to return or at a minimum “facilitate” the return of the Plaintiff and any other removed Class Members to the United States and stated that facilitating includes, but is not limited to Defendants making a good faith request to the government of El Salvador to release the Plaintiff to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS.
Update 4: On May 4, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate or in the Alternative to Stay Pending Appeal the portion of the Judge’s order requiring the return of Plaintiff, Section 2. They also filed a motion to seal the Memorandum in Support, on the basis that it contains confidential information. (The Judge granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal, allowing it to be produced with redactions.) In the Memorandum, Defendants state that ICIS issued an Indicative Asylum Decision on May 1 which determined that if the Plaintiff returned, his asylum application would be denied based on Terrorist-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG) due to his alleged connection to TdA and as a matter of discretion. For this reason, they argue that the section of the Court’s order directing them to return the Plaintiff is now effectively moot.
Update 5: On May 5, the Court denied in part and granted in part the Motion to Vacate or in the Alternative to Stay, denying the motion to vacate but granting the motion to stay Section 2 until May 8 to allow Defendants to file an appeal. During a hearing, the Judge reportedly noted that even if the government ultimately plans to reject the asylum claim it must do so using the correct process in the U.S. courts and “can’t skip to the end.”
Update 6: On May 7, the government appealed to the Fourth Circuit and on May 8, the Fourth Circuit granted an administrative stay while it considers the issue.
Update 7: On May 19, the Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Case No: 3:25-cv-00113

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. On Apr. 15, a Venezuelan individual using the pseudonym A.S.R., who is in U.S. immigration custody, filed a habeas petition against Respondents-Defendants Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others. A.S.R. claims to be at imminent risk of removal under the AEA and asks that the court grant class certification to others in a similarly-situated position in the Western District of Pennsylvania, issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Respondents from transferring members of the class from the district while the suit is ongoing, and declare the Proclamation unlawful. A.S.R. argues the Proclamation and its implementation are ultra vires actions in excess of the Trump Administration’s authority under the AEA. A.S.R. also alleges the implementation of the proclamation is in violation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), several provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the Fifth Amendment Due Process right, and the right to petition for habeas corpus. An emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) was filed by A.S.R. on the same day the petition was filed, which was immediately granted by Judge Stephanie Haines.
Update 1: On Apr. 16, A.S.R. submitted a notice that he had been transferred out of the Western District of Pennsylvania to a detention center in Texas, despite his transfer taking place after the filing of his habeas corpus petition.
On that same day, the Trump Administration responded in opposition to A.S.R.’s motion for a TRO. On Apr. 17, Judge Haines extended the TRO until Apr. 29.
Update 2: On Apr. 25 A.S.R. filed a motion to extend the TRO by an additional 14 days.
Judge Haines granted this motion on the same day, extending the TRO through May 13, and also certified the class. The TRO blocks the Trump Administration from transferring A.S.R. out of the Northern District of Texas and the members of the certified class from the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the AEA.
Update 3: On Apr. 29, the class filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum, requesting that the court order A.S.R.’s return to the Western District of Pennsylvania and enjoin the Trump Administration from removing A.S.R. and any member of the class from the country under the AEA.
Update 4: On May 1, the Trump Administration filed its opposition to the preliminary injunction motion, arguing A.S.R. lacks standing to bring the claims and is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims. The Plaintiffs replied in support of their motion on May 2.
Update 5: On May 13, Judge Stephanie Haines issued a preliminary injunction finding the presidential proclamation complies with the AEA but that the government needs to give individuals three week notice and an opportunity to be heard before removal.

Case no. 3:25-cv-00171

Case Summary: The Trump administration issued a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) authorizing immediate removal of noncitizens who the government claims are members of Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua (TdA). Petitioner was arrested by ICE despite an active Temporary Protected Status and served with a document alleging that she is a TdA member, an allegation she denies. On May 10, Petitioner brought a habeas petition to challenge the Proclamation’s application against her. She also seeks to represent a class of similarly-situated individuals who also seek to challenge the Proclamation’s application against them. Petitioner is seeking relief to avoid being sent to a Salvadoran prison or other location where she contends she is likely to face indefinite imprisonment, persecution or harm. The Petitioner challenges the legality of the AEA on multiple counts and seeks to enjoin the application of the AEA process to her and the class. Specifically, she asserts that the Proclamation is ultra vires; violates the removal proceeding requirements, asylum process withholding of removal process of the Immigration and Naturalization Act; violates the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”); violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause; and that the summary removal of the class violates Habeas Corpus.
Update 1: On May 13, Judge David Briones granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On May 22, Judge Briones granted the Petitioner’s motion for class certification, ruling that she is now representative of “a class of all non-citizens in custody in the Western District of Texas who were, are or would be subject to” the Proclamation or its implementation.

Case no. 3:25-cv-00127

Case Summary: The Trump administration issued a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act authorizing immediate removal of noncitizens who the government claims are members of Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua. Petitioners Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia and Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes are a married couple who immigrated to the United States in 2022, residing with Temporary Protected Status after they fled from their home nation of Venezuela. In early 2025, the Trump administration rescinded TPS for all Venezuelans. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners were arrested. The Petitioners brought a habeas petition on Apr. 16, where they allege that their confinement is unlawful and their designation as “alien enemies” due to alleged associations with the Tren de Aragua violates due process as it lacks a factual basis. They seek habeas relief and release from custody.
Update 1: On Apr. 17, Judge David Briones granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Apr. 25, Judge Briones ordered the release of petitioners. He also ordered the government not to deport anyone subject to the AEA within the district, and to provide three-weeks notice for detention under the AEA.
Update 3: On May 13, Judge Briones granted the government’s request to stay the district-wide relief granted in the Apr. 25 order pending appeal.

Case No. 4:25-cv-02116

Case No. 5:25-cv-01207

Case Summary: On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, Proclamation No. 10903, through which he invoked the Alien Enemies Act (the “AEA”), to authorize and direct the immediate removal of Venezuelan nationals that are alleged members of Tren de Aragua. Petitioner Darwin Antonio Arevalo is a Venezuelan citizen applying for asylum in the US who was granted a work authorization and residency permit to allow him to remain in the US while his asylum application was pending. During a scheduled ICE check-in, Petitioner was arrested and placed in detention at the Desert View Annex or Desert View Modified Community Correctional Facility. The government did not provide Petitioner with prior notice of his arrest nor serve
him with a warrant or other documentation regarding the basis for his arrest, but Petitioner was informed that his arrest was premised upon his status as a Venezuelan with tattoos, which could indicate that Petitioner had affiliations with Tren de Aragua. Petitioner filed a habeas petition asserting claims based on the US Constitution, California Constitution, and various federal statutes. He also filed applications for class certification and a temporary restraining order, seeking, among other things, to prevent his removal under Trump’s proclamation and transfer out of the Central District of California.
Update 1: On May 19, Judge John Holcomb certified a class of noncitizens in the district subject to the AEA and granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Jun. 2, Judge Holcolm granted a preliminary injunction stopping the government from deporting certain the petitioner and a certified class, until further order from the court on required legal notice and process. The court, however, also ruled that petitioners are unlikely to succeed on their claim that the president’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation is unlawful.

Case No. 4:25-cv-00144

Judge Clay Land granted a preliminary injunction barring the government from transferring a Venezuelan detainee under the Alien Enemies Act, holding that removal is prohibited until the government complies with the requirements of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in A.A.R.P.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00951

Fourth Circuit Case No. 25-1345

Supreme Court Docket No. 24A949

Case Summary: On Mar. 15, the U.S. government deported 261 noncitizens to El Salvador. Among those removed was Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (Abrego Garcia), who had been granted immigration relief in 2019 through withholding of removal to El Salvador on the ground that he had a well-grounded fear of persecution. Plaintiffs include Abrego Garcia, his U.S. citizen wife, and his child. Plaintiffs allege the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE provided substantial financial compensation to the Government of El Salvador to incarcerate Abrego Garcia and the other noncitizens deported with him. Plaintiffs contend that the removal of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador constitutes a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Withholding of Removal Statute, and the procedural and substantive due process rights safeguarded under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration affirming that the removal of Abrego Garcia was unconstitutional. They further request that the court direct the defendants to cease compensating El Salvador for the detention of Abrego Garcia and order the defendants to formally request the release of Abrego Garcia to U.S. custody, and take all reasonable measures to facilitate his return to the United States in the event El Salvador fails to comply.
Plaintiffs immediately filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) urging the court to immediately prohibit the defendants from continuing payments to the Government of El Salvador for Abrego Garcia’s detention and to require the defendants to initiate efforts to secure his return to U.S. custody.
Update 1: On Mar. 25, Judge Paula Xinis denied Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO.
On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a second motion for a TRO against the Defendants requesting injunctive relief in the form of a court order preventing Defendants from continuing to financially support El Salvador’s detention of Abrego Garcia and ordering Defendants to request the return of Abrego Garcia to U.S. custody.
Update 2: On Mar. 28, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the requested injunctive relief.
Update 3: On Mar. 31, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO. The Defendants state it was an “administrative error” to have removed Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, but oppose the relief that Plaintiffs request.
Update 4: On Apr. 4, Judge Paula Xinis wrote that “issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary … to avoid ongoing irreparable harm,” and ordered the government to effectuate his return to the United States by 11:59PM Apr. 7. The judge published a memorandum opinion on Apr. 6.
Update 5: The Defendants appealed the order, and on the morning of Apr. 7, the Fourth Circuit denied the Defendants’ request for a stay. The Defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the district court order and an immediate administrative stay. Chief Justice Roberts issued a temporary stay and ordered the Plaintiff to submit a reply by 5pm ET the following day. The Plaintiff, however, submitted their reply shortly afterwards on the same day.
Update 6: On the evening of Apr. 10, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion without any dissent, upheld the district court order in large part. The Court wrote: “The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.”
Within hours, the district court issued an order “to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.” The order also required the government to provide a declaration with information of Abrego Garcia’s current location and steps taken to facilitate his return.
Update 7: On Apr. 11, Defendants submitted a Response to the Order stating that the government could not provide information in response to the Apr. 10 order by the designated time of 9:30AM ET on Apr. 11.
After a hearing in which the government did not provide answers, the judge issued an Order stating “counsel [for the Defendant] could not confirm, and thus did not advance any evidence, that Defendants had done anything to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. This remained Defendants’ position even after this Court reminded them that the Supreme Court of the United States expressly affirmed this Court’s authority to require the Government ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s return” (emphasis in original). The order requires the Defendant to provide a daily update of actions taken to facilitate his return.
Update 8: On Apr. 12, the government submitted a declaration stating only that “Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.”
Earlier that day Plaintiffs submitted a motion for additional relief including expedited discovery.
Update 9: On Apr. 13, the Defendants provided a daily status report, which included no information on efforts to obtain his release from custody in El Salvador. The Defendants also submitted a motion opposing the Plaintiffs’ Apr. 12 motion for additional relief. The motion also stated, “Defendants understand ‘facilitate’ to mean … actions allowing an alien to enter the United States … best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here” (emphasis in original).
Update 10: On Apr. 15, Judge Xinis granted the motion for expedited discovery. The Judge wrote, “Defendants therefore remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward
aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and
resuming his status quo ante. But the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all.”
Update 11: On Apr. 16, the Defendants submitted a notice of appeal.
Update 21: On Apr. 17, the Fourth Circuit denied the Defendant’s appeal in a 7-page order, which concluded that the Defendants’ requested relief is both extraordinary and premature in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Update 13: On Apr. 23, Defendants filed a sealed motion to stay discovery, which Judge Xinis granted through Apr. 30 with the agreement of the parties. On Apr. 30, Judge Xinis denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and ordered a new expedited schedule.
Update 14: On May 16, following a hearing, Judge Xinis ordered the unsealing of Secretary Rubio’s Declaration asserting state secrets and for the government to supplement the Declaration by May 23.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00056

Case Summary: On Jan. 21, 2025, Adrian Gil Rojas, a Venezuelan national, was taken into custody at his home by agents of U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE). Rojas had arrived in the United States on or about April 30, 2023 and was granted temporary protected status (TPS) on Nov. 27, 2023. He was subject to an in absentia removal order from Sept. 10, 2024 after he missed a court appointment, but on March 11, 2025 he filed a motion to rescind this order.
On March 14, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his detention is unlawful because of his TPS status under 8 U.S.C. 1254a (a)(1)(A). He also asserted that his submission of a motion to rescind his in absentia motion triggered an automatic stay of his removal from the U.S. under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C). He asked the court to release him immediately and declare his detention unlawful and unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, and enjoin his further removal or detention so long as he continues to hold TPS status and/or his motion to rescind remains pending under the Fifth Amendment.
Update: On Apr. 2, Judge Rolando Olvera ordered the government to return Gil Rojas to New York to be released on his own recognizance.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01774

Case No. 1:25-cv-38

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The ACLU sued the Trump administration on behalf of individuals in New Hampshire who would have their children’s citizenship revoked. The ACLU argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update 1: On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Apr. 10, the Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10135-LTS

First Circuit Case No. 25-1169

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” A group of pregnant women whose children would not receive citizenship sued; the plaintiff identified as “O. Doe” lives in Massachusetts and has temporary protected status in the United States. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update 1: On Feb. 13, Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” against plaintiff O. Doe, or any member of La Colaborativa or Brazilian Worker Center.
Update 2: On Feb. 19, Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the First Circuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10139

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The attorneys general of 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship under the executive order. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update 1: On Feb. 13, Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
Update 2: On Feb. 19, the Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the First Circuit, and a motion to stay the district court order on appeal.
Update 3: On Feb. 26, Judge Sorokin denied defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending resolution of their appeal.
Update 4: On March 11, the First Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay.
Update 5: On Mar. 13, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court’s injunction.
Update 6: On Apr. 23, the First Circuit denied the Defendants’ challenge to the preliminary injunction and denied all other pending motions as moot.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00201-DLB

Fourth Circuit Case No. 25-1153

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The plaintiffs, including immigrant rights organizations CASA and ASAP, as well as individual immigrant parents, argue that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), both of which guarantee citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. The complaint asserts that the executive order exceeds presidential authority and causes irreparable harm by stripping constitutionally protected rights from children born to immigrants​ (e.g., the right to remain in the United States, access public benefits, and participate fully in civic life) and destabilizes their families, potentially leaving children stateless and separating them from their parents​.
Update 1: On Feb. 5, 2025, Judge Deborah Boardman issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the birthright citizenship Executive Order.
Update 2: On Feb. 13, the Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
Update 3: On Feb. 28, the Fourth Circuit denied Defendants’ request for a partial stay of the district court’s injunction.
Update 4: On Mar. 13, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court’s injunction.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00163-JCC

Case Summary: Plaintiffs are non-citizen pregnant women whose due dates are after the implementation date of the Executive Order eliminating birthright citizenship. Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated. They allege that the EO is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and seek an injunction to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the EO.
Update 1: On Jan. 27, State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump (complaint) was consolidated with this case.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Four states sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship under the executive order. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update 1: On Jan. 23, 2025, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Jan. 27, Franco Aleman v. Trump (complaint) was consolidated with this case.
Update 3: On Feb. 6, Judge Coughenour issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the Executive Order.
Update 4: On Feb. 6, defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court (case no. 25-807).
Update 5: On Feb. 12, defendants made an emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction.
Update 6: On Feb. 19, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the government’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction and leaving the existing briefing schedule unchanged.
Update 7: On Mar. 13, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court’s injunction.
Update 8: On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the partial stay pending oral arguments, which was set for May 15.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00287

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order (EO) seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and for the children of parents on lawful temporary visas on the basis that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. OCA sued Marco Rubio and the heads of other departments and agencies on behalf of at least two pregnant women expected to give birth to children denied citizenship by the order. Both women reside in the United States on lawful, temporary, nonimmigrant visas. OCA argues that the order violates the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The suit identifies an injured “subclass” of “Targeted Children” denied the privileges and public benefits afforded to U.S. citizens, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Update 1: On Apr. 14, Defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings because the EO at issue is already the subject of three nationwide injunctions, to which the government has sought expedited appeals.
Update 2: On Apr. 28, OCA filed its opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay and requested that the court deny the vague motion which lacked a specific proposed order.
Update 3: On May 5, Defendants replied in support of their motion to stay. Judge Timothy Kelly denied Defendants’ motion to stay on May 14 and ordered Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint by June 5, 2024.

Case No. 5:25-cv-00981

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and for the children of parents on lawful temporary visas on the basis that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The County of Santa Clara sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship or whose U.S.-born children will not receive citizenship and to prevent administrative burdens and loss of tax revenues associated with that prospective loss of citizenship. Santa Clara argues that the order violates the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Update 1: On Feb. 5, Santa Clara County filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Defendants from implementing or enforcing the birthright citizenship EO on the basis that the EO violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the constitutional Separation of Powers, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Update 2: On Feb. 14, Defendants filed an opposition to Santa Clara County’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis that Santa Clara County does not reach threshold grounds and is unlikely to succeed on the merits, and injunctive relief is not in the public interest.
Update 3: On Feb. 19, Santa Clara County filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Feb. 21, Judge Eumi Lee ruled that both parties file Orders to Show Cause to explain why this case should not be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Washington v. Trump. The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was also vacated and both parties filed OSCs on Feb. 28.
Update 5: On Mar. 18, Judge Lee ordered that this case be stayed pending developments in Washington v. Trump (Ninth Circuit.) and New Jersey v. Trump (First Circuit).

Case No. 8:25-cv-00104

Case Summary: A birthright citizenship case under seal.
On Jan. 24, 2025, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, upon joint agreement by the parties, held briefing in abeyance pending the TRO and preliminary injunction litigation in Washington v. Trump.
Update 1: On Feb. 14, Judge Frimpong ordered that this case be stayed pending developments in Washington v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01309

Case Summary: Plaintiffs are a nonprofit organization as well as a Venezuelan national, J.V., who has Temporary Protected Status and a pending asylum petition. She is five months pregnant. Plaintiffs allege that the EO violates 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) and the Citizenship and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction against enforcement of the EO.
Update 1: On Mar. 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion, along with a memorandum of law, seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a motion and a memorandum of law, seeking to stay the case because the EO at issue is subject to three nationwide injunctions.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00550

Case Summary: On Apr. 22, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained V.M.L., a two-year old United States Citizen, along with her mother and sister following a routine check-in under the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program. The three are believed to be in custody in Alexandria after the mother and sister were served with deportation orders, but V.M.L.’s precise location is unknown to both her father and her custodian. V.M.L.’s custodian brought this habeas petition on Apr. 24 to secure V.M.L.’s release from unlawful detention, alleging this detention is in excess of executive authority and in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures and Fifth Amendment substantive due process right. The Petitioner immediately filed a motion for an emergency TRO, and the Petitioner filed a reply in further support of this motion the next day, on Apr. 25. The government opposed the motion for the emergency TRO on Apr. 25, and Judge Terry Doughty released a memorandum order that day to set a hearing for May 16, 2025, due to the Court’s belief that V.M.L., her mother, and her sister were already deported.
Update 1: On May 8, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal.

Case No. 25-cv-868

CASE CLOSED

Case Summary: Acting Attorney General Benjamine Huffman issued policy guidance that, among other immigration-related policies, instructs the Civil Division of the Department of Justice “to identify state and local laws, policies, and activities that are inconsistent with Executive Branch immigration initiatives and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws.” The plaintiffs, Chicago-based immigrant-advocacy organizations, allege that the guidance, and subsequent raids “specifically for the purpose of ending the Plaintiffs’ Sanctuary City advocacy and movement building,” violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the Department of Justice’s guidance.
Update 1: On Jan. 29, Plaintiffs requested the Court’s permission to withdraw their pending motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs noted its motions were to prevent federal officials from threatening or executing unlawful Chicago-based immigration raids. In light of Defendants’ launching such raid, Plaintiffs note the relief to which they may be entitled has changed.
Update 2: On Feb. 26, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice, citing this action as “no longer the appropriate forum to seek relief.” The judge dismissed the case without prejudice.

Case No. 3:25-cv-01350

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order directed the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, which the Department of Justice implemented through a Feb. 5, 2025 “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” memorandum. The district court granted a preliminary injunction to block the government from freezing and withholding federal funds and later clarified that this block is applicable to Executive Orders (EOs) and government actions that postdate the block. The plaintiffs include various cities and counties. They sued on the grounds that the executive order and DOJ memo violate the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of unenumerated power to the states, separation of powers, the spending clause, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the executive order is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction on any effort to enforce the provisions withholding funding.
Update 2: On Mar. 17, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On Mar. 31, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. On Apr. 7, Plaintiffs filed an additional reply in support of their request for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Apr. 24, Judge William Orrick granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On May 3, Judge Orrick issued a further order explaining the reasoning behind his preliminary injunction, including the basis for “the Cities and Counties’ well-founded fear of enforcement” and his determination that the potential for irreparable harm justifies a preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction order, or in the alternative modify it, to prevent Defendants from withholding, conditioning, or freezing funds to Plaintiffs under EO 14287 (a new EO that was signed on Apr. 28 after the preliminary injunction was issued). Defendants filed their opposition to this motion on May 7, urging the court to deny Plaintiffs’ new motion because EO 14287 falls outside of the four corners of the complaint.
Update 6: On May 9, Judge Orrick clarified that Defendants could not use EO 14287 or other Government action that postdates the preliminary injunction as a workaround to the preliminary injunction order. The preliminary injunction order should be read to apply to “any Executive Order or agency directive that purports to attempt to cut off federal funding from States or localities that meet the Government’s definition of ‘Sanctuary’ jurisdiction” in the “unconstitutional manner threatened by [EOs 14159 and 14218].”

Case No. 1:25-cv-10442

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order directed the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, which the Department of Justice implemented through a Feb. 5, 2025 “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” memorandum.
Plaintiffs, two Massachusetts cities that identify as a “sanctuary city” and a “welcoming community,” allege that the executive order and DOJ memo violate the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of unenumerated power to the states, separation of powers, the spending clause, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory judgment that the executive order and DOJ memo are statutorily unlawful and unconstitutional and that the cities are not criminally liable under the policies, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against implementation of the executive order and DOJ memo.
Update 1: On May 31, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking additional declaratory relief that plaintiffs’ policies are not “sanctuary policies” under the Subsidization EO and that plaintiffs are not “Sanctuary Jurisdictions” under the Designation EO.
Update 2: On June 3, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

Case No. 6:25-cv-00699

Case Summary: Acting DHA Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a memo on January 20, 2025 (the “2025 Huffman Memo”) eliminating three decades of immigration enforcement policy which included the designation of protected areas, approval requirements and exigent circumstances required for enforcement, and public-interest sensitivities. The Plaintiffs represent several religious organizations from across the United States which believe their purposes and missions are being thwarted by the policy change, as spaces of religious sanctity are no longer safe from federal immigration enforcement. They allege that the new policy violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act as the 2025 Huffman Memo is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.” The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00190

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand the use of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include noncitizens located anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have been continuously present for more than two years​. The plaintiff, Make the Road New York (MRNY), argues the rule violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the INA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by subjecting individuals to summary deportation without adequate procedural safeguards. The suit claims the rule is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, and disregards legal and constitutional protections against wrongful removal​.
Update 1: On Mar. 22, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Mary and her son John as plaintiffs who were removed to Mexico following their expedited removal orders under the new rule expanding expedited removal. Plaintiffs allege the rule illegally authorizes expedited removal for noncitizens who filed affirmative applications for asylum as well.
Update 2: On Apr. 18, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendants state that the legality of the expedited removal statute has long standing precedent and allege Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred and outside the zone of interests.
Update 3: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss, refuting the Defendants’ arguments and further arguing that the allegations supporting the Plaintiffs’ complaint are plausible.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01702

Motion for TRO: 1:24-cv-01702-RC – Dkt. No. 71

Case Summary: The Trump administration executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to cease operation of the CBP One app, which was created by the Biden administration to enable asylum seekers to schedule appointments to request asylum. The Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the ACLU had previously sued to challenge a Biden administration rule that limited asylum access to those presenting at a port of entry or falling under another narrow exception. In response, the government argued that the CBP One app remained as a pathway by which asylum-seekers could request appointments. In light of the discontinuation of the CBP One app, Las Americas, et al, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and requested an immediate status conference and leave to file supplemental briefings to address the government’s position.
Update 1: On Feb. 6, the court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order on the basis that the court lacked authority to order the government to parole noncitizens into the United States, determining that this power is wielded exclusively at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Update 2: On February 26, the Court issued a ruling denying Texas’s motion to intervene and motion for summary judgment, but granted Texas leave to file a brief as amicus curiae.The Court further denied the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Update 3: On May 9, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as well as granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the Court ordered that the Final Rule’s limitation on asylum eligibility be vacated and set aside, that the Final Rule’s manifestation of fear requirements be vacated and set aside, that the four-hour consultation window in the Guidance be vacated and set aside, that the provisions of the Final Rule not mentioned in the Order remain in effect and that the individual Plaintiffs’ removal orders and negative credible fear determinations be vacated.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00298

Case Summary: In 2024, Congress appropriated funds for two immigration programs, the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH). On Jan. 22, 2025, the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a stop-work order that halted funding for four programs providing legal resources to unrepresented people facing deportation. The EOIR action was taken purportedly to “audit” the programs pursuant to the Trump administration executive order. Nine advocacy and immigrant legal services organizations sued, arguing that terminating funding for the programs is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); violates the Appropriations Clause in the case of the LOP and ICH; and violates the First Amendment by denying the plaintiffs access to courthouses and immigration detention centers. The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and to enjoin the government from stopping the programs, refusing to spend appropriated funds, preventing the plaintiffs from accessing immigration courts houses and detention centers, and removing materials and posters the plaintiffs have posted in those locations.
Update 1: Immediately after filing their complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, along with a supporting memorandum of law, on Jan. 31. Plaintiffs requested that the court order Defendants to block the enforcement of Executive Order (EO) 14159.
Update 2: On Mar. 5, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction, asserting that Plaintiffs do not qualify for extraordinary relief and that their claims fail on the merits. Plaintiffs replied to this opposition on Mar. 13.
Update 3: On Apr. 14, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a TRO and supporting memorandum. Defendants responded in opposition to the renewed motion the next day, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims belong in the Court of Federal Claims.
Update 4: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which included three new allegations: (1) APA Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA); (2) violation of the separation of powers; and (3) an ultra vires violation.
Update 5: On Apr. 24, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Defendants included a supporting memorandum for their motion.
Update 6: On May 2, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and requested preliminary injunctive relief.
Update 7: On May 9, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, refuting Defendants’ claims and arguing that the Court does have jurisdiction, that the Programs’ termination is reviewable and that all of the Plaintiffs’ claims are viable.
Update 8: Also on May 9, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement and request for preliminary injunctive relief. They argue that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the APA claims fail for independent threshold reasons, and that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Further, they argue that any preliminary relief is unwarranted and if granted should be limited in scope.
Update 9: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and a motion for preliminary injunction.
Update 10: On May 23, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that included additional facts, amended one claim for relief, and added three more, including a Violation of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and a separation of powers violation for usurping legislative function.

Ninth Cir. Case No. 25-2120

Case No. 25-cv-01766

Case Summary: On Jan. 17, 2025, near the end of President Joe Biden’s term, DHS Secretary Mayorkas extended the designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans living in the United States. On Jan. 28, President Trump’s newly-confirmed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem vacated that extension, and days later she terminated TPS for Venezuelans who had first registered for protected status in 2023.
Plaintiffs allege that DHS lacks authority to “vacate” a prior TPS extension, but even if it did have such authority, the Secretary’s justifications are “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, pretextual, and inexplicably deviate from past practice in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Citing Secretary Noem’s references to Venezuelan TPS holders as “dirtbags,” Plaintiffs also allege that the Secretary’s actions were motivated at least partly by racial animus, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs request that the court declare unlawful and set aside DHS’s vacatur and termination orders and reinstate the prior TPS extension.
Update 1: On Feb. 20, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to postpone the effective date of DHS’s vacatur and termination orders. The Plaintiffs argued they are likely to succeed on the merits because Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to vacate the extension, the vacatur was arbitrary and capricious, and the government was motivated by racial animus. They also argued that they face a risk of irreparable harm and that, on balance, the Plaintiffs and the public interest would be more harmed by the absence of a stay than the Defendants would be by the imposition of one.
Update 2: On Mar. 3, the Defendants filed a reply to the Plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the effective date. The Defendants argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to review Secretary Noem’s actions or to provide the Plaintiffs’ requested relief. They also argue that even if the court has jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits.
Update 3: On Mar. 7, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to postpone the effective date of DHS’s orders.
Update 4: On Mar. 20, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding claims against Secretary Noem’s decision to reduce the 2024 TPS extension for Haiti to 12 months, and asking the court to declare that the 18-month TPS extension remains in effect. Additionally, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the effective date of the Venezuela TPS claim on March 24 and a decision is forthcoming.
Update 5: On Mar. 31, Judge Edward Chen granted plaintiffs motion (in a 78-page court order) to postpone the termination of temporary protected status for Venezuelan nationals.
Update 6: On Apr. 1, Defendants appealed Judge Chen’s Mar. 31 order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 7: On Apr. 18, the Ninth Circuit denied the Defendants’ motion for a stay.
Update 8: On Apr. 29, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the entire action on a variety of grounds. Further, the Motion to Dismiss argues that the Secretary’s actions did not violate the APA, being neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims should fail as a matter of law.
Update 9: On May 1, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the district court’s order.
Update 10: On May 19 the Supreme Court granted the stay for the government.
Update 11: On May 30, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to prevent the Defendants’ from invalidating work permits and other documents to a subset of the Venezuelan plaintiffs. The court wrote, “The Court also notes that the relief here would not extend to all Venezuelan TPS holders but rather a discrete subset – somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 individuals in the government’s estimation.”

Case No. 8:25-cv-00525

Case Summary: On Jan. 17, 2025, near the end of President Joe Biden’s term, DHS Secretary Mayorkas extended the designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans living in the United States. On Jan. 28, President Trump’s newly-confirmed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem vacated that extension, and days later she terminated TPS for Venezuelans who had first registered for protected status in 2023.
Plaintiffs allege that Secretary Noem, in bypassing the standard process for conducting TPS reviews, violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Citing Secretary Noem’s references to Venezuelan TPS holders as “dirtbags” and statements by President Trump, Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants’ vacatur and termination of TPS designation was motivated by discriminatory intent and racial animus, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs request that the court declare unlawful and set aside DHS’s vacatur and termination orders and reinstate the prior TPS extension.
Update 1: On Mar. 26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their cross-motion for a stay of agency action, arguing that the court has requisite jurisdiction and authority to grant relief, and that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their APA claims that the vacatur and termination were contrary to law and incorrectly issued.
Update 2: On Apr. 1, 2025, the court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to stay as moot in light of the decision in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766, (N.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 93) that postponed Secretary Noem’s decision to vacate the TPS extension.
Update 3: On Apr. 28, 2025 the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the court lacks jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the vacatur and termination were in violation of the APA or the Fifth Amendment.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10498

Case No. 1:25-cv-10495

Case Summary: The Trump administration executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to terminate all categorical parole programs contrary to the president’s executive orders. In effect, this ended the following programs: Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), Parole Processes for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), and Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). Subsequently, on Feb. 14, Acting Deputy Director of USCIS Andrew Davidson issued a memorandum (not yet made public) to various USCIS directorates and program officers directing them not to adjudicate immigration benefit requests filed by noncitizens who are or were paroled into the United States under: U4U; CHNV; family reunification parole processes created in 2023 for nationals of Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; a family reunification parole processes for Haitians that was created in 2014 and expanded in 2023; and a family reunification parole process for Cubans that was created in 2007 and expanded in 2023.
Plaintiffs in this class action contend that both Executive Order 14165 and the Davidson memo violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As such, Plaintiffs request an injunction in order to restore the status quo ante.
Update 1: On Mar. 17, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include: additional plaintiffs; family members of affected individuals as part of the class; additional immigration parole programs; and a request that the court set aside DHS’ suspension of the adjudication of requests for parole, re-parole, and other immigration benefits. Plaintiffs also filed a motion on Mar. 17 requesting a preliminary injunction and administrative stay against DHS’ indefinite moratorium on adjudicating immigration benefit applications, on the basis that Plaintiffs would succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality Act claims and that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury.
Update 2: On Mar. 21, DHS filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification for the class action on the same day, defining the class as all individuals with pending applications to sponsor someone for humanitarian parole processes, as well as all individuals, who have received humanitarian parole through already established processes, with pending applications for additional immigration benefit.
Update 3: On Mar. 27, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended complaint to include: additional plaintiffs; additional factual allegations related to DHS’ Mar. 25 Federal Register Notice that terminates the parole programs for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and sets a termination date of the temporary parole period of individuals under these parole programs to April 24, 2025; and an additional claim for relief arguing that the Mar. 25 Federal Register Notice violates the Administrative Procedure Act because Plaintiffs did not receive written notice of termination of parole. On Mar. 27, Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and administrative stay to block DHS’ early termination of the temporary parole period, as stated in the Mar. 25 Federal Register Notice. Plaintiffs argue that the termination violates the Administrative Procedure Act and request a preliminary injunction and a stay to block DHS from implementing or enforcing the termination of parole processes, on the grounds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act claim and that they will suffer irreparable injury.
Update 4: On Apr. 14, Judge Indira Talwani issued an order granting class certification and another order granting a stay temporarily blocking the government’s action.
Update 5: On Apr. 18, Defendants filed a notice that they were appealing the court’s order staying parole terminations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Update 6: On May 5, the First Circuit denied Defendants’ petition for a stay.
Update 7: On May 8, the Defendants’ petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.
Update 8: On May 30, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to temporarily end the humanitarian parole program that granted provisional legal status to over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), enabling them to live and work in the U.S. while their immigration cases were pending. This decision overrules the Massachusetts District Court’s order that had previously blocked the administration’s effort.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00306

Case Summary: Trump’s proclamation bars immigrants who arrive after the date of the proclamation from invoking provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would permit them to remain in the United States while pursuing asylum claims. The plaintiffs, three nonprofit organizations in Texas and Arizona providing legal services and assistance to undocumented individuals or asylum seekers, argue that the order violates the following statutory and constitutional provisions:

1. the Asylum Statute in the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (by barring noncitizens from applying for asylum in direct contradiction to congressional protections);

2. the Withholding of Removal Statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (by preventing noncitizens from seeking protection from persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion);

3. the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (by depriving noncitizens of a meaningful opportunity to present CAT claims and shielding them from potential torture);

4. the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D) (by denying unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries their statutory right to regular removal proceedings);

5. the INA’s procedural protections for removal, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1229a, 1225(b) (by overriding mandated removal proceedings and eliminating procedural protections, including credible fear screenings);

6. the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (by implementing policies that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law) and § 706(2)(D) (by failing to follow the required rulemaking process before enacting sweeping changes to statutory protections); and

7. the constitutional separation of powers (by exceeding presidential authority and unlawfully overriding congressionally enacted immigration protections).

The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the proclamation is unlawful and an injunction stopping its implementation.
Update 1: On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to stay removal of individual plaintiff non-citizens who are currently detained by the Defendants and could be imminently deported under the proclamation. On Feb. 20, Judge Moss issued an administrative stay in the case until 12 pm on Feb. 24 to allow the government time to gather information to respond, and time for expedited briefing. The court further ordered the Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a stay of removal by Feb. 21.
Update 2: On Feb. 22, Judge Moss denied as moot the emergency motion to stay removal of individual asylum-seekers because the government agreed not to use President Trump’s January 2025 border proclamation to remove them during the litigation. The court ordered that the government must provide at least seven days’ notice before removing any of the plaintiffs during the case and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Update 3: On Mar. 24, the Trump administration filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting, among other things, that plaintiffs lack standing, that presidential decisions are not reviewable under the APA, and that the “[t]he determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question.”
Update 4: On Apr. 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Their proposed order requests a permanent injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from enforcing the proclamation.
On that same day, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Trump Administration’s motion for summary judgment.
Update 5: On Apr. 21, the Trump Administration filed a reply in support of its Mar. 24 motion for summary judgment, arguing that the President has broad discretion under INA Article II to suspend entry of classes of aliens even if Plaintiffs can assert their claims.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00912-KG-KRS

Dkt. No. 43

CASE CLOSED

Case Summary: Trump’s Presidential Memorandum orders the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to function at full capacity as a detention center for undocumented migrants. Three Venezuelan men, already part of an existing habeas lawsuit from September 2024 in the District Court of New Mexico, sought to block the administration from transferring them to the Guantanamo facility. Based on their similarities to those previously relocated, the men anticipated being moved as well. The challenge is specific to three specific individuals, under the All Writs Act to preserve the ongoing jurisdiction of the court, and does not seek to block other transfers.
On Feb. 9, Chief District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granted a temporary restraining order, barring the U.S. government from transferring the three men.
Update 1: On Feb. 13, Judge Gonzales issued a 1-page Memorandum Opinion and Order noting that the Defendants had filed a Notice that all three petitioners were removed to Venezuela on Feb. 10; and vacated the upcoming status conference.
Update 2: On Feb. 14, the docket reflected a Notice of voluntary dismissal of the case by the three petitioners.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00418

Case Summary: Trump’s Presidential Memorandum orders the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to function at full capacity as a detention center for undocumented migrants. Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of the families of four Venezuelan nationals who are believed to have been transferred to Guantánamo. Plaintiffs allege the government’s action violates habeas corpus rights, Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, and the Immigration and Naturalization Act’s guarantee of the right to counsel. Plaintiffs further allege that the government’s alleged restriction of information in and out of Guantánamo violates both the plaintiffs’ and the detainees’ First Amendment rights. They seek court orders declaring that the government’s actions violate those rights, permitting access to lawyers, requiring the government to identify the location of detainees held at Guantánamo, requiring the government to provide 72-hours notice prior to any transfer to a foreign jurisdiction, and requiring the government to provide 72-hours notice prior to any transfer of additional noncitizens to Guantánamo.
Update 1: On Feb. 20, the government filed a notice that DHS had removed the immigration detainees from Guantánamo, which the government asserted “eliminates any need for temporary injunctive relief.” Just prior, it filed its Opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order arguing, among other things, that the Plaintiffs (family members of individuals who had been held at Guantánamo, and advocacy organizations) lacked standing because they were not themselves detained, that the District Court lacked statutory authority to require the government to provide notice before transferring individuals into or out of Guantánamo, and denying the validity of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
Update 2: On Feb. 21, Plaintiffs filed a Reply reasserting their request for a TRO to prevent the government from sending more detainees to Guantánamo.
Update 3: On Feb. 24, Plaintiffs filed a Reply explaining that in spite of the administration’s Feb. 20 notice that all immigrant detainees had been transferred off Guantánamo and the TRO was moot, they had learned via social media that another group of immigrants was being sent to Guantánamo. The Reply adds further factual allegations and legal arguments that immigrant detainees are prevented from having real meaningful access to legal representation. These include that (1) the government and guards at the detention camp do not allow detainees to make phone calls, including by saying “this is a terrorist prison and there is no capacity to make calls” and by limiting available phones and times such that most people cannot use them; (2) unrepresented detainees transferred to Guantanamo do not have access to a legal directory, know your rights briefings, or practical means to meet counsel; and (3) retained counsel face numerous obstacles to representing their clients, including that only five detainees can make phone calls each day, there are no means for attorneys to initiate contact with their clients, and there is no way to transfer or sign paperwork other than the government’s announced policy to “generally follow the procedures used in the habeas litigation involving law of war detainees,” and to transfer mail to detainees from Washington, D.C. on a weekly basis.
Plaintiffs argue that these restrictions violate detainees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as their statutory right to counsel under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the plaintiff advocacy organizations’ First Amendment rights.
Update 4: On March 19, the Defendants submitted a notice agreeing to notification before any plaintiffs would be transferred to Guantanamo.
Update 5: On Apr. 26, Plaintiffs amended their complaint and removed the advocacy groups and families from the case, designating it a class action suit and limiting it to two named detainees and “all immigration detainees originally apprehended in the United States and detained at U.S. immigration detention facilities, and who are, or will be held at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.” Among their edits include the removal of three of their original five claims for relief. The remaining two claims for relief include violations of the First Amendment rights of immigrant detainees and Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00604

CASE CLOSED

Case Summary: Trump’s Presidential Memorandum orders the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to function at full capacity as a detention center for undocumented migrants. Plaintiffs, ten noncitizens in immigration custody in the United States, allege they will be imminently transferred to facilities at Guantánamo. They filed suit, arguing that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Guantánamo is in Cuba, and therefore transfer would constitute (1) unlawful removal; and (2) unlawful detention. They also argue removal would be (3) an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act; (4) a violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process; and (5) a violation of the right to habeas corpus. They seek a declaratory judgment that transfer to and detention in Guantánamo is unlawful and unconstitutional; that the memorandum be vacated; a grant of a writ of habeas corpus to enjoin defendants from transferring plaintiffs to Guantánamo, or if they have been transferred and detained, return to facilities in the United States; and an injunction on future transfers.
The same day, Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion to stay transfer of plaintiffs.
Update 1: On March 19, the Defendants submitted a notice agreeing to notification before any plaintiffs would be transferred to Guantanamo.
Update 2: On May 22, the plaintiffs submitted a Notice of voluntary dismissal stating that the government has removed them and their claims are thus rendered moot.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00255

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order indefinitely suspending refugee admissions and processing. The State Department issued a Jan. 24 notice suspending federal funding for resettlement programs. Ten plaintiffs — individual refugees, U.S. citizens, and resettlement organizations (HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest) — filed a proposed class action seeking injunctions to block implementation of the orders, declaratory judgments that the actions are unlawful, maintenance of refugee processing and resettlement services consistent with the status quo, and confirmation of compliance with such remedies if granted. The lawsuit alleges that the orders have left approved refugees stranded internationally, denied recent arrivals statutorily-mandated support services, and forced layoffs at resettlement institutions.
The complaint asserts that the executive orders violate the Refugee Act’s comprehensive statutory scheme for refugee policy, are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for circumventing notice-and-comment requirements and failing to establish a reasoned basis for the change in policy, and breach agency regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 207.7 governing the Follow-to-Join process in violation of the Accardi doctrine requiring government officials to follow the agency’s own rules and procedures. The lawsuit further argues that the orders violate the Fifth Amendment due process rights of U.S. citizens petitioning for family reunification, and violate fundamental separation of powers principles by attempting to redistribute or withhold congressionally appropriated funds to achieve policy objectives.
Update 1: On Feb. 25, Judge Jamal Whitehead, ruling from the bench, issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the executive order.
Update 2: On Feb. 28, Judge Whitehead issued a written opinion granting the nationwide preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Mar. 3, the government submitted a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Update 4: On Mar. 5, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Citing continued steps by the administration to dismantle resettlement programs after Judge Whitehead’s preliminary injunction, including the termination of cooperative agreements implementing the resettlement programs, the amended complaint also requests a TRO and preliminary injunction against implementation of the EO. The plaintiffs also submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis of this amended complaint.
Update 5: On Mar. 8, the Trump administration filed an emergency motion to stay the district court proceedings with the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their response to this emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit on Mar. 14.
Update 6: On Mar. 24, the court granted a second preliminary injunction on the basis of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Update 7: On Mar. 25, the Trump administration filed a notice that it was appealing the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.
On that same day, the Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Whitehead on Feb. 28. The Ninth Circuit denied the motion to the extent it applies to individuals who were conditionally approved for refugee status before Jan. 20, 2025, but otherwise granted the motion to stay.
Update 8: On Apr. 3, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the first preliminary injunction due to Defendants’ noncompliance with the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ motion also included an emergency motion for a show cause hearing.
Update 9: On Apr. 8, the Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ Apr. 3 motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, arguing Plaintiffs’ read of the Ninth Circuit’s stay order is too narrow. The Trump administration requested the court hold Plaintiffs’ motion in abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on their pending appeals.
Update 10: On Apr. 9, Plaintiffs filed a response in further support of their motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. On Apr. 11, Judge Whitehead granted this motion in part and ordered Defendants to immediately cease the suspension of and resume refugee processing and resettlement support for individuals conditionally approved for refugee status by USCIS before Jan. 20, 2025. This order also requires Defendants to cease the implementation of any suspension of funding to USRAP partner agencies.
Update 11: On Apr. 21, the Ninth Circuit issued a notice to clarify its Mar. 25 order, which granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for an emergency stay of Judge Whitehead’s preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit noted that the stay request is denied to the extent that Judge Whitehead’s preliminary injunction orders applies to individuals who, before January 20, 2025, (1) had approved refugee applications authorizing them to be conditionally admitted as a refugee to the U.S.; (2) were cleared by USCIS for travel to the United States; and (3) had arranged and confirmable travel plans to the United States.
Update 12: On Apr. 28, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the first supplemental complaint, alleging a variety of both substantive and procedural shortcomings in the Plaintiffs’ first supplemental complaint.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00465

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order indefinitely suspending refugee admissions and processing. The State Department issued a Jan. 24 notice suspending federal funding for resettlement programs. Plaintiff, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is part of a public-private partnership with the federal government through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, and was providing transitionary resettlement services to more than 6,700 refugees when the State Department suspended funding. USCCB brought suit, arguing the government policy suspending funds for the Refugee Admissions Program is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act because it (1) violates the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the Impoundment Control Act; (2) is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and (3) is a substantive role promulgated without required notice-and-comment rulemaking. They seek a declaratory judgment that the suspension is unlawful, and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions prohibiting the government from implementing the suspension and requiring the government to make reimbursements pursuant to the terms of its cooperative agreements.
Update 1: On Feb 20, 2025, Judge Trevor N. McFadden denied the request for a temporary restraining order, but ordered an expedited briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction motion.
Update 2: On Feb. 24, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Mar. 3, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, an amended motion for a preliminary injunction, and a memorandum in support of that motion; and Judge McFadden ruled that the prior motions for a preliminary injunction are moot in light of the new motion. The amended complaint and the amended motion for a preliminary injunction are in response to new developments in the case, e.g., on Feb. 27, the State Department terminated the cooperative agreements with USCCB for refugee resettlement. This termination changed the nature of the dispute from a suspension of funding to a complete cancellation of the contracts.
Update 4: On Mar. 5, the government filed in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction and the following day, on Mar. 6, the plaintiffs filed a reply.
Update 5: On Mar. 11, Judge McFadden denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency preliminary injunction.
Update 6: On Mar. 12, Plaintiffs submitted a notice of appeal to the DC Circuit.
Update 7: On Apr. 21, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum, claiming that the government has not waived sovereign immunity, and the Plaintiff’s claims are moot, lack jurisdiction, and fail to state a claim.
Update 8: On April 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion for the voluntary dismissal of their appeal of the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. This motion was granted by the DC Circuit on May 2.
Update 9: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, stressing that the court’s denial of the preliminary injunction does not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking other forms of equitable relief.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00885

Case Summary: Plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations, are challenging actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to indefinitely freeze grants for nonprofits that help prepare lawful permanent residents for citizenship. They argue that the freeze, implemented by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, via a memorandum directive, in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump, is arbitrary and capricious, and has caused significant harm to their operations, including layoffs and program cuts. They argue that the funding freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Homeland Security Act, and Due Process under the Fifth Amendment. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to lift the freeze, restore their funding, and prevent further harm.
Update 1: On Mar. 25, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Mar. 28, Plaintiffs informed the Court that Defendants sent grant termination letters to Plaintiffs the previous day (Mar. 27). These letters noted the termination was effective immediately.
Update 3: On Apr. 1, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs’ submitted a reply in support of their motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On Apr. 8, Judge Lydia Griggsby denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction for most plaintiffs, but held the motion in abeyance for the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. In the related opinion issued on Apr. 14, Judge Griggsby found Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Update 6: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On that same day, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 7: On May 6, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. On May 12, Plaintiffs replied in support of their preliminary injunction motion.
Update 8: On May 20, Judge Griggsby denied Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.

Case No. 3:25-cv-02847

Case Summary: On Mar. 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) sent a notice (the “Cancellation Order”) terminating the funding through which the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had provided funding for counsel for unaccompanied immigrant children and ordering nonprofits that had received such funding to “immediately stop work” on their ongoing funded representations for unaccompanied children. Plaintiffs are numerous nonprofits that have received funding from HHS and ORR to provide legal representation and other legal services to unaccompanied children. They have filed suit against Defendants HHS, ORR, and DOI, seeking to enjoin Defendants from ceasing to fund counsel for unaccompanied children. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ actions are arbitrary and capricious and violate the Administrative Procedure Act (including conduct not in accordance with law appropriating funds by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and, via the Accardi doctrine, violating the internal 2024 Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule; and “arbitrary and capricious” conduct).
Update 1: On Mar. 27, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), seeking to block Defendants from ceasing funding for direct legal representation services for unaccompanied immigrant children. On Mar. 31, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for a TRO.
Update 2: On Apr. 1, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and enjoined Defendants from cutting off access to congressionally appropriated funding (particularly for direct legal representation services for unaccompanied immigrant children) through Apr. 16.
Update 3: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to extend the TRO blocking the administration from cutting off congressionally appropriated funding.
Update 4: On Apr. 4, Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the TRO in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California, which Defendants assert constitutes a significant shift in law affirming federal agencies’ discretion to make funding determinations.
Update 5: On Apr. 7, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the TRO, alleging that Defendants have not complied with the court’s order.
Update 6: On Apr. 10, the Court extended the TRO until Apr. 30.
Update 7: On Apr. 11, Defendants appealed the Court’s decision to grant and then extend the TRO to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 8: On Apr. 18, the Ninth Circuit denied the appeal.
Update 9: On Apr. 21, the district court issued an order denying motion to dissolve the TRO.
Update 10: On Apr. 23, Defendants petitioned the full Ninth Circuit for an en banc review of the panel’s Apr. 18 decision, and the court denied that petition the following day, Apr. 24.
Update 11: On Apr. 29, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. This order blocks Defendants from withdrawing services or funds provided by ORR as of March 20, 2025 under the TVPRA and the ORR statute until a final judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims is entered.
Update 12: On Apr. 30, Defendants’ appealed the Court’s preliminary injunction order to the Ninth Circuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00677

Case Summary: Plaintiffs allege that the Trump administration “has begun taking steps to collect information about individuals for potential immigration enforcement” by seeking access to data associated with individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs). The IRS assigns ITINs to individuals who lack social security numbers (i.e., noncitizens) so that such individuals can file tax returns and pay federal income taxes as required by law. Plaintiffs assert that granting immigration enforcement agencies access to the sensitive data of individuals who file using ITINs would “expose millions of taxpayers to the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics.”
Plaintiffs claim the government’s actions are ultra vires and violate the Administrative Procedure Act by running afoul of the IRS statute requiring confidentiality of tax return information.
They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from providing ITIN applications to DHS, ICE, the President, or any others, unless such disclosure is specifically permitted by law.
Update 1: On Mar. 14, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Update 2: On Mar. 17, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, which included a Motion to Dismiss.
Update 3: On Mar. 18, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a TRO.
Update 4: On Mar. 20, following a hearing the day prior, Judge Dabney Friedrich denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO for failure to demonstrate standing, likelihood of success on the merits, or irreparable harm.
Update 5: On Mar. 26, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding new plaintiffs–Somos un Pueblo (“Somos”) and Inclusive Action for the City (“IAC”)–to the complaint; alleging additional harms to Somos’s members, IAC’s business, and arbitrary and capricious action by Treasury Defendants; and requesting additional relief to enjoin DHS Defendants from inspecting information about Plaintiffs’ members without a court order.
Update 6: On Mar. 31, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the court block Defendants from disclosing, inspecting, or using tax return information for immigration enforcement purposes except as expressly authorized by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
Update 7: On Apr. 7, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss and opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack the jurisdictional requirements to bring a suit and that DHS can legally request tax return information relating to individuals under criminal investigation.
Update 8: On April 10, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, noting that Defendants’ opposition motion supports Plaintiffs’ position that ICE seeks tax payer data to locate and deport immigrants from the U.S.
Update 9: On Apr. 21, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs argue they have standing to bring their claims and have adequately stated a claim for which relief can be granted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Update 10: On Apr. 23, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in which they proposed a revised preliminary injunction order in light of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) finalized by the Defendants that enables the sharing of taxpayer information.
Update 11: On Apr. 28, Defendants replied to Plaintiffs’ opposition to their motion to dismiss, emphasizing their belief that Plaintiffs’ alleged harms are conjectural and hypothetical.
Update 12: On May 1, Defendants replied to Plaintiffs’ Apr. 23 supplemental memorandum in which they emphasized that Plaintiffs lack standing and requested that the Court grant its motion to dismiss.
Update 13: On May 12, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for Preliminary Injunction, stating that the Plaintiffs failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claims.
Update 14: On May 21, the Plaintiffs filed notice that they were appealing the Court’s order denying their Motion for Preliminary Injunction to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Case no. 2:25-cv-01963
(formerly S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:25-cv-01935)

Case Summary: On Mar. 8, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and lawful U.S. permanent resident (a green card holder). Khalil is a recent graduate of Columbia University, where he played a prominent role in organizing pro-Palestinian demonstrations against Israel’s military actions in Gaza. (See also Declaration by Khalil’s attorney)
The habeas petition alleges, “At the time this proceeding was initiated, [Khalil] was detained at 26 Federal Plaza in New York, New York.”
The government moved Khalil to a detention facility in Louisiana, away from his New York home and his wife, who is eight months pregnant and a U.S. citizen. His legal team filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention and deportation efforts. Khalil’s legal team also moved to compel the government to return him to the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
On Mar. 10, SDNY federal judge Jesse Furman temporarily blocked his removal from the United States pending further judicial review, which he extended after an emergency conference hearing on Mar. 12.
Update 1: On Mar. 12, the government submitted an declaration from ICE Acting Field Office Director of the NYC office which stated: “At the time Khalil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of New York, he was detained at Elizabeth Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey.” The government filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana.
Update 2: On Mar. 12, Judge Jesse Furman issued an order lifting restrictions on remote access to electronic files, making all prior and future filings publicly available unless redacted or sealed. The judge also ordered that Khalil be granted at least one privileged attorney-client call on Mar. 12 and at least one such call on Mar. 13.
Update 3: On Mar. 14, Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil filed his opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss or transfer the case. The filing argues that, if the court concludes it is not the proper venue for Khalil’s claims, the petition should be transferred to the District of New Jersey (not the Western District of Louisiana, as requested by the government) based on the immediate custodian rule.
Update 4: On Mar. 15, Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil moved for his release. On Mar. 17, Khalil moved for a preliminary injunction: “(1) ordering the release of Mr. Khalil for the pendency of this litigation; (2) enjoining Respondent Rubio’s determination that the INA’s ‘Foreign Policy Ground’ applies to him for the pendency of this litigation; and (3) enjoining Respondents from enforcing their Policy of arresting, detaining, and removing noncitizens who engage in constitutionally protected expressive activity in the United States in support of Palestinian rights or critical of Israel for the pendency of this litigation.”
Update 5: On Mar. 19, Judge Furman denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Petition, but granted the government’s motion to transfer the case, albeit to the District of New Jersey, not to the Western District of Louisiana. The case is now before Judge Michael Farbiarz.
Update 6: On Apr. 1, Judge Michael Farbiarz issued an order and opinion holding the court has habeas jurisdiction over the case, and soliciting the parties’ views on appealability of the order.
Update 7: On Apr. 2, the government filed a motion opposing Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The government argues that Petitioner Khalil cannot meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction because they claim that: (1) Petitioner Khalil cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) Petitioner Khalil has not established irreparable harm, given that he allegedly has multiple other avenues to seek release; and (3) the public interest favors the government, given the allegedly significant public interest in swift enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. In addition, the government requests that a bond be posted should Petitioner Khalil be granted an injunction.
Update 8: On Apr. 3, Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil filed a second amended complaint. The amended complaint adds Yolanda Pittman, the warden of the detention facility where Khalil was held in New Jersey on March 9, 2025, as a defendant.
Update 9: On Apr. 6, Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil filed a reply in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Khalil argues the government is mistaken in its claim that the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits judicial review of his challenge to his detention and the policy decisions that led to his detention. Khalil also seeks to rebut the government’s arguments that his claims are unlikely to succeed, he has not established irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities leans in favor of the government.
Update 10: On Apr. 29, the District Court reaffirmed its finding of habeas jurisdiction over the case.
Update 11: On May 1, Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil submitted a letter requesting to amend his petition to reflect the transfer of his case to the District of New Jersey, the addition of Yolanda Pittman as a defendant, and the addition of a new charge of removability. On May 8, he submitted an amended complaint.
Update 12: On May 28, Judge Farbiarz ruled in Khalil’s favor on the ground that removal for his political activity was unconstitutionally vague, but also ruled that Khalil had not yet sufficiently disputed the second ground for his removal on failure to disclose information in his 2024 legal permanent resident application. The court denied Khalil’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the latter, but indicated Khalil could supplement the record.

Case No. 1:25-cv-02412

Case Summary: On January 29, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14188 (“EO”) declaring that the Administration would prioritize investigating “post October 7, 2023 campus anti-Semitism.” An accompanying White House fact sheet explained “Immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities” and that the EO “demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws.”
Following this EO, the Department of State adopted a Policy under which Secretary of State Marco Rubio would be empowered to determine whether a noncitizen’s activities had “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” and to permit the Department of Homeland Security to seek to detain and deport such a person.
On Mar. 8, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official signed an administrative arrest warrant for Yunseo Chung, a Columbia University student and lawful U.S. permanent resident who was identified as a pro-Palestinian protestor who attended a student sit-in demonstration at Columbia on Mar. 5.
Chung has not yet been detained and has proactively filed a petition for habeas corpus asking the Court to block Trump, Rubio, and other government officials from taking enforcement action against her, including detaining her or removing her from the U.S., until a court has heard her case. She also requested that the Court vacate and set aside as unlawful Defendants’ policy of targeting noncitizens for removal on the basis that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Mar. 28, Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Update 3: On Apr. 10, Chung filed a motion to expedite discovery to support her preliminary injunction motion which, if granted, would prevent her detention and transfer.
Update 5: On Apr. 14, Defendants replied in opposition to Chung’s motion to expedite discovery.
Update 6: On Apr. 29, Chung filed a memorandum in further support of her motion for a preliminary injunction, emphasizing (1) that Defendants did not deny that Chung’s detention constitutes viewpoint discrimination, serves no constitutionally valid purpose, and violates the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment without due process; and (2) Defendants’ arguments rest on jurisdictional challenges that have been repeatedly rejected. On that same day, Chung filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing that Defendants’ motion ignores key language in the INA and expansively reads statutes that higher courts have repeatedly construed narrowly in alleging Chung’s presence or activities in the U.S. would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
Update 7: On May 14, Defendants replied in support of their motion to dismiss, further emphasizing their belief that the court lacks jurisdiction over Chung’s claim.
Update 8: On May 20, Chung filed a sur-reply in further opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss to address intervening 2nd Circuit decisions in Ozturk v. Hyde and Mahdawi v. Trump that reject Defendants’ jurisdictional challenges.

Case No. 3:25-cv-00335

CASE CLOSED

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing federal agencies to enhance immigration screening and vetting procedures to prevent the entry of individuals who may pose a terrorist, national security, or public safety threat to the U.S. On Jan. 29, Trump issued an EO directing federal resources and civil rights enforcement authorities to combat antisemitism on higher education campuses. On March 14, 2025, the State Department notified ICE that it had revoked the F-1 student visa of a noncitizen lawfully residing in the U.S. named Momodou Taal.
On Mar. 15, Plaintiffs, Momodou Taal and other citizens and noncitizens lawfully residing in the United States, filed suit against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Secretary of DHS Kristi Noem to preliminarily and permanently enjoin DHS from enforcing parts of the EOs on the grounds that they violate the First and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting a TRO and preliminary injunction, seeking to temporarily block Defendants from detaining and deporting Taal and similarly situated individuals while the case proceeds.
Update 1: On Mar. 22, the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Mar. 27, Judge Elizabeth Coombe denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. Coombe held that the Plaintiffs did not satisfy the high burden for a temporary restraining order. “To the extent a violation of Taal’s First Amendment rights subjected him to the commencement of removal proceedings, Plaintiffs have not shown that this claim is within the jurisdiction of the Court,” Coombe also wrote.
The court recognized that same day the Plaintiffs had simultaneously submitted an amended complaint and asked for further briefing on the effect of the judgment. Plaintiffs also submitted a new motion for a temporary restraining order, and the judge set an expedited briefing schedule in response.
Update 3: On Mar. 31, the Plaintiff submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice. Taal reportedly decided to leave the United States.

Case No. 25-cv-00881-NYW

Case Summary: On Mar. 17, Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez, a citizen of Mexico, was detained by agents of United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE). On Mar. 18, she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that her detention is unlawful because she has not been placed in removal proceedings or subject to a valid, reinstated prior order of removal. She has asked the Court to release her immediately and declare that her detention is unlawful and unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.
Update 1: On Mar. 21, Judge Nina Wang ordered that Vizguerra-Ramirez should not be removed from the U.S. unless either the district court or court of appeals vacate the order.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00374

Initial case: (D. Mass) (Case No. 1:25-cv-10695)

Amended habeas petition (Mar. 28, 2025)

Case Summary: On Mar. 25, Rumeysa Ozturk, a citizen of Turkey and PhD student at Tufts University, was detained by agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The same day, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is under seal.
Update 1: On Mar. 25, Judge Indira Talwani issued an order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide 48-hours notice before moving Ozturk outside of the District of Massachusetts.
Update 2: On Mar. 28, Ozturk, now also represented by the ACLU and CLEAR, filed an amended petition for habeas relief.
On that same day, Judge Talwani ordered that Ozturk not be removed from the U.S. until the Court orders otherwise.
Update 3: On Apr. 1, Defendants filed a response to Ozturk’s amended complaint, to which Ozturk replied on Apr. 2.
Update 4: On Apr. 4, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition or to transfer Ozturk to Louisiana, instead ordering her transferred to Vermont.
Update 5: On Apr. 18, Judge William Sessions issued an order for Ozturk to be transferred to ICE custody within the District of Vermont no later than May 1 and for a bail hearing on May 9. In rejecting the government’s request to dismiss the petition, Judge Sessions wrote, “The Court further finds that Ms. Ozturk has raised significant constitutional concerns with her arrest and detention which merit full and fair consideration in this forum.” Defendants appealed this order on April 22.
Update 6: On May 2, Ozturk filed a supplemental memorandum in support of her motion for release. In the alternative, Ozturk requested to be returned to Vermont.
Update 7: On May 7, the Second Circuit rejected the Defendants’ appeal and held that Ozturk must be transferred to Vermont by May 14.
Update 8: On May 9, following a hearing, Judge William Sessions ordered Ozturk’s immediate release.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00480

Case Summary: Dr. Badar Khan Suri is a Georgetown professor and postdoctoral scholar on religion and peace processes in the Middle East and South Asia who has been vocal in his support of Palestinian rights and his family’s ties to Gaza. Though he lives and works legally in the United States on a research scholar and professor visa, he was arrested without charge by masked ICE agents and transferred to an immigration detention center in Louisiana to await deportation. Suri is suing the administration on the basis that his arrest is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Update 1: On Mar. 20, Petitioner filed a motion to compel the respondents to return Suri to the Eastern District of Virginia and a memorandum in support of said motion.
Update 2: The Court ordered that Suri shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court issues a contrary order.
Update 3: Petitioner filed a motion for release on bond.
Update 4: On Apr.1, respondents filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to transfer the case and opposition to the motion to compel respondents to return petitioner to the Eastern district of Virginia.
Update 5: On Apr. 3, Respondents filed a response in opposition to Suri’s motion for release on bond.
Update 6: On Apr. 15, Petitioner filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss and the motion to transfer case.
Update 7: On Apr. 21, Respondents filed a reply to the response to the motion to dismiss and motion to transfer case.
Update 8: On May 6, the Court found that it has habeas jurisdiction to consider the petition and consequently denied the motion to dismiss and motion to transfer venue.
Update 9: On May 14th, the Court granted the petitioner’s motion for release on bond.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10685

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing federal agencies to enhance immigration screening and vetting procedures to prevent the entry of individuals who may pose a terrorist, national security, or public safety threat to the United States. On Jan. 29, the president issued an EO directing federal resources and civil rights enforcement authorities to combat antisemitism on higher education campuses.
On Mar. 25, Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors and other academic groups, filed suit against Trump, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others, alleging that to implement these EOs, Defendants have engaged in an “ideological-deportation policy” against noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian protests.
Plaintiffs allege that the deportation policy creates a “climate of repression and fear on university campuses” and prevents U.S. citizen members of the academic groups from hearing from and associating with noncitizen students and colleagues, as well as making it more difficult for members to collaborate with noncitizen students and colleagues. The academic groups allege that the policy violates the First Amendment because it “entails the arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty on the basis of, or in retaliation for, their political viewpoints” and is “not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest.” According to the academic groups, the policy also violates the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (as “arbitrary and capricious” conduct). They ask the court to block the agencies from further implementing the policy.
Update 1: On Apr. 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and expedited briefing, asking the court to stop the agencies from implementing or enforcing the policy.
Update 2: On Apr. 14, the government filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction, does not violate the First Amendment, and that the balance of equities do not support granting the relief sought. On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. On Apr. 23, at a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to treat the government’s response in opposition as a motion to dismiss and the court took the motion under advisement.
Update 3: On Apr. 29, the court granted the motion to dismiss on third count (Fifth Amendment vagueness), but denied the motion to dismiss on the first (First Amendment), second (First Amendment), and fourth (APA) counts.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00389

Case Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained Petitioner Mohsen Mahdawi, a lawful United States permanent resident, on Apr. 14. Mahdawi alleges he was targeted for his support of Palestine and has sued President Trump, DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others alleging violations of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights as well as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Nondelegation Doctrine. On Apr. 14, Mahdawi filed a habeas corpus petition, requesting that the Court grant him release on bail and that the court vacate and set aside the government’s alleged policy of targeting noncitizens for removal based on their exercise of their First Amendment speech rights in advocating for Palestine, as well as the Secretary of State’s “determination that the presence or activities in the United States of individuals who protested […]
Israel would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences and
would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” Mahdawi argued that the government’s policy and Secretary of State’s determination violate the APA by being arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to constitutional right, contrary to law, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction. Mahdawi has filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is under seal.
On Apr. 14, the court issued an order that he not be removed from the United States or moved out of the territory of the District of Vermont pending further order of this Court.
Update 1: On Apr. 22, Petitioner filed a Motion for Release on bond.
Update 2: On Apr. 24, the TRO was extended for 90 days or until the dismissal of the case or a grant of a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Apr. 30, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion, ordering him released on his personal recognizance during the pendency of his habeas proceeding. The judge based his decision on the Petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits of his claims of Due Process, First Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations, and concluded that his release was in the public interest, as his continued detention would have a chilling effect on protected speech and was justified due to the “extraordinary circumstances” surrounding his case.
Update 4: On May 1, the Trump Administration appealed the Court’s orders on Apr. 24 and 30, extending the TRO and granting Petitioner’s motion for release, respectively.
Update 5: On May 9, the Second Circuit denied the government’s appeal.

Case No. 0:25-CV-01151

Case Summary: On Mar. 27, Doğukan Günaydin, a citizen of Turkey in the United States under a student visa, was reportedly arrested outside of his home by plainclothes federal officers. He filed a petition of habeas corpus on Mar. 30 arguing that his arrest was improper because his visa was canceled hours after his arrest and on the ground that it violated his constitutional due process rights. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that Günaydin’s visa was revoked because of a DUI case from 2023.
Update 1: On Apr. 11, Günaydin filed an amended habeas petition. The government responded to this amended petition on Apr. 14.
Update 2: On Apr. 17, Judge Jeffrey Bryan found good cause exists to warrant the delay of any hearing or adjudication of Günaydin’s amended petition.
Update 3: On Apr. 25, Günaydin filed a motion for a TRO along with a supporting memorandum.
Update 4: On Apr. 28, Judge Bryan granted in part and denied in part Günaydin’s motion for a TRO. Judge Bryan’s order blocks the government respondents and other persons or agencies from removing, transferring, or otherwise facilitating the removal of Günaydin from the District of Minnesota.
Update 5: On May 12, the Court granted Günaydin’s motion to extend the TRO for an additional fourteen days while the merits of his underlying habeas action are determined.
Update 6: On May 21, the Court granted Günaydin’s second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering that Günaydin be released from custody on bond.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01998

Special note: This case exemplifies over 100 lawsuits reportedly filed (and 50 restraining orders) against the administration’s actions, including Liu v. Noem (D.NH), Case No. 1:25-cv-00133, Complaint (filed Apr. 7, 2025); Deore v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (E.D. Mich.), Case No. 2:25-cv-11038, Complaint (filed Apr. 10, 2025); Chen v. Noem (N.D.Cal), Case No. 3:25-cv-03292, Complaint (filed Apr. 11, 2025).

On Apr. 25, 2025, the Department of Justice informed a federal court the administration has reversed the new policy.

Case Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been terminating the F-1 student visa holder status of international students in the United States. Students and their universities often only learn of the terminations by checking the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database used by DHS and universities to track the status of international students.17 F-1 student visa holders enrolled in United States (U.S.) academic institutions or engaged in Optional Practical Training (OPT), allege harms including loss of scholarships, career opportunities, access to education, and potential detention or deportation. Plaintiffs claim violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for agency action not in accordance with law, exceeding statutory authority, and arbitrary and capricious conduct. They also allege violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the termination of their F-1 status and restore their SEVIS registration and work authorizations.
Update 1: On April 14, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add 116 additional students to the litigation (for a total of 133 plaintiffs).
Update 2: On April 18, the court issued a TRO to prevent the termination of F-1 student visa holders’ status and restore their SEVIS registration and work authorizations.
Update 3: On Apr. 25, 2028, the Department of Justice informed a federal court the administration has reversed the new policy.
Update 3: On May 2, the court converted the Plaintiffs’ TRO into a preliminary injunction for all 133 Plaintiffs, finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits as to their claims that Defendants violated the APA, and that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm.
Update 4: On May 22, the court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the government from arresting, detaining, or deporting over 4,700 international students whose F-1 visa statuses were abruptly revoked without notice.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00246

Case Summary: In Jan. 2025, Customs and Border Protection launched “Operation Return to Sender.” This involved deploying Border Patrol officers to interior counties in California to arrest and ultimately deport illegal aliens. Border Patrol’s activities took place in areas known to be frequented by farm workers and day laborers. The Plaintiffs are a number of individuals, including a lawful permanent resident, that were detained and arrested by Border Patrol as part of Operation Return to Sender. Plaintiffs also include individuals that argue they were deceived and coerced into voluntarily departing, along with a farm worker union whose members have been targeted by the Operation.
Plaintiffs allege Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable seizure by detaining individuals without reasonable suspicion that they were in violation of immigration law. Plaintiffs further allege that the Operation violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). INA permits Border Patrol to carry out warrantless arrests only if the officer has probable cause to believe the individual is in violation of immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Plaintiffs argue that Border Patrol did not have probable cause because a number of those arrested had strong community and family ties. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Border Patrol violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. A number of the individuals arrested claimed that while in immigration detention centers, they were told on multiple occasions that they did not have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge or to speak to a lawyer. They also claim that they were coerced to voluntarily depart by being told it would speed up the process for obtaining legal status, by not being told it would lead to a multi-year bar on their ability to return to the United States, and by being told to sign a signature pad while being refused the ability to first see the document they were signing.
Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the Defendants from violating the class members’ Fourth Amendment and statutory rights. They also seek an order for the return of the Plaintiffs that voluntarily departed.
Update 1: On Mar. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs moved to provisionally certify two of Plaintiffs’ classes. They also moved for a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Apr. 7, 2025, the Defendants filed oppositions to the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and to provisionally certify the classes. With regard to the opposition to the preliminary injunction, Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims or to enter class-wide injunctions. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs’ allegations are mooted because the Border Patrol office responsible for Eastern California issued policy and guidance on April 4, 2025 regarding the need for reasonable suspicion for detentions and probable cause for warrantless arrests, and it plans to conduct training sessions in the near future.
Update 3: On Apr. 29, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motions for provisional class certification for the Suspicionless Stop and Warrantless Arrest classes and for a preliminary injunction. The injunction requires that, among other things, Border Patrol stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is in violation of immigration law and stop effecting warrantless arrests without probable cause that the individual is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. With regard to the Defendants’ mootness argument, the Court found that the policy issued by Defendants was too geographically limited, failed to address all of the objectionable measures alleged by the Plaintiffs, and too tenuously situated to meet the requirement that the wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to recur.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01741

On Jun. 4, Judge Gordon Gallagher granted a TRO blocking the removal of the family.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10676

First Circuit Case No. 25-1311

Case Summary: On Feb. 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a policy directive instructing officers to review all cases of individuals previously released from immigration detention for re-dentention and removal to a “third country” (i.e., a country that differs from their countries of origin and/or citizenship). A class of noncitizens with final removal orders has sued DHS challenging the practice of deporting individuals to a third country without providing notice or opportunity to contest. Plaintiffs claim that DHS’s practice violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Convention Against Torture as implemented in domestic law.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment stating that DHS’s practice is unlawful and violates their statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights; seek to enjoin Defendants from failing to provide written notice and a meaningful opportunity to present a fear-based claim; and to order Defendants to return class members that have been removed to a third country.
Update 1: On Mar. 23, the same day the complaint was filed, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and stay of administrative action.
Update 2: On Mar. 25, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency TRO and preliminary injunction and stay of administrative action.
Update 3: On Mar. 28, Judge Brian Murphy granted Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO, blocking Defendants from removing individuals subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, unless Defendants can show that they were provided written notice and a meaningful opportunity to present a fear-based claim.
Update 4: On Mar. 28, the Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the First Circuit.
Update 5: On Mar. 29, Defendants filed a Motion for partial stay of the TRO pending appeal, arguing a nationwide injunction of this kind is unlawful and improper. Judge Murphy denied this motion on the same day, citing the memorandum supporting granting of Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO.
Update 6: On Apr. 7, the First Circuit denied the stay on jurisdictional grounds involving the temporary status of the district court’s order. The appeals court stated that the government’s issuance of intervening Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals “made a moving target of their removal policy” that “only reinforces the temporary nature of the relief at issue.”
Update 7: On Apr. 8, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in the district court in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that they are likely to succeed on the merits and that they face irreparable harm if deported to a third country without documented notice or an opportunity to present their claims before an immigration judge.
Update 8: On Apr. 18, Judge Murphy granted class certification and a preliminary injunction.
Update 9: On Apr. 22, the government appealed the Apr. 18 preliminary injunction order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 10: On Apr. 23, the Defendants submitted a filing stating that the Defense Department transported four Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador following the court’s Mar. 28 TRO, but that “the Department of Defense is not a defendant in this action.”
Update 11: On Apr. 29, the Plaintiffs filed a motion in support of amending the preliminary injunction.
Update 12: On Apr. 30, the court amended the preliminary injunction.
Update 13: On May 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency TRO following reports of Defendants’ imminent removal of Laotian, Vietnamese, and Philippine class members to Libya. That same day, Judge Murphy responded by issuing a clarifying order of his April 30 amendment to the preliminary injunction order finding Defendants’ allegedly imminent removals to be in violation of the preliminary injunction order.
Update 14: On May 16, the government submitted a Notice of Errata and accompanying affidavit for an “error” in its prior affidavit about plaintiff O.C.G. The Notice states that, contrary to an earlier affidavit, “Upon further investigation, Defendants cannot identify any officer who asked O.C.G. whether he had a fear of return to Mexico. Nor can Defendants identify the officer who O.C.G. states ‘told [him] that he was being deported to Mexico.’”
Update 15: On May 18, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction noting the Notice of Errata and also alleging that the government had released the plaintiff’s name publicly, in violation of court orders, which put his life at increased risk. The plaintiff requests a judicial order for the return of O.C.G.
Update 16: On May 20, Judge Murphy ordered the Defendants to maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country and to ensure the practical feasibility of their return if the court finds that such removals were unlawful. The court also ordered that Defendants be prepared by the next hearing, scheduled for May 21, to identify the time and manner of notice each individual in the affected class received as to their third-country removal, and what opportunity each individual had to raise a fear-based claim.
Update 17: On May 21, following an emergency hearing, Judge Murphy found the government violated the court’s preliminary injunction by deporting at least six members of the class to South Sudan without meaningful opportunity to assert claims of protection under the Torture Convention. Judge Murphy held that “no reasonable interpretation of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction” could endorse the government’s action. The court issued a “summary and clarification” of the injunction requiring removal to a third country to include written notice to both the non-citizen and the non-citizen’s counsel in a language the non-citizen can understand, and a meaningful opportunity and a minimum of ten days to raise a fear-based claim for Torture Convention protection (plus an additional 15 days if to seek reopening of immigration proceedings if initially denied).

Also following the emergency hearing, Judge Murphy issued a separate order to remedy the violation of the preliminary injunction. It requires giving the six individuals a reasonable fear of torture interview including access to counsel, an interpreter, and technology for transfer of documents “commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures occurred within the United States prior to their deportation.”
Update 18: On May 23, Judge Murphy granted a preliminary injunction requiring the government to “to take all immediate steps, including coordinating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, to facilitate the return of O.C.G. to the United States.” Judge Murphy stated the situation for O.G.C. should be easier for the Defendants to remedy since he is not held by a foreign government and the Defendants have not made any argument that it would be “costly, burdensome, or otherwise impede the government’s objectives” to facilitate his return.
Update 19: On May 26, Judge Murphy rejected DHS’s bid to undo a ruling that it unlawfully deported six men, formerly held in ICE custody, without giving them a fair chance to seek protection from torture. The men are now detained at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. The court noted that DHS had previously agreed it could comply with the court’s proposed process, but then reversed course.
Update 20: On May 27, the government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the district court’s Apr. 18 preliminary injunction.
Update 21: On Jun. 4, O.G.C.’s attorney stated that his client was flowing back to the United States.

Case no. 4:25-cv-00050-CDL-AGH
Case no. 4:25-cv-01231

On June 3, US Magistrate Judge Amelia Helmick ordered discovery in the case.

Case no. 1:25-cv-01405

Case Summary: On Mar. 24, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued an Interim Final Rule (“IFR”) rescinding the portions of 45 C.F.R. § 410.1201(b) related to denying the sponsorship of unaccompanied children currently in federal immigration custody in the US to family sponsors based on the family members’ immigration status and information collection for immigration enforcement purposes.
A number of nonprofit organizations brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of children in federal immigration custody who have not been released to a sponsor because of ORR’s new documentation requirements, and a nonprofit organization which is now unable to advocate for their immigrant clients because of the IFR and ORR’s policy changes. Plaintiffs assert that the IFR and new sponsorship requirements violate several sections of the APA: they were issued without observance of procedure required by law, they were contrary to law and beyond statutory authority, they violate constitutional rights, and are arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class action, to hold unlawful and set aside the IFR and the Mar. 7 and Apr. 15, revisions of the ORR Policy Guide Section 2.2.4, and to enter enter a preliminary injunction either staying the effective date of the IFR or prohibiting ORR from enforcing its new identification requirements.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00943

Case Summary: On March 12, 2025 the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issued an interim final rule (IFR) designating a new registration form for noncitizens to register with the Federal government. The IFR was issued to implement President Trump’s Executive Order 14159 (EO) instructing that all previously unregistered aliens had to comply with registration requirements and ensuring that failure to comply was treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority. The process created by the IFR initiates the collection of biometrics and would result in the creation of an alien registration document, and notes that existing federal regulations require noncitizens to carry proof of registration at all times. The IFR is due to go into effect on April 11.

A group of nonprofit member-based organisations that provide a wide range of services to immigrant communities sued on March 31 alleging that the IFR, which is available only in English, represents the imposition of a confusing and inconsistent new universal registration scheme with attendant civil and criminal liabilities which will impact a huge number of noncitizens and irreparably harm their members. Plaintiffs allege that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (by implementing policies that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law) and § 706(2)(D) (by failing to follow the required rulemaking process, including providing public notice and opportunity to comment on legislative rules).
The Plaintiffs seek an order and preliminary injunction staying or postponing the effective dates of the IFR and a declaratory judgment that the IFR is unlawful and enjoining the enforcement or implementation of the rule.
Update 1: On April 10 the District Court denied the motion for a stay and preliminary injunction on the basis that the Plaintiffs lack standing. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs lacked both organisational and associational standing.
Update 2: On Apr. 24, Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s Apr. 10 order that denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay and preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit. On that same day, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for an injunction to preserve status quo ante and protect Plaintiffs and their members from irreparable harm pending their appeal of the Apr. 10 order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00170

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. The National Treasury Employees Union sued to block implementation of the order on behalf of the union’s members. The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates laws Congress passed to provide civil-service protections to the vast majority of civil servants, with only limited exceptions for Senate-confirmed political appointees.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00347

Case Summary: On Jan. 27, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued Guidance implementing the president’s executive order, which aims to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. Plaintiffs—independent nonprofits representing whistleblowers, federal employees, retirees and their survivors—allege that the OPM Guidance did not go through proper procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act, violates the Civil Service Reform Act’s protections for career employees, and violates civil servants’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. They seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order and the OPM Guidance are unlawful and an injunction enjoining the administration from implementing the executive order and the OPM Guidance.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00260-PX

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. PEER, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Democracy Forward, sued to enjoin implementation of the executive order. The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and deprives civil servants of due process by stripping them of protections guaranteed under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
Update 1: On Mar. 12, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint asks the court to declare the executive order ultra vires, in violation of the APA as contrary to the Civil Service Reform Act, as well as by failing to undertake required rulemaking processes, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00264

Case Summary: On Jan. 27, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued guidance implementing the president’s executive order, which aims to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. The AFGE and AFSCME – labor organizations representing federal, state and local employees – assert that the Trump administration failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedural Act (APA) in issuing the order, which renders “inoperative or without effect” existing regulations, 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(3), 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(4), and 5 C.F.R. § 302.601-603. The plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect, as well as an injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the order without first complying with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.
Update 1: On Apr. 22, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for lack of jurisdiction. They assert Plaintiffs’ claims fail regardless of jurisdiction because the APA requires final agency action, which they believe is not present in this case, and the APA does not apply to the President when he acts directly.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00164

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Two advocacy organizations and the American Federation of Government Employees sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements.
Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2025, Judge Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C.) granted defendants’ motion to consolidate two cases with this case. Parties in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (complaint), and American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management (complaint) must make all future filings in this case.
Update 2: On Mar. 3, 2025, Public Citizen Plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice. The Lentini Plaintiffs in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency and American Public Health Association Plaintiffs remain in American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management.
Update 3: On Mar. 3, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery, arguing that Musk’s actions with DOGE are ultra vires and lack transparency, which necessitates deposition of key officials to support their preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Mar. 17, Defendant filed a reply in opposition to the expedited motion, arguing that Musk plays an advisory role, Plaintiffs’ discovery request is premature, and the court should first resolve the motion to dismiss.
Update 5: On Mar. 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs submitted new evidence based on Elon Musk’s private lawyers claiming that he is a “high-ranking government official” and that the White House designated Musk a “special government employee” in charge of establishing and implementing DOGE. The plaintiffs claim that this is the first statement about Musk’s role in DOGE that can be attributed to Musk himself, which demonstrates a need for the Court to authorize requested depositions to ascertain Musk’s exact role in DOGE.
Update 6: On Mar. 25, Judge Jia M. Cobb denied Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery, holding that Plaintiffs lacked a pending injunction, sought broad depositions of senior officials without justification, imposed undue burden on Defendants, and requested discovery prematurely before Defendants’ motion to dismiss was resolved.
Update 7: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Update 8: On May 12, Plaintiffs American Health Association, American Federation of Teachers, Minority Veterans of America, Votevets Action Fund, Center for Auto Safety Inc., and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. Judge Cobb clarified that the remaining consolidated case, Lentini v. DOGE, would proceed.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00166

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. The advocacy organization National Security Counselors, Inc., sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements.
Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2025, Judge Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C) granted defendants’ motion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump to consolidate three cases. Parties in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency and American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management must make all future filings in Public Citizen.
Update 2: On Mar. 22, Plaintiffs submitted a notice of new evidence containing a filing from Musk’s private attorneys in a Delaware lawsuit describing his government position.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00167

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Several advocacy organizations sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements.
Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2025, Judge Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C) granted defendants’ motion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump to consolidate three cases. Parties in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency and American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management must make all future filings in Public Citizen.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00165

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Office of Management and Budget under the Freedom of Information Act, demanding records related to communications between OMB and DOGE’s leadership or those acting on its behalf.
Update 1: On Feb. 27, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The new complaint added defendants, including DOGE, Elon Musk, and Amy Gleason. It also included a new second claim, with plaintiffs arguing DOGE’s alleged failures to comply with FOIA’s affirmative disclosure obligations violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Update 2: On Apr. 21, plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint. This motion was granted on Apr. 23, and plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on that day. Among other changes, the second amended complaint added details about plaintiff’s Mar. 13 requests for DOGE and the DOGE Service Temporary Organization (DOGETO) to disclose records under FOIA (in addition to OMB).

Case 8:25-cv-00462-TDC

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Twenty-six current and former USAID employees or contractors filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation violates the Appointments Clause. The complaint alleges that Musk and the DOGE staff are exercising “significant authority” by controlling agency operations, making personnel decisions, and directing federal spending, all powers the plaintiffs claim can be wielded only by properly appointed officers of the United States. The lawsuit argues that Musk is functioning as a principal officer while evading the constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation. The plaintiffs also claim that Musk’s actions would be unconstitutional even if he were considered merely an inferior officer, as Congress has not authorized the President to directly appoint anyone to his position. The plaintiffs also argue that DOGE’s structure violates separation of powers by creating a “shadow chain of command” that undermines Congress’s power to create agencies and their authorities through statute, confirm appointed officers, and conduct oversight. The suit asks the court to declare Musk and DOGE to be acting unlawfully, enjoin Musk and DOGE from exercising government authority unless appointed by proper process, and set aside their actions taken to date.
Update 1: On Feb. 18, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Feb. 24, Defendants filed a motion in response to the request for a preliminary injunction; to which the Plaintiffs replied on Feb. 26.
Update 3: On Mar. 18, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and risk of irreparable harm. The Court ordered DOGE to reinstate access to email, payments, security notifications, and other electronic systems. The Court did not enjoin Defendants from carrying out mass personnel and contract terminations but did enjoin them from taking further action in a number of categories such as additional personnel and contract terminations and closures of offices.
Update 4: On Mar. 19, Defendants filed a motion for clarification or modification of the preliminary injunction order issued by the Court on Mar. 18, claiming Jeremy Lewin should not be bound by the preliminary injunction because he is no longer the DOGE Team Lead at USAID.
Update 5: On Mar. 20, the court denied Defendant’s motion for clarification or modification of the preliminary injunction order, confirming Lewin is bound by the preliminary injunction.
Update 6: On Mar. 21, Defendants appealed the Court’s preliminary injunction and denial of Defendants’ motion for clarification or modification to the Fourth Circuit.
Update 7: On Mar. 25, the Court ordered that the district court’s preliminary injunction be stayed until the close of business on Thurs., Mar. 27.
Update 8: On Mar. 28, the Fourth Circuit granted the Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal.
Update 9: On Apr. 17, Plaintiffs amended their complaint. Plaintiffs added no additional claims but did request additional forms of relief, including requests that the Court declare the actions taken by Musk and DOGE at USAID unlawful; block Defendants from taking further actions to unlawfully modify, reorganize, or eliminate USAID; and block Musk and his DOGE subordinates from interfering with USAID.
Update 10: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery related to their Appointments Clause and Separation of Powers constitutional claims. Defendants opposed this motion on May 2.
Update 11: On May 1, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a supporting memorandum, asserting that the Plaintiffs do not have jurisdiction and they fail to state a claim.

Case No. 1.25-cv-00429

Case Summary: Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Fourteen states filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation violates the Appointments Clause. The complaint alleges that Musk and the DOGE staff are exercising “significant authority” by controlling agency operations, making personnel decisions, and directing federal spending, all powers they claim can only be wielded by properly appointed officers of the United States. The suit asks the court to declare Musk and DOGE to be acting unlawfully, impose a temporary restraining order barring Musk and DOGE from exercising government authority (including a specific list of official actions) while awaiting preliminary and permanent injunctions to the same effect, and set aside their actions taken to date.
Update 1: On Feb. 17, the government submitted a declaration by Joshua Fisher, Director of the Office of Administration, stating that Musk is not the head of DOGE nor an employee of DOGE.
Update 2: On Feb 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order but also indicated a potentially favorable view of the Plaintiffs’ argument on the merits (pp. 8-9).
Update 3: On Feb. 24, plaintiff states filed a motion for expedited discovery relating to an upcoming motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition on Feb 28. Plaintiffs filed a reply on Mar. 3. Plaintiffs’ expedited discovery motion seeks “to confirm public reporting about Defendants’ conduct, show Defendants’ future plans, and illustrate the nature and scope of the unconstitutional and unlawful authority that Defendants are exercising and will continue to imminently exercise.” The document requests and interrogatories generally concern DOGE’s and Musk’s conduct in four areas: (1) eliminating or reducing the size of federal agencies; (2) terminating or placing federal employees on leave; (3) cancelling, freezing, or pausing federal contracts, grants, or other federal funding; and (4) obtaining access, using, or making changes to federal databases or data management systems.
Update 4: On Mar 7, defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing plaintiffs lack Article III standing and have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Update 5: On Mar. 12, Judge Tanya Chutkan granted Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery and ordered Elon Musk and DOGE to produce the requested documents and respond to the interrogatories and requests for admissions in Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
Update 6: On Mar. 14, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum opposing the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, asserting that they had already suffered financial and programmatic harm and would continue to do so absent the court’s intervention.
Update 7: On Mar. 19, Defendants filed a memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss, reasserting that plaintiffs lack standing.
Update 8: On Mar. 20, the case Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk, No. 25-cv-643, was consolidated with this case.
Update 9: On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for expedited discovery.
Update 10: On Mar. 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the district court’s order for expedited discovery, holding that defendants “have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery.”
Update 11: On May 6, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Court has no jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims, and that the Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits, including on the basis of the APA.
Update 12: On May 27, Judge Chutkan issued an order and memorandum opinion that granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint against President Trump but denied the motion to dismiss for all other Defendants.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00643

Case Summary: Plaintiffs are four nonprofit organizations – the Japanese American Citizens League, Organization of Chinese Americans–Asian Pacific American Advocates, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists – bringing suit against Elon Musk, DOGE, Amy Gleason, and several executive agencies and their heads.
Plaintiffs allege that they are harmed by DOGE’s cutting of federal funding and firing of federal employees, including in the work of the National Park Service and historic sites. Plaintiffs allege that Musk and DOGE are acting in an ultra vires manner “to dramatically alter the federal budget, slash federal spending, reduce the federal workforce, and dismantle disfavored agencies.” Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have acted in violation of the separation of powers “by directing and causing the termination of grants and contracts under previously appropriated federal funds; terminating federal workers funded by congressional appropriations; reducing the size of the federal workforce; working to abolish federal departments and agencies including the U.S. Department of Education, an executive department created by federal statute; and refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.” Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated the Appointments Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief holding that Musk, DOGE, and Gleason have no legal authority to take a wide array of actions and that those actions have no legal effect.
Update 1: This case has been consolidated with case 25-cv-00429-TSC pursuant to a Minute Order issued on March 20, 2025. From that date forward, all pleadings shall be filed only in the lead case, 25-cv-00429-TSC.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00612

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Orders 14158, renaming the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency). On Feb. 19, Trump signed Executive Order 14219 directing the rescission of regulations in which “agency heads shall, in coordination with their DOGE Team Leads and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, initiate a process to review all regulations.”
Plaintiff, a nonprofit organization focused on habitat preservation for endangered species, alleges that DOGE, the Department of Interior, and eleven other government agencies have violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by failing to follow Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements for disclosure and public access to advisory committee meetings. They seek declaratory judgment that DOGE and its sub-teams are subject to the FACA and have violated the APA and FACA, an injunction stopping Department of Interior and other agency defendant employees from meeting with or relying on work by DOGE employees, and an order of mandamus requiring compliance with the FACA.
Update 1: On Apr. 1, Plaintiff amended its complaint to include an alleged Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violation after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of the Interior (DOI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Agriculture (USDA) (collectively, FOIA Defendants) failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by the Mar. 5 deadline. Plaintiff requests that the court order the FOIA Defendants to make a determination on Plaintiff’s FOIA request and enjoin these five agencies from continuing to withhold records in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.
Update 2: On Apr. 10, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite discovery. Defendants filed their opposition in response to this motion on Apr. 24, challenging the court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and asserting Plaintiff cannot meet the standard for expedited discovery because there is no emergency or preliminary relief pending or scheduled.
Update 3: On May 1, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion to expedite discovery.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00234

Case Summary: The Office of Personnel Management announced it was testing a new system to email all civilian federal employees from a single email address, HR@opm.gov. Individuals claiming to be OPM employees subsequently posted online that the emails were being stored on an unsecure server at OPM. Plaintiffs, employees of executive-branch agencies who received “test” emails from HR@opm.gov requesting information, sued. The lawsuit alleges that the new procedure violates the E-Government Act of 2002 and asks the court to require the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting any data from employees, as required under the law.
Update 1 and 2: On Feb. 4, 2025, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order. On Feb. 6, Judge Randolph D. Moss denied the TRO request and said an opinion will follow.
Update 3: On Feb. 11, OPM moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Update 4: On Feb. 17, 2025, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Moss denied plaintiffs’ most recent motion for a TRO on the ground that they had not shown they were likely to have standing or face irreparable injury without emergency relief.
Update 5: On Mar. 5, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a reply on Mar. 7.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00313

Case Summary: The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs sued on behalf of members whose records may have been transmitted from the Treasury Department to DOGE employees, thus allegedly depriving the members of privacy. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and declaratory relief, as well as a temporary restraining order, for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and actions in excess of legal authority under the Privacy Act.
Update 1: On Feb. 6, 2025, the parties in the suit mutually proposed an order that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly adopted. It limits access to Treasury Department payment records and systems to two (Musk-affiliated) Special Government Employees in the Department (“read-only” access), other employees who need to access the record to perform their duties, or individuals who are already entitled to access the records under statute.
Update 2: On Feb. 20, the court issued an order accepting an unopposed motion to modify the Feb. 6 order.
Update 3: On Feb. 25, following a hearing the previous day, the court ordered “that Defendants shall file the administrative record underlying the decisions challenged in this case on or before March 10, 2025.”
Update 4: On Mar. 7, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that plaintiffs have not cleared the “high standard” of showing a likelihood of an irreparable injury that is “beyond remediation.” She noted, “If Plaintiffs could show that Defendants imminently planned to make their private information public or to share that information with individuals outside the federal government
with no obligation to maintain its confidentiality, the Court would not hesitate to find a likelihood of irreparable harm.”
Update 5: On Apr. 11, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in their favor. Defendant’s memorandum of support (referencing their statement of facts) asserts that Plaintiffs have not suffered a concrete injury, as records allegedly transmitted from the Treasury Department to DOGE employees could be lawfully shared. The memorandum also argues that plaintiffs fail to state a proper claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that there is no genuine dispute of material fact.
Update 6: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, memorandum in support, and statement of undisputed facts. In this cross-motion, Plaintiffs assert they have standing and that Defendants’ actions are in violation of the APA for being arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs request that the court enjoin Defendants from permitting the Treasury DOGE Team to access personal information in the Bureau’s systems.
On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and a statement of undisputed facts.
Update 7: On May 9, the Defendants filed a combined reply in support of their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and opposition to the Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The reply alleged that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, or, alternatively, summary judgment should be entered in defendants’ favor.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01144-JAV

Case Summary: The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs, attorneys general of 19 states, sued on the ground that the policy of giving expanded access to political appointees and “special government employees” to Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Services violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs claim the policy violates the APA by exceeding authority conferred by statute for the unauthorized purpose of impeding payments and accessing private information; for failure to conduct a privacy impact statement; for violation of the Privacy Act; and for violating ethics statutes on conflicts of interest. The plaintiffs also assert the policy usurps congressional authority and is ultra virus.
The plaintiffs requested an emergency temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and permanent injunction to bar access to political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from other agencies as well as to any person who has not received a background check, security clearance, and information security training.
Update 1: The case is before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas. On Feb. 8, 2025, after midnight, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued an emergency temporary restraining order until Judge Vargas holds a hearing on Feb. 14. Judge Engelmayer’s order prohibits access to the Treasury Department’s systems and also requires prohibited persons to immediately destroy any material already downloaded from the Treasury Department’s systems.
Update 2: On Feb. 21, Judge Vargas granted a limited preliminary injunction, enjoining the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE-affiliated individuals to any payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees. The court noted that “a real possibility exists that sensitive information has already been shared outside of the Treasury Department, in potential violation of federal law.” The court ordered the Treasury Department to submit a report by March 24 including several forms of information and certifications including “the vetting and security clearances processes that members of the Treasury DOGE Team have undergone;” ”setting forth the legal authority pursuant to which each DOGE Team member was employed by or detailed to the Treasury Department;” and “explaining the reporting chains that govern the relationship between the DOGE Team members, USDS/DOGE, and Treasury leadership.”
Update 3: On Mar. 7, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration to the court’s Feb. 21 ruling that states’ interests do not fall within personal identifying information (PII) protections of the Privacy Act of 1973 and E-Government Act of 2002.
Update 4: On Mar. 10, defendants filed a motion and accompanying memo to partially dissolve the preliminary injunction as applied to Treasury Department employee Ryan Wunderly, who was appointed as Special Advisor for Information Technology and Modernization on Feb. 19, 2025. Defendants claim that they have addressed the Court’s concerns regarding the processes governing Wunderly’s hiring, reporting chains, training, vetting and security clearance, and anticipated access to Treasury systems. On Mar. 14, plaintiffs filed a memo in opposition to defendants’ motion. On Mar. 17, defendants replied to plaintiffs’ memo. On Apr. 11, the Court granted defendants’ request.
Update 5: On May 1, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, claiming that they have provided the information requested by the Court in its Feb. 21 order granting the preliminary injunction, and documented that they have used appropriate processes for hiring, reporting, training, vetting, and mitigation with respect to all of the members of the Treasury DOGE Team.
Update 6: On May 27, Judge Vargas determined that DOGE staffers who underwent training and vetting procedures may access sensitive Treasury data. In her decision, the judge found that the government had complied with her earlier requests to demonstrate it is equipped to screen and train employees before granting them access.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00339

Case Summary: On Feb. 5, 2025, DOGE sought access to internal information systems at the Department of Labor. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE’s attempt to direct the agency and access internal information systems are an unlawful exercise of power beyond its authority; and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as a prohibited personnel practice, violation of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, violation of the Privacy Act, rulemaking without proper procedure, and arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. They seek temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Department of Labor from granting access to DOGE, from taking adverse action against employees who refuse to cooperate with DOGE, and from providing any person with non-public Department of Labor information regarding that person’s business interests or direct competitors.
On the same day as the complaint was filed, judge John Bates issued an Order which stated, “Defendants represented to the Court that DOL [Department of Labor] will not allow DOGE access to any DOL data until after this Court rules on the TRO motion on Friday.”
Update 1: On Feb. 7, Judge Bates denied the petition for a temporary restraining order on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Update 2: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs submitted a renewed request for a TRO enjoining agency defendants from granting members of DOGE access to their systems of records, except as consistent with applicable federal law.
Update 3: On Feb. 14, Judge Bates denied the renewed request for a TRO, but added, “On the Economy Act question, which is the most important for this denial of a TRO, the Court will benefit from further briefing and analysis on a motion for preliminary injunction.”
Update 4: On Feb. 27, Judge Bates ordered limited expedited discovery in the case in the form of answers to written interrogatories, production of documents, and the deposition of four individuals (one each from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and DOGE), to last no more than eight hours in aggregate.
Update 5: On Feb. 28, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition on Mar. 7.
Update 6: On Mar. 11, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior ruling authorizing written discovery. In an accompanying memorandum, Defendants asserted that changes since the ruling, including the fact that DOGE is no longer detailing employees to any defendant agency, “should obviate the need for expedited discovery.”
Update 7: On Mar. 13, Plaintiffs filed a motion opposing reconsideration of the ruling authorizing written discovery, asserting that the new employment arrangements do not “meet the exceedingly high bar” for reconsideration.
Update 8: On Mar. 14, Defendants filed a memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss, reasserting that plaintiffs lack standing and failed to state a claim.
Update 9: On Mar. 19, plaintiffs filed a notice of new evidence, notifying the court of Amy Gleason’s declaration that she is Acting Director of DOGE in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Doge Service, 1:25-cv-00511. Plaintiffs assert that Gleason’s declaration supports their argument in favor of public access to documents surrounding Gleason’s appointment.
Update 10: On Mar. 19, Judge Bates issued a memorandum opinion denying Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
Update 11: On Mar. 29, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery, including production of documents, written discovery responses, and deposition testimony, relating to actions by members of the DOGE Teams at relevant agencies.
Update 12: On Mar. 31, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, asserting that the request “is unambiguously outside the scope of” their prior requests and “does not relate to any plausible Economy Act issue.”
Update 13: On Mar. 31, Judge Bates issued an order granting Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery regarding “individuals that the defendant agencies have onboarded for the purpose of carrying out the DOGE agenda,” including direct hires or detailees. The order also extends the deadline for Defendants to respond to the discovery requests.
Update 14: On Apr. 16, Judge Bates issued an order dismissing counts relating to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Update 15: On Apr. 19, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent DOGE employees or affiliates from accessing sensitive agency systems and records.
Update 16: On Apr. 29, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the limited discovery that the court granted has not demonstrated that Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm.
Update 17: On May 2, Plaintiffs filed a reply supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Defendants’ motion fails to dispute key allegations and misstates or mischaracterizes material facts and law.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00354

CASE CLOSED

Case Summary: On Feb. 3, 2025, reportedly 20 people affiliated with DOGE were working with the Department of Education, some of whom obtained access to sensitive internal information systems, including systems related to federal student aid. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE’s access is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act in that it is contrary to law in violation of the Privacy Act and Internal Revenue Code; arbitrary and capricious; and in excess of statutory authority. They seek a declaratory judgment that DOGE officials are not authorized to access Department of Education records that contain personal information, and temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief preventing the Department of Education from continuing to provide access to DOGE, ensuring there is no further dissemination of data, and requiring recovery of unlawfully transferred information.
Update 1: On Feb. 10, Plaintiff moved for a TRO, requesting Defendants be enjoined from disclosing information about individuals to individuals affiliated with DOGE, and required to retrieve and safeguard any such information that has already been obtained by and shared or transferred by DOGE or individuals associated with it.
Update 2: On Feb. 17, Judge Randolph Moss denied the TRO on the grounds that mere “access” to data by government employees who are not formally authorized to view it, without more, does not create an irreparable injury. He wrote that courts find dissemination of information to be an irreparable injury where highly sensitive information will be made public or is given to someone with no obligation to keep it confidential. He also wrote that irreparable harm was not present because plaintiffs would have a private right of action and money damages for certain unauthorized disclosures.
Update 3: On Mar. 4, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery.
Update 4: On Mar. 18, Judge Moss denied Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery, instead ordering that Defendant promptly produce the relevant administrative record while noting that Plaintiff may renew their motion after the record has been received and reviewed.
Update 5: On Apr. 8, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Plaintiffs lack standing and have not suffered a cognizable injury under the APA.
Update 6: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00380

Case Summary: DOGE “special government employee” entered CFPB. On February 7, 2025, Chris Young, Nikhil Rajpul, and Gavin Kliger—none of whom is or has been a CFPB employee—were added to CFPB’s staff and email directories as “senior advisers.” Russell Vought, as Acting Director of CFPB, instructed CFPB staffers to grant this DOGE team access to all non-classified systems. Plaintiffs maintain that CFPB has a statutory obligation to protect its employee information under both the Privacy Act and CFPB regulations (5 C.F.R. Part 1070). Plaintiffs claim that CFPB violated that obligation by granting DOGE access to employee information without satisfying an exception in the Privacy Act. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that CFPB violated the law by granting DOGE access to CFPB systems, that CFPB’s disclosure of employee information to DOGE is unlawful, and request an injunction to prevent CFPB from disclosing employee records to DOGE.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00430

Fourth Circuit Case No. 25-1282

Case Summary: The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management, and Department of Education have provided DOGE “special government employees” with access to information systems that contain records of private citizens’ sensitive personal information (including Social Security numbers, financial records, and more). Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE access is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as (1) not in accordance with the Privacy Act; (2) an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and (3) in excess of statutory authority. They seek a declaratory judgment that disclosing records to DOGE is unlawful and temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief to bar defendants from allowing DOGE to access sensitive information; ensure there is no further unauthorized disclosure; ensure records improperly disseminated are retrieved or destroyed; and ensure future disclosures will only occur in accordance with the Privacy Act.
Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining Defendants from providing DOGE access to their records systems and ordering any records housed outside government information systems be retrieved or destroyed.
Update 2: On Feb. 24, the court granted a TRO enjoining the Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management from disclosing sensitive information to any DOGE affiliates. The court denied the motion for a TRO against Treasury officials on the basis that a preliminary injunction against Treasury has already been granted in a related case.
Update 3: On Feb. 27, Judge Deborah Boardman ordered the government to produce the administrative record by Mar. 7.
Update 4: On Mar. 7 the government submitted records from OPM, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Education.
Update 5: On Mar. 8, Plaintiffs filed a motion to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and to schedule discovery in the case.
Update 6: On Mar. 8, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from disclosing personally identifiable information to DOGE or its affiliates.
Update 7: On Mar. 24, Judge Deborah L. Boardman granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction order. The Defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the injunction during the appeal.
Update 8: On Apr. 7, the Fourth Circuit granted a stay to the Defendants pending the appeal.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00255

Case Summary: The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Doe 1 (a federal employee), sued, claiming that the transmission of these records violated the plaintiffs’ right to privacy and puts plaintiffs at risk of identity theft and financial crimes. Plaintiffs also argue that the transmission of these records was not compliant with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and other privacy and security requirements. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief curing the release of information and halting further sharing by OPM and Treasury, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, the Fifth Amendment, 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and actions beyond the scope of authority—primarily by the DOGE defendants. Doe 1 also seeks an award of statutory and punitive damages.
Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO to enjoin Treasury and OPM defendants from providing DOGE access to information systems, to enjoin DOGE defendants from accessing information systems, and to require status reports.
Update 2: On Feb. 21, Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order converting the motion for a TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction, and denying the motion. Judge Alston wrote, “Plaintiffs’ fears of future harm are much too speculative and would require the Court to make several leaps in reasoning in order to warrant injunctive relief” based on the record before the court. The judge stated: “Although the Court is denying injunctive relief based on the current record, Plaintiffs are permitted to take necessary action to protect their rights if, in the future, they experience harm that is more concrete and immediate, including if Plaintiffs are able to provide evidence that unauthorized personnel accessed the BFS and/or EHRI systems.”
Update 3: On Apr. 15, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Update 4: On May 6, Plaintiffs amended their complaint, removing their FISMA claim under the APA and adding APA claims against the Defendant Agencies for actions that are contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of the APA’s notice and comment procedures.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01237

Case Summary: Plaintiffs allege the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has given DOGE access to OPM information systems that contain sensitive personal and employment records of government employees (including Social Security numbers, demographic information, job performance information, health records, and more). Plaintiffs, current and former federal employees and unions representing them, sued, arguing OPM’s disclosure of this information to DOGE violates the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act; and that DOGE’s actions are ultra vires. They seek a declaratory judgment that the government’s actions are unlawful; temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief; and an order for the impoundment and destruction of copies of improperly disclosed personal information.
Update 1: On Feb. 14, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. On Feb. 19, defendants filed a memorandum in opposition. On Feb. 23, in light of a TRO issued by the District of Maryland in Am. Fed. of Teachers v. Bessent, plaintiffs joined defendants in requesting that their motion for a TRO be converted to a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Feb. 27, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition on Mar. 4. Plaintiffs filed a reply on Mar. 6. Judge Cote granted the motion in part on Mar. 7.
Update 3: On Mar. 24, plaintiffs filed a memorandum opposing the government’s motion to dismiss.
Update 4: On Mar. 31, Defendants filed their Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, in which they argue that Plaintiffs do not have standing, that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state Privacy Act or ultra vires claims, and that Plaintiffs’ APA claims are not reviewable because they did not challenge a final agency action and Plaintiffs have another adequate legal remedy under the Privacy Act.
Update 5: On Apr. 3, Judge Denise Cote denied the government’s motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part with respect to some claims. Judge Cote held that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims and denied the government’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ APA and ultra vires claims. Judge Cote granted the government’s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ two Privacy Act claims because injunctive relief is not available as a remedy for the alleged Privacy Act violations.
Update 6: On Apr. 17, the Defendants filed an answer in response to the Plaintiffs’ complaint, responding paragraph-by-paragraph to the complaint and listing six defenses, including that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims, the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and that the Defendants did not act contrary to, or in violation of, any federal law.
Update 7: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in which it requests that the Court block OPM from disclosing records to DOGE and allowing Defendants access to personal information contained within these records. In its supporting memorandum, Plaintiffs noted a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent the Defendants from causing further harm through their misuse of data.
Update 8: On May 15, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, arguing Plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion rely on inadmissible evidence.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00407

Case Summary: Plaintiffs are federal employees from various government departments who filed suit as a proposed class action. They allege that DOGE workers unlawfully accessed their private information from OPM and the Treasury Department. They argue that Defendants are engaged in an “unlawful ongoing, systemic, and continuous disclosure of personal, health, and financial information” to Elon Musk and DOGE in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. They seek injunctive relief and damages.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00422

Case Summary: Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action lawsuit. They are recipients of federal benefits, student loans, or have filed tax return information with the federal government. The complaint alleges that “Defendants [are] liable for their willful failure to ensure the security of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’” private information. Plaintiffs allege Defendant Elon Musk violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and that Defendants OPM and Treasury violated the Privacy Act of 1974. Plaintiffs are suing for injunctive relief and monetary damages “resulting from Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information.”

Case 1:25-cv-00457

Case Summary: Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency’s access to information from the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiffs are organizations that represent low-income taxpayers, immigrants, domestic abuse survivors, small businesses, and public and private sector employees. They allege that by allowing DOGE to access private citizens’ tax information, the IRS has violated the Federal Information Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs also allege that DOGE has engaged in “ultra vires” actions by “directing and controlling the use and administration of Defendant IRS’ systems.” They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop allegedly “wrongful provision of access, inspection, and disclosure of return information and other personal information in the IRS system to members of DOGE.” They also seek other forms of relief such as ordering Defendants to disgorge all unlawfully obtained information.
Update 1: On Apr. 25, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Defendants’ memorandum of law in support of this motion asserts that Plaintiffs lack both associational and organizational standing to bring their claims and that the intent of Plaintiffs’ complaint is to interfere with IRS operations.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00596

Case Summary: Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Social Security Administration data and systems. They allege that allowing DOGE to access private citizens’ sensitive data violates several laws, including the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Systems Modernization Act, the E-Government Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They further allege that Acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek’s exercise of significant authority without nomination or confirmation violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare DOGE’s access to SSA data and systems unlawful, order DOGE to disgorge or delete any unlawfully obtained data, and prohibit any further efforts by either DOGE or SSA to enable DOGE to access SSA data or systems.
Update 1: On Mar. 7, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Update 2: On Mar. 7, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or stay.
Update 3: On Mar. 20, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 4: On Mar. 21, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued two Letters to Counsel clarifying the scope of the temporary restraining order in the face of reporting that Acting SSA Commissioner Dudek claimed that the TRO required terminating all SSA employees’ access to SSA systems. The first letter clarifies that the TRO applies only to the 10 DOGE employees the government said were “assigned to SSA to further the DOGE agenda.” The second letter clarifies that other SSA employees are not subject to the TRO, and that SSA may “provide access to redacted or anonymized data or records to the DOGE Team, subject to proper training and the like,” as well as non-anonymized data “subject to certain conditions.”
Update 5: On Mar. 24, Defendants filed a notice to appeal the TRO.
Update 6: On Apr. 1, the Fourth Circuit denied the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A corrected order denying the appeal was filed on Apr. 2.
Update 7: On Apr. 4, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunctions and/or U.S.C. Section 705 stay, with the goal of enjoining past and future access to any SSA system of record of PII.
Update 8: On Apr. 7, the defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or stay, challenging the validity of the plaintiff’s standing as well as their allegations of violations of the Privacy Act or the Internal Revenue Code, ultimately refuting plaintiff’s allegations of irreparable harm.
Update 9: On Apr. 17, Judge Hollander granted the preliminary injunction.
On that same day, Defendants appealed this order to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 10: On Apr. 17, Defendants also filed a motion requesting to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal, on the basis that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had also granted a stay of the preliminary injunction in the substantively similar case American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction on Apr. 19. On Apr. 22, Judge Hollander denied Defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction, on the basis that the Fourth Circuit may not schedule the appeal hearing until fall of 2025 and that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if DOGE were able to access Plaintiffs’ personal data while awaiting appeal.
Update 11: On Apr. 20, the Fourth Circuit granted an initial en banc hearing (a hearing with all the judges of the court instead of the standard three-judge panel) and denied Defendants’ motion to stay in a split decision.
Update 12: On May 6, the Fourth Circuit granted an en banc hearing on the merits.
Update 13: On Jun. 6, the Supreme Court granted a stay while the case is on appeal.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01217

Case Summary: On April 21, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the expedited processing and disclosure of records relating to the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to information maintained by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
On Feb. 7, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies, including SSA and VA, seeking the release of records relating to Doge’s attempted or actual access to sensitive government data systems. They requested expedited processing and a waiver of fees under 5 USC §552 (a)(6)(E)(v)(II) on the ground that there is “an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity” and that the request is “made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information”.
Although other agencies complied with the request, on Feb. 13 the SSA denied the request for expedited processing and fee waiver and subsequently failed to respond to an appeal filed by the ACLU on March 24. The VA failed to act on the request altogether.
On April 21, Plaintiff sued under FOIA to compel the immediate expedited processing and disclosure of the requested records and requesting an injunction against the imposition of any charges in connection with their request.
Update 1: On May 7, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum, claiming that they are likely to succeed on the merits and will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, and the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of granting relief.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10276

Case Summary: On January 28, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to career federal employees presenting what it described as a deferred resignation program, an offer to receive compensation until September 30, 2025 if they resign now (“Fork Directive” email). A deadline for the offer was set for February 6, 2025. Plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is “arbitrary and capricious” and not in accordance with the Antideficiency Act. They seek a declaratory judgment that the directive violates the APA and that the directive be vacated; they also seek an preliminary and permanent injunction of the February 6, 2025 deadline and an order that OPM submit for court approval a corrected communication for all employees who received the directive.
Update 1: On Feb. 5, 2025, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order and that within 24 hours of the TRO, the Government provide written notice of the TRO to all federal employees who have received the directive.
Update 2: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge George O’Toole issued an order to pause the program and extend the deadline until Monday when a hearing is scheduled.
Update 3: On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge O’Toole ordered that the stay of the Feb. 6 deadline will remain in effect “pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues.” Defendants notified the Court of their compliance with the order.
Update 4: On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge O’Toole dissolved the TRO and denied further preliminary injunctive relief, finding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted.
Update 5: On Mar. 31, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional factual allegations and additional Administrative Procedure Act and ultra vires claims related to the Fork Directive deferred resignation program and OPM’s implementation of it.

Case No. 25-5057

Court below: D.D.C.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00334

Case Summary: This case challenges President Trump’s removal of Gwynne A. Wilcox from her position on the National Labor Relations Board. The suit alleges the removal is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), which allows the president to remove Board members only in cases of neglect of duty or malfeasance and only after notice and hearing. The Plaintiff is seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, to establish that she remains a rightful member of the Board and that the President lacks authority to remove her. She also seeks an injunction against the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, who oversaw the termination.
Update 1: On Feb. 10, Plaintiff moved for expedited summary judgment.
Update 2: On Feb. 21, the government filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing statutory restrictions protecting NLRB members unconstitutionally conflict with the President’s Article II powers.
Update 3: On Mar. 6, Judge Beryl Howell granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Wilcox’s firing was unlawful and that she remains a member of the NLRB; the court further ordered that Wilcox be allowed to continue to serve in office unless removed for cause under the NLRA, and enjoined defendants from removing Wilcox or impeding her from executing her duties.
Update 4: On Mar. 7, defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit (Case No. 25-5057) and requested the district court issue a stay pending appeal. On Mar. 8, Judge Howell denied the motion to stay.
Update 5: On Mar. 10, the government filed an emergency motion with the D.C. Circuit to stay the district court’s judgment pending appeal. On Mar. 11, Wilcox filed her response. On Mar. 13, the government filed a reply.
Update 6: On Mar. 28, the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted the Defendants’ motion to stay the district court decision pending appeal.
Update 7: On Mar. 28, as well the Plaintiff submitted a notice of intent to petition for an en banc hearing, and to stay the order.
Update 8: On Apr. 7, the D.C. Circuit, in a 7-4, en banc decision reinstated the district court’s order.
Update 9: On Apr. 9, the Defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, and the Court, per Chief Justice Roberts, issued a stay and ordered the plaintiffs to respond by Apr. 15, which they did.
Update 10: On Apr. 7, Wilcox filed an appellate brief, arguing that the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff should be upheld. Wilcox reiterates her argument that the President does not have the authority to remove members of the NLRB without cause. Wilcox also challenges the government’s argument that the District Court does not have the right to grant injunctive relief.
Update 11: On Apr. 11, the Defendants filed a reply brief, arguing that the President has constitutional authority to remove members of the NLRB and MSPB at will and that the District Courts erred in ordering the reinstatement of the officers the President had already removed.
Update 12: On May 22, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request for a stay while the case is on appeal.

Case No. 25-5037

Court Below: D.D.C.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00412

Case Summary: Plaintiff Cathy A. Harris challenges her removal from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent federal agency. Plaintiff alleges that she received a one-sentence email from Trent Morse, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, stating that Plaintiff had been terminated, effective immediately. Plaintiff, whose term on the MSPB was set to expire in 2028, alleges that she was unlawfully removed from her position without justification, despite the statutory requirement that MSPB members may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” She alleges the action was ultra vires and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. She seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction as well as an emergency temporary restraining order to reinstate her position on the MSPB.
Update 1: On Feb. 11, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order declaring that her removal is unlawful and that she is a member of the MSPB, and enjoining obstructing her access to the office.
Update 2: On Feb. 18, Judge Rudolph Contreras granted the temporary restraining order and ordered that Harris continue to serve as Chair of the MSPB until the court rules on a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Mar. 4, Judge Contreras granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Harris remains a member of the MSPB and that she may be removed by the President prior to the expiration of her term only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The court also enjoined defendants from removing Harris from office without cause.
Update 4: On Mar. 4, the government appealed to the D.C. Circuit and moved that the district court stay its order pending appeal.
Update 5: On Mar. 5, the district court denied the government’s motion to stay its order pending appeal.
Update 6: On Mar. 6, the government filed an emergency motion with the D.C. Circuit to stay the district court’s judgment pending appeal. On Mar. 10, Harris filed her response. On Mar. 12, the government filed a reply.
Update 7: On Mar. 28, the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted the Defendants’ motion to stay the district court decision pending appeal.
Update 8: On Mar. 28, as well the Plaintiff submitted a notice of intent to petition for an en banc hearing, and to stay the order.
Update 9: On Apr. 7, the Plaintiff filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Court should affirm the district court’s order.
Update 10: On Apr. 7, the DC Circuit, in a 7-4, en banc decision reinstated the district court’s order.
Update 11: On Apr. 9, the Defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, and the Court, per Chief Justice Roberts, issued a stay and ordered the plaintiffs to respond by Apr. 15, which they did.
Update 12: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a reply brief.
Update 13: On May 22, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request for a stay while the case is on appeal.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00425

D.C. Circuit Case No. 25-5165

Case Summary: On Feb, 10, 2025, White House official Trent Morse sent a two-sentence email to Susan Grundmann stating that her position on the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), an independent agency, “is terminated, effective immediately.”
Plaintiff Susan Grundmann challenges her removal from the FLRA. Plaintiff was Chair of the FLRA when she received the email from Morse, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. Plaintiff alleges she was improperly removed in violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. § 7104), which states that “Members of the Authority…may be removed by the President only upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and an injunction ordering her reinstatement.
Update 1: On Feb. 14, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
Update 2: On Feb. 25, defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgement and memorandum in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Mar. 12, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that her termination was unlawful and granting a permanent injunction reinstating her authority.
Update 4: On May 8, Defendants appealed Judge Sooknanan’s Mar. 12 order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00385-ABJ

CASE CLOSED

Case Summary: Plaintiff Hampton Dellinger has been the Special Counsel in the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) since Mar. 6, 2024, when he was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. The OSC is an independent federal agency founded by Congress as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Its primary function is to protect federal employees and others who come forward as whistleblowers. Once confirmed, the Special Counsel serves a five-year term and “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” On Feb. 7, 2025, Dellinger received a two-sentence email from Sergio Gor, informing Dellinger that he was terminated, effective immediately, and stating no cause for such termination. Dellinger is suing under six different counts and seeks a declaratory judgment that President Trump’s decision to fire him was unlawful, that the Special Counsel may only be removed for cause; and seeks an order that Dellinger may not be removed and is entitled to backpay. As precedent for the constitutionality of the statutory for-cause protection, Dellinger cites to Humphrey’s Executor.
Update 1: On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an administrative stay on Dellinger’s termination through midnight on February 13, 2025, while the parties submit their briefs.
Update 2: On Feb. 11, 2025, defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit (case no. 25-5025), making an emergency motion to stay the district court’s administrative stay.
Update 3: On Feb. 12, 2025, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Update 4: On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court granted a temporary restraining order, ordering that Dellinger shall continue to serve as Special Counsel and prohibiting defendants from denying him the resources and materials of his office.
Update 5: On Feb. 13, Defendants filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit (case no. 25-5028). In the District Court, their motion for a stay pending appeal was denied.
Update 6: On Feb. 15, the D.C. Circuit rejected the Defendant’s appeal in a 2-1 opinion.
Update 7: The Government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to freeze and vacate the district court order that had temporarily reinstated Dellinger.
Update 8: On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court rejected (7-2) the Government’s petition on the ground that a TRO was not properly subject to appeal at this stage.
Update 9: On Feb. 26, Judge Jackson extended the TRO ordering that Dellinger remain as Special Counsel for an additional three days until she “complete[s] the written opinion on the consolidated motion for preliminary injunction and cross motions for summary judgment” (indicating she will rule on that day, Mar. 1).
Update 10: On Mar. 1, Judge Jackson issued an Opinion and Order in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants immediately appealed to the DC Circuit.
Update 11: On Mar. 5, the DC Circuit in a 3-0 decision put a halt to the district court order pending the appeal. “This order gives effect to the removal of [Dellinger] from his position as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel,” the DC Circuit wrote.
Update 12: On Mar. 6, Dellinger announced that he was dropping his case.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00542

Case Summary: On Jan, 27, 2025, the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) purported to remove Plaintiffs, two Senate-confirmed members of the Board. Plaintiffs represent two out of three Democratic members of the Board, which is required by statute to have Democratic and Republican members.
Plaintiffs allege that the text, structure, and function of the 9/11 Commission Act bars removal of PCLOB members without good cause. They also assert that by removing Board members solely on the basis of their political affiliation, defendants have acted “not in accordance with law.” They seek a declaration that the Defendants “have no authority” to remove Plaintiffs from the Board based on their political affiliation and for the court to “hold unlawful and set aside the purported removals.” They also seek an injunction prohibiting defendants (other than the President) from removing them from their positions without good cause and enjoin defendants (other than the President) to restore them to those positions.
Update 1: On Mar. 12, Plaintiffs amended their complaint. No new claims were added in the amended complaint, however Plaintiffs included a request for an award of backpay of up to $10,000 from the date of the unlawful removals to their prayer for relief.
On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, memorandum in support, and statement of undisputed facts. Plaintiffs note that Congress revised the PCLOB statute in 2007 to secure the Board’s independence from Presidential control.
Update 2: On Apr. 3, Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support in which they assert Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.
Update 3: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ cross-motion to the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and reply in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. In this response, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants incorrectly interpreted the PCLOB statute to allow the President to freely fire PCLOB members without cause. The next day, Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
Update 4: On Apr. 23, Defendants replied in further support of their cross-motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that President Trump lawfully removed Plaintiffs from PCLOB because the text in PCLOB’s statute does not limit the President’s presumptive removal authority.
Update 5: On May 21, Judge Reggie Whalton issued a summary judgment for the Plaintiffs along with a memorandum opinion.
Update 6: On May 27, Defendants appealed Judge Whalton’s summary judgment order to the D.C. Circuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00778

Case Summary: On Feb. 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which mandated the reduction of the size of the federal government and listed the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) as a covered entity. After her purported removal as President and CEO of the IAF, Plaintiff Sara Aviel filed suit against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and several federal officials, including Trump and Pete Marocco, the Acting Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning and for Management Resources for USAID and Director of Foreign Assistance at the U.S. Department of State. Plaintiff alleges that she was unlawfully terminated because she can only be removed by the IAF’s Board of Directors and not by Trump. The Plaintiff also alleges that Trump did not follow the required process when he appointed Marocco as acting Chair of the IAF Board without advice and consent of the Senate. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering that she may not be removed from her office as President and CEO of the IAF, that Defendants may not appoint Marocco or any other person as an acting member of the IAF Board or the IAF President and CEO. Plaintiff also requests the Court to declare that she lawfully remains the President and CEO of the IAF and that Marocco has not been lawfully appointed as an acting member of the IAF Board and the President of the IAF.
Update 1: On Mar. 17, Plaintiff filed a motion for an immediate administrative stay, temporary restraining order (TRO), and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has requested that the Court orders that she should not be removed as President of the IAF, that Defendants may not appoint any Board members without going through the proper legal process, and declaring void any actions by Defendants purporting to act as a member of the Board of the IAF.
Update 2: On Mar. 26, Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and injunction and asserting that Plaintiff should be made to post security for costs sustained by Defendants in connection with any injunctive relief in case Defendants are later found to have been wrongfully enjoined.
Update 3: On Mar. 31, Plaintiff filed a reply motion supporting their motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Apr. 4, Judge Loren Alikhan granted a preliminary injunction, stopping the removal of Aviel from her position as president and CEO of IAF, and enjoining Peter Marocco from serving as an “acting” Board member or anyone else without Senate confirmation. The court ordered a status report on or before Apr. 7.
Update 5: On Apr. 6, Defendants appealed the Apr. 4 order granting the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Update 6: On Apr. 18, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
Update 7: On May 7, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The filing argued that Aviel was lawfully removed from her position and is not entitled to equitable relief.
Update 8: On May 14, Plaintiff filed a consolidated reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00909

Case Summary: On Mar. 18, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, two Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), received a message from President Donald Trump announcing they were being removed from their positions as FTC Commissioners effective immediately on the basis that their “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [Trump’s] Administration’s priorities.”
Slaughter and Bedoya have sued Trump, as well as the Republican Commissioners of the FTC, Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak, and the FTC’s Executive Director, David Robbins, on the basis that such a removal violates the FTC Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the separation of powers doctrine. Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare Trump’s termination unlawful because it was not undertaken based on “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” and to enter an injunction against Ferguson, Holyoak, and Robbins ordering them to treat plaintiffs as FTC Commissioners.
Update 1: On Apr. 11, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because there is no dispute about the facts and the governing law is clear, there is no barrier to proceeding straight to summary judgment.
Update 2: On Apr. 23, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum. Defendants argue that the executive power of the president encompasses the authority to remove those who aid the President in carrying out his duties and that therefore the removal of Slaughter and Bedoya was a lawful exercise of presidential power.
Update 3: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in further support of their motion for expedited summary judgment and in opposition to the Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
Update 4: On May 12, Defendants filed a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, alleging that the restrictions on the removal of FTC Commissioners are unconstitutional and that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01069

Case Summary. On Jan. 27, 2025, President Donald Trump removed Plaintiff Jocelyn Samuels from her position as Commissioner at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Samuels alleges that the EEOC is an independent agency, and because of this, President Trump’s action was ultra vires in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because he does not have the authority to remove her as Commissioner before the end of her term in 2026.
Samuels asked the court to declare her termination unlawful and that she remains a Commissioner of the EEOC. She further requested that the court enjoin Defendants from blocking her access to office or preventing her from performing her role as Commissioner.
Update 1: On Apr. 24, Choices Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, Inc. and Christian Employers Alliance filed a Motion to Intervene as Intervenor-Defendants. The Parties oppose certain mandates advanced by the Plaintiff during her tenure at EEOC and move to intervene on the basis of their strong interest in keeping the Plaintiff out of office.

Case No. 8:25-cv-01628

Case Summary: Under 15 U.S.C. § 2053, the CPSC is an independent regulatory agency with five members. CPSC Commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms and may be removed by the president “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” The plaintiffs allege that they were informed of their removal by White House personnel without being given any justification. They argue that this action violates statutory limits on the president’s removal authority and exceeds the president’s powers under the governing statute. The lawsuit names President Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, OMB Director Russell Vought, and Acting CPSC Chairman Peter Feldman as defendants.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01659

Case Summary: On May 8, 2025 President Trump fired Dr.Carla D. Hayden, the Librarian of Congress. On May 10, Plaintiff Shira Perlmutter was informed by an email from an assistant to President Trump that on behalf of the President, her position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright office had been terminated, effective immediately. On May 12, President Trump appointed the Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, Todd Blanche, as acting Librarian of Congress. Mr. Blanche subsequently sent two Justice Department officials to the Library of Congress to attempt to access the U.S. Copyright Office and assume the positions of acting Deputy Librarian of Congress and Register of Copyrights.
The Plaintiff claims that her removal as Register of Copyrights violates the Separation of Powers and Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as pursuant to the Appointments Clause, only the head of a Department can appoint inferior officers such as the Register of Copyrights. Ms. Perlmutter contends that the appointment of Defendant Blanche as acting Librarian of Congress is ultra vires because it is not authorized by the Constitution or any statutory provision and was done without the advice and consent of the Senate, and further that this appointment could not be authorized under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act as the Library of Congress is not an “Executive agency” within the meaning of this act. She argues that therefore her removal from her position by President Trump, Mr. Blanche or any other Defendant is unlawful as no Defendant is lawfully the Librarian of Congress.
Plaintiff requests that the Court declare that she remains the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, that Mr. Blanche has not been lawfully appointed as the acting Librarian of Congress, and that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act does not authorize the appointment of a temporary acting Librarian of Congress, She also asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering that she may not be removed from her office absent a decision by a lawfully appointed Librarian of Congress, that Mr. Blanche may not exercise the powers of acting Librarian of Congress, and that Defendants may not appoint any other individual in that role.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01764

Case No. 1:25-cv-00352

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order including a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance,” and the Secretary of State then issued stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants. Later, Secretary of State Rubio was named as acting USAID Administrator and USAID contractors were laid off or furloughed. On Feb. 3, Elon Musk posted that he had spent the previous weekend “feeding USAID to the woodchipper,” and USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C. was closed. On Feb. 4, a message was posted on the USAID website that all directly-hired USAID staff would be placed on administrative leave as of 11:59pm EST on Friday, Feb. 7, 2025. Plaintiffs sued, arguing executive actions either to dissolve USAID or merge it with the State Department are unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause; and unlawful under of the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding statutory authority, violating the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, and involving arbitrary and capricious abuses of discretion. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the administration’s actions are unlawful and unconstitutional; a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing the administration to halt efforts to shut down the agency, including by appointing an independent administrator, restoring grant funding, recalling furloughs, and halting efforts to place more employees on administrative leave, among other actions. Plaintiffs also seek court supervision, and a permanent injunction barring the administration from taking action to dissolve USAID absent congressional authorization.
Update 1: On Feb. 7, Judge Carl J. Nichols issued a temporary restraining order preventing USAID from placing employees on administrative leave or evacuating them. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a restraining order on the funding freeze on the ground that the plaintiffs (USAID employees) could not show sufficient harm to themselves.
Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court extended the TRO until Friday, Feb. 21, at 11:59 PM. Judge Nichols also amended the TRO’s statement to clarify that no USAID employees can be involuntarily evacuated from their host countries while the TRO remains in place.
Update 3: On Feb. 14, the Government submitted a declaration by Pete Marocco, who performs the duties and functions of both Deputy Administrators of USAID; the declaration responds to the court’s questions about government actions to protect USAID employees abroad subject to administrative leave or in the event of employees staying voluntarily beyond the time of an evacuation.
Update 4: On Feb. 21, Judge Nichols issued an Order and Memorandum Opinion rejecting the preliminary injunction and dissolving the TRO. His reasoning included that plaintiffs do not face irreparable harm after a series of concessions from Deputy Administrator Marocco, and that they could pursue remedies with administrative bodies governing disputes between the federal government and civil servants.
Update 5: On Mar. 10, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that the court (not administrative bodies) has jurisdiction over the claim, and that Defendants’ actions violate both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Update 6: On Mar. 11, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order alleging potential destruction of documents, including a copy of an internal email from Acting Executive Secretary of USAID Erica Carr to staff.
Update 7: On Mar. 12, the Defendants responded to the Mar. 11 motion for a temporary restraining order and included an affidavit by Carr. The defendants stated that the instruction to destroy documents “had nothing to do with this litigation,” was done to clear space formerly occupied by USAID, and were copies “where the originally classified document is retained by another government agency and for which there is no need for USAID to retain a copy.”
Update 8: On Mar. 14, the Plaintiffs dropped their Mar. 11 motion on destruction of documents based on the Defendants’ assurances.
Update 9: On Apr. 7, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Defendants also filed a memorandum supporting their motion and opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to challenge any discrete agency action as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argued that Plaintiffs’ request to overturn Defendants’ policy actions would effectively place USAID in receivership overseen by the Court, which they argue is not the role of the judiciary.
Update 10: On Apr. 21, the Plaintiffs filed a combined reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs claim that there is no jurisdictional barrier to relief, the case is not moot, the Plaintiffs have asserted Article III injuries, and the Defendants’ closure of USAID is unconstitutional.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00400

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order including a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance,” and the Secretary of State then issued stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants.
Plaintiffs, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and Journalism Development Network (JDN), sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the Executive Order and the stop-work order. Plaintiffs are two nonprofit organizations that receive federal grants from USAID to support their work. Both AVAC’s and JDN’s funding was appropriated by Congress through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. Plaintiffs allege the Executive Order and stop-work order have been detrimental to their work, forcing them to lay off staff, slashing their budgets, and impacting their ability to carry out their missions. They allege the President acted ultra vires and usurped legislative authority. They also allege the President has violated the Take Care Clause. Plaintiffs’ claims against the State Department, USAID, Secretary of State Marc Rubio, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB Director Vought are that the stop-work orders are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act (as an “unlawful reserve”), and the Impoundment Control Act. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court that the suspension of foreign aid is unlawful, an injunction stopping defendants from enforcing the Executive Order, and an order to immediately reinstate foreign assistance funding.
Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Executive Order and State Department policy, enjoining stop-work orders, and reinstating foreign assistance funding and administration.
Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court granted a TRO in this case and Global Health Council v. Trump on narrower terms than originally requested. The order enjoins implementation on the blanket suspension of foreign aid funding, but does not enjoin enforcement or implementation of Executive Order 14169, individual personnel decisions, or termination of individual contracts.
Update 3: On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for contempt seeking to enforce the Feb. 13 TRO against Defendants and hold them in civil contempt. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ purported compliance with the TRO “strains credulity” and that Defendants have continued to suspend funding and enforce stop-work orders in violation of the court’s orders.
Update 4: On Feb. 20, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement of the court’s TRO “to the extent Defendants have not complied with the terms of the TRO,” but did not make a finding of contempt, citing “Defendants’ explicit recognition that ‘prompt compliance with the order’ is required.” The granted motion applies to this case and Global Health Council v. Trump.
Update 5: On Feb. 24, plaintiffs in Global Health Council v. Trump filed an emergency renewed motion to enforce the TRO. The court held a hearing the following day and, on Feb. 25, granted the motion for a proposed order requiring the Administration pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests for work completed prior to the TRO, as well as reimbursements on grants and assistance agreements by 11:59 pm on Wednesday, Feb. 26. The court further mandated that the Administration take no actions to impede and must ensure the prompt payment of appropriated foreign assistance funds going forward. The court also reportedly ordered the government to provide the court, by Feb. 26 at noon, with all internal directives to agency employees concerning compliance with the TRO.
Update 6: On Feb. 25, the Government submitted a notice of its decision to appeal the court’s decision to the DC Circuit, and a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal.
Update 7: On Feb. 26, the district court rejected and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the Government’s motion for a stay.
Update 8: On Feb. 26, the Government filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court (while the decision before the D.C. Circuit was still pending) to vacate the district court’s TRO and grant an immediate administrative stay. That evening, Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and ordered a response by the plaintiffs by Feb. 28 at 12:p.m. EST.
Update 9: On Feb. 28, the Plaintiffs filed its opposition to the application.
Update 10: On Mar. 5, the Supreme Court rejected the Defendants’ petition in a 5-4 decision.
Update 11: On Mar. 6, Judge Amir H. Ali ruled from the bench that the government must make outstanding balances to the Plaintiffs by Mar. 10; but did not resolve the payments for foreign aid recipients other than the Plaintiffs, which total near $2 billion.
Update 12: On Mar. 10, Judge Ali granted in part and denied in part the motion for a preliminary injunction. The judge ordered the government to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance for work performed before Feb. 13, but he did not reject the State Department’s review and termination of thousands of foreign aid contracts for work after that date. He ruled that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the claim that the latter actions flowed from the original government directives in violation of the law.
Update 13: On Apr. 1, Defendants appealed Judge Ali’s Mar. 10 order granting in part and denying in part the motion for a preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit.
Update 14: On May 2, Plaintiffs amended their complaint. This updated complaint added the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) as a plaintiff, provided more detailed accounts of the harms suffered by each plaintiff, refined and expanded the legal arguments, and also clarified the forms of relief sought.

Case No. ​​1:25-cv-00402

Case Summary: A group of for-profit and nonprofit organizations that contract with USAID sued the Trump administration over its recent actions to defund USAID, lay off or furlough employees, and transfer the Agency to be under the State Department. Plaintiffs provide a detailed chronology of the actions, memoranda, and statements that the Administration has issued. In addition to imperiling future projects by freezing future funds, plaintiffs also allege that there is money unpaid for services already performed. ($3,376,832 for Democracy International, approximately $120 million for DAI, $103.6 million for Chemonics, and tens of millions for SBAIC’s members.) Plaintiffs allege that neither the President, nor the Secretary of State, nor the USAID Administrator have the authority to unilaterally withhold already-appropriated funds, citing the Constitution and statutory law prohibiting the unilateral withholding: the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act. Plaintiffs also claim violations of the Administrative Procedure Act; that the Executive’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to statutory and constitutional law. Plaintiffs ask the court to vacate and set aside all of the defendants’ actions to implement Executive Order 14169 and seek injunctions to prevent defendants from continuing to implement EO 14169 and from “dismantling USAID.”
Update 1: On Feb. 11, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining implementation of the Executive Order and State Department Memorandum.
Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court granted a TRO in this case and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State on narrower terms than originally requested. The order enjoins implementation on the blanket suspension of foreign aid funding, but does not enjoin enforcement or implementation of Executive Order 14169, individual personnel decisions, or termination of individual contracts.
Update 3: On Feb. 20, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement of the court’s TRO “to the extent Defendants have not complied with the terms of the TRO,” but did not make a finding of contempt, citing “Defendants’ explicit recognition that ‘prompt compliance with the order’ is required.” The granted motion applies to this case and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State.
Update 4: On Feb. 24, plaintiffs filed an emergency renewed motion to enforce the TRO. The court held a hearing the following day and, on Feb. 25, granted the motion for a proposed order requiring the Administration pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests for work completed prior to the TRO, as well as reimbursements on grants and assistance agreements by 11:59 pm on Wednesday, Feb. 26. The court further mandated that the Administration take no actions to impede and must ensure the prompt payment of appropriated foreign assistance funds going forward. The court also reportedly ordered the government to provide the court, by Feb. 26 at noon, with all internal directives to agency employees concerning compliance with the TRO.
Update 5: On Feb. 25, the Government submitted a notice of its decision to appeal the court’s decision to the DC Circuit, and a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal.
Update 6: On Feb. 26, the district court rejected and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the Government’s motion for a stay.
Update 7: On Feb. 26, the Government filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court (while the decision before the D.C. Circuit was still pending) to vacate the district court’s TRO and grant an immediate administrative stay. That evening, Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and ordered a response by the plaintiffs by Feb. 28 at 12:p.m. EST.
Update 8: On Feb. 28, the Plaintiffs filed its opposition to the application.
Update 9: On Mar. 5, the Supreme Court rejected the Defendants’ petition in a 5-4 decision.
Update 10: On Mar. 6, Judge Amir H. Ali ruled from the bench that the government must make outstanding balances to the Plaintiffs by Mar. 10; but did not resolve the payments for foreign aid recipients other than the Plaintiffs, which total near $2 billion.
Update 11: On Mar. 10, Judge Ali granted in part and denied in part the motion for a preliminary injunction. The judge ordered the government to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance for work performed before Feb. 13, but he did not reject the State Department’s review and termination of thousands of foreign aid contracts for work after that date. He ruled that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the claim that the latter actions flowed from the original government directives in violation of the law.
Update 12: On Apr. 1, Defendants appealed Judge Ali’s Mar. 10 order granting in part and denying in part the motion for a preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit.
Update 13: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a motion for an indicative ruling and an unopposed motion to stay the Mar. 10 order pending the resolution of the motion for an indicative ruling. Defendants seek the indicative ruling in light of the Supreme Court granting the Government’s request for a stay in Department of Education v. California.
On that same day, Defendants’ unopposed motion for a partial administrative stay of the Mar. 10 preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Ali.
Update 14: On Apr. 22, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all Defendants. In addition to their previous four claims, Plaintiffs added a mandamus claim against the agency leader defendants and a fifth amendment procedural due process violation against all Defendants.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00469

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order including a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance,” and the Secretary of State then issued stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants.
The Personal Services Contractor Association filed suit on Feb. 18, 2025, challenging Executive Order 14169 and subsequent actions that effectively suspended U.S. foreign aid and began dismantling USAID. The plaintiffs, representing USAID contractors, allege these actions have caused severe disruption, including contractors being locked out of facilities and email, facing eviction overseas, losing access to healthcare, and being unable to carry out humanitarian aid work. The plaintiffs bring four causes of action: (1) violation of separation of powers against Trump, (2) violation of the Take Care Clause against Trump, (3) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for arbitrary and capricious actions against all defendants except Trump, and (4) violation of the APA for actions not in accordance with law (including under the Impoundment Act and Anti-Deficiency Act) against all defendants except Trump. The plaintiffs seek both immediate temporary relief (to restore USAID contractors to their pre-January 20 employment status and work conditions) and permanent injunctive relief to prevent USAID’s dismantling, its absorption into the State Department, and the freezing of congressionally-appropriated foreign assistance funds without congressional approval. They also request ongoing compliance monitoring through regular status reports.
Update 1: On Feb. 19, Plaintiff submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order, including 13 Declarations as Exhibits.
Update 2: On Mar. 6, Judge Carl Nichols ruled from the bench denying the contractors’ request for the temporary restraining order. Judge Nichols said the complaints should be adjudicated by the board of contract appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The judge also said the plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm or that a TRO was in the public interest.
Update 3: On Mar. 11, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a TRO to preserve evidence after Erica Carr, the executive secretary of USAID, circulated an email instructing the remaining USAID staff members to shred and burn classified and personal documents. Defendants opposed this motion the next day, asserting that USAID was not destroying evidence potentially relevant to this litigation. On Mar. 13, Plaintiff replied in further support of its motion, however Judge Nichols denied its motion on Mar. 14 on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof for emergency relief.
Update 4: On Apr. 17, Plaintiff amended its complaint, adding an ultra vires allegation against Defendants and requesting that the court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to order Defendants to apportion congressionally appropriated funds to USAID as well as restore and maintain apportionment data for OMB’s apportioned funds to USAID. Plaintiff also requested that Defendants be blocked from taking steps to suspend, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize USAID without Congressional authorization.
Update 5: On Apr. 23, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In its supporting memorandum, Plaintiff explains court interference via preliminary injunction is necessary because Defendants have terminated the entire USAID global workforce, thereby abolishing USAID.
Update 6: On May 7, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and that the claims are not likely to succeed on their merits.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00648

Case Summary: The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) filed suit challenging the Executive Branch’s withholding of funds appropriated to the Endowment by Congress. The NED was established by the National Endowment for Democracy Act of 1983. In the Act, Congress specified that the NED would be funded by annual congressional appropriations, which would then be disbursed to the Endowment via grants from the Department of State. The statute also prescribes that the Endowment must withdraw funds from an account held by the Department of Treasury on an as-needed basis.
The complaint alleges that for the past month, “the Executive Branch has denied the Endowment access to its congressionally appropriated funds—something that has never occurred before in the Endowment’s forty-two-year existence.” As a result, the Endowment claims it is “experiencing a devastating cash flow crisis that jeopardizes its ability to fulfill its mission and its very existence, as well as that of its core institutes and grantees.” The complaint alleges that the Executive Branch is obligated by the NED Act to grant the funds appropriated by Congress, and by not doing so, it is acting “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority because the statutory scheme creates a mandatory, non-discretionary duty for Defendants to make available, obligate, and disburse the Endowment’s congressionally appropriated funds.” The complaint argues that the administration’s actions constitute an “unlawful impoundment” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the All Writs Act, the Presentment Clause, the Appropriations Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Separation of Powers. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring Defendants from impounding the Endowment’s funds.
Update 1: On Mar. 6, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Mar. 11, parties jointly moved to stay proceedings on the TRO because the NED received part of its obligated funds requested in late Jan. and is in the process of receiving the remaining appropriated funds. The court granted the motion.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00660

Case Summary: On Feb. 19, President Trump issued Executive Order 14217, which directed that “non-statutory components and functions” of four government entities, including the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), “be eliminated,” among other actions. On Feb. 21, DOGE allegedly demanded access to USADF information systems, and USADF staff informed them of legal requirements that DOGE employees would have to satisfy before access was provided. On Feb. 24, Ward Brehm, a member of the USADF Board, allegedly received notice from the White House Presidential Personnel Office (PPO) that he had been terminated. On Feb. 28, USADF management allegedly received a letter from PPO appointing Pete Marocco as acting Chair of the Board of USADF. On Mar. 3, previously appointed members of the Board allegedly held an emergency meeting and determined that Marocco’s appointment was unlawful. On Mar. 5, Brehm allegedly informed DOGE that Marocco did not hold a position with USADF and instructed USADF staff to deny him access to its offices.
On Mar. 6, Brehm in his personal and official capacity, filed suit against Marocco, DOGE, and President Trump, arguing the defendants actions are (1) an ultra vires violation of the African Development Foundation Act as Marocco was neither nominated to the Board nor confirmed by the Senate; (2) an ultra vires violation of the separation of powers; (3) a violation of the APA as not in accordance with the law and in excess of statutory authority. Brehm seeks a declaratory judgment that he is the President of USADF and Marocco’s appointment was unlawful; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; and, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus prohibiting his removal by any entity other than the Board.
The same day, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
Update 1: On Mar. 6, Judge Richard J. Leon issued an administrative stay prohibiting Brehm from being removed from office and Marocco from being appointed to the Board.
Update 2: On Mar. 11, Judge Leon issued a Memorandum Order denying the TRO request. “The heart of the problem is that Brehm has not identified any cognizable irreparable harm to himself as opposed to potential harm to the agency and its partners,” Judge Leon wrote (emphasis in original). As an aside, Judge Leon wrote that “Brehm raise[sic] a colorable Appointment Clause claim,” that the Vacancy Act does not permit the appointment of Marocco and “[t]he Court has not found–nor has the Government identified–any other statute that provides President Trump with the authority to appoint Marocco as the Acting Chairman of the Board.”
Update 3: On Mar. 21, the Plaintiff submitted a motion for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Mar. 31, Defendants submitted a cross-motion for summary judgment alongside their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants contend that Brehm is not entitled to the requested relief, asserting that the harm he may have experienced is neither irreparable nor warrants extraordinary relief.
Update 5: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs filed a combined reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction and in response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order confirming Brehm as the lawful President of USADF and reject Defendants’ efforts to circumvent the role that the Appointments Clause provides Congress in the appointment of federal officers.
On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine dispute.
Update 6: On Apr. 9, Defendants filed a reply in further support of their cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that Brehm cannot succeed on the merits of his case.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00381

D.C. Circuit Case No. 25-5091

Amended Complaint (Feb. 13, 2025)

Case Summary: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by Congress in the aftermath of the 2007–2008 great recession, to support and protect American consumers in the financial marketplace. On Feb. 7, 2025, Elon Musk posted “CFPB RIP” with a tombstone emoji on his X account. On Feb. 8, Russell Vought, the Acting Director of the CFPB, posted on X that he had notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB would not take “its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties.” In an email to CFPB employees, Vought directed the CFPB workforce to “cease all supervision and examination activity,” “cease all stakeholder engagement,” pause all pending investigations, not issue any public communications, and pause “enforcement actions.” He also notified the CFPB workforce that the Washington headquarters would be closed for the coming week. Plaintiffs allege that preventing CFPB from drawing down more funding and ordering a halt on enforcement activities constitutes an unlawful attempt to thwart Congress’s decision to create CFPB, which would be a violation of the separation of powers. They seek a declaratory judgment that Vought’s directives are unlawful and an injunction that prevents him from further attempts to dismantle CFPB’s supervision and enforcement work.
Update 1: On Feb. 13, Plaintiffs moved for an administrative stay and TRO enjoining defendants from taking action to terminate CFPB staff, requiring that cease work directives be lifted, and enjoining further efforts to suspend operations at CFPB.
Update 2: On Feb. 14, 2025, the court ordered that the defendants not delete, destroy, remove, or impair records; terminate any employee other than for cause or issue any notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee; or disburse any funds, except to satisfy CFPB’s operating obligations, pending the resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. The order also reclassified plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO as a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Feb. 24, the government filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Mar. 12, both parties filed a joint notice agreeing to extend the contract termination agreement until Mar. 28 or until the court rules on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, whichever comes first. The CFPB agreed to continue to freeze all termination actions regarding contracts during this period.
Update 5: On Mar. 28, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 6: On Mar. 29, the government appealed Judge Jackson’s preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit.
Update 7: On Apr. 11, following oral argument, the D.C. Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, granted the stay in part. The Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction “insofar as it prohibits defendants from terminating or issuing a notice of reduction in force to employees whom defendants have determined, after a particularized assessment, to be unnecessary to the performance of defendants’ statutory duties.”
The Circuit set the next oral argument for May 16, 2025.
Update 8: On Apr. 17, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for an order to show cause why the Defendants have not violated the part of the court’s preliminary injunction upheld by the DC Circuit through a large-scale termination of employees earlier that day. Judge Jackson ordered a hearing for the following morning.
Update 9: On Apr. 18, before the hearing Plaintiffs submitted information about the terminations and Defendants submitted, per a court order, documents on the actions taken and stated reasons for them.
After the hearing, Judge Jackson ordered the “the Reduction in Force announced by Acting Director Vought on or about April 17, 2025 is SUSPENDED and it may NOT be implemented, effectuated, or completed in any way until this Court has ruled on plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the preliminary injunction” (emphasis in original).
The same day, the Defendants appealed the court’s order to the DC Circuit.
Update 10: On Apr. 28, the DC Circuit (in a 2-1 decision) rejected the Defendants’ appeal and reinstated an element of the district court’s original preliminary injunction, which the DC Circuit panel had previously stayed in part.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00458-ABA

Case Summary: On Feb. 7, 2025, President Trump named OMB Director Russell Vought as the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). On Feb. 8, Vought instructed CFPB employees to stop performing any work tasks and notified the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that he was requesting $0 for the third quarter of fiscal year 2025. Plaintiffs allege that these and other statements and actions by Vought, President Trump, and Elon Musk indicate that the CFPB will be deprived of operating funds and will be unable to perform its statutorily mandated functions. Plaintiffs allege that the Baltimore City Law Department has an active account with the CFPB and uses the CFPB customer complaint database and attends trainings put on by the CFPB. Plaintiffs also claim injury because their constituents will be deprived of the CFPB’s enforcement actions against predatory business practices. The second plaintiff, Economic Action Maryland Fund, is a direct services nonprofit that operates in Maryland. For part of its work, the organization relies on the CFPB complaint databases and other resources CFPB publishes under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (including that Vought’s actions allegedly violate the statutory requirement for the Director to request transfer of an amount “reasonably necessary to carry out the authorities of the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law.” Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment saying as much, as well as an injunction that would prevent defendants from defunding CFPB.
Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining defendants from defunding the CFPB, to which the government responded in opposition on Feb. 20.
Update 2: On Feb. 25, Judge Matthew J. Maddox issued an order that prevented the defunding of CFPB, and on Feb. 28, the judge issued an order extending the duration of that directive.
Update 3: On Mar. 14, Judge Maddox denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On May 15, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10601

Case Summary: On March 13, the Attorneys General of twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the DOE and the Trump administration to halt a planned Reduction in Force (RIF), which would reduce DOE’s staff of 4,133 by approximately 1,378. The RIF is itself only an announced “first step” in a “total shutdown” by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the complaint alleges. The suit points to statutory authority that mandates DOE functions under the 1979 Department of Education Organizing Act and other Acts including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975), and other education, disability, and civil rights laws. It states the Secretary of DOE is only authorized to reorganize by “allocat[ing] or reallocat[ing] functions among the officers of the Department” or modifying “organizational entities within the Department as may be necessary or appropriate,” 20 U.S.C. § 3473(a). Under counts alleging constitutional violations, ultra vires (acts outside of statutory authority), and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the states move the Court to vacate efforts to “dismantle” the DOE, to declare them illegal, and to enjoin the RIF.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that the court should deny relief because the programs identified by Plaintiffs are within the discretion of the Secretary of the DOE instead of being statutorily mandated and that Plaintiffs have failed to identify how the reduction in workforce is tied to the DOE’s inability to perform its statutory duties.
Update 3: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in which they claim Defendants’ opposition mischaracterized the mass termination of employees as minor changes.
Update 4: On May 22, Judge Myong Joun granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On June 4, a federal appeals court denied the administration’s request to overturn a district court order blocking mass layoffs at the Department of Education while litigation proceeds.
The court found that the layoffs would cause irreparable harm by undermining the agency’s capacity to perform its legal functions, emphasizing that the stakes were “whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department.”

Case No. 1:25-cv-00744

Case Summary: Shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the DOE allegedly froze all investigations with OCR, which is responsible for processing and investigating civil rights complaints by the public. On Mar. 6, 2025, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon ended this “pause” on OCR complaint processing, but has since allegedly closed seven of twelve regional OCR offices and laid off many of the employees at the remaining offices. Plaintiffs, two parents and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., filed suit, alleging that the Trump administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (as arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with congressional statutes including the Impoundment Act), exceed Defendants’ lawful authority, and violate the Equal Protection guarantee under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions are unlawful and injunctive relief to restore OCR’s complaint processing capacities.
Update 1: On Apr.10, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which did not include any new allegations or requests for relief but did include additional plaintiffs and facts.
Update 2: On May 2, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum. Plaintiffs requested that the court order Defendants to restore OCR’s investigation and processing capacity as well as to process complaints from the public promptly and equitably in accordance with OCR’s statutory and regulatory obligations.
Update 3: On May 12, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10677

Case Summary: On Mar. 11, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon initiated a reduction in force eliminating the positions of roughly 2,000 employees, or almost half of the Department of Education’s workforce (“Mass Termination Order”). On Mar. 20, President Trump issued an Executive Order ordering McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
Plaintiffs, including public school districts that rely on Department of Education funding and unions representing employees in those school districts, sued, alleging that Congress has exclusive authority to create or eliminate government agencies such that the government’s actions violate the Separation of Powers and are Ultra Vires. The Plaintiffs also allege that the government’s actions violate various prohibitions contained in the Administrative Procedure Act (including “arbitrary and capricious conduct;” excess of government authority; and action not in accordance with law). Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that Trump and McMahon’s actions are unlawful and preliminary and permanent injunctions against the reduction in force and further efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
Update 1: On Apr. 1, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ motion requests that the court block Defendants from proceeding with the plans outlined in the Mar. 11 Mass Termination Order and order Defendants to reinstate the federal employees whose employment was terminated or otherwise eliminated by the Mass Termination Order.
Update 2: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims lack justiciability and that Defendants’ actions are valid exercises of agency discretion.
Update 3: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction, reasserting that Defendants’ actions violate the APA and will irreparably harm Plaintiffs.
Update 4: On May 22, Judge Myong Joun granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On May 27, Defendants appealed Judge Joun’s preliminary injunction order.
Update 6: On June 4, a federal appeals court denied the administration’s request to overturn a district court order blocking mass layoffs at the Department of Education while litigation proceeds.
The court found that the layoffs would cause irreparable harm by undermining the agency’s capacity to perform its legal functions, emphasizing that the stakes were “whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department.”

Case No. 1:25-cv-00416

Case Summary: Plaintiff Amanda Morgan alleges that on or about February 18, 2025, the Department of Education (DOE) disabled
borrowers from accessing the recertification forms and application forms for income-driven repayment plans on the studentaid.gov website. Morgan further alleges that on or about February 26, 2025, DOE issued a memorandum to student loan service providers in which DOE instructed the providers to stop accepting and processing all income-driven repayment applications, including the recertification of income for those borrowers who were already on income-driven repayment plans. Morgan alleges that this decision has resulted in her being put on a new repayment plan that more than quadruples her monthly student loan payment.
Morgan alleges that Secretary McMahon’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to the Higher Education Act. Morgan has requested that the court compel Defendants to restore access to income recertification forms and income-based repayment plans, enjoin her removal from her income-based repayment plans, extend relevant deadlines for her to recertify her income, and provide her with answers to questions posed in the complaint.

Case no. 1:25-cv-00999

Case Summary: Since February 2025, the Defendants have allegedly taken steps to dismantle the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the research arm of the Department of Education. Actions taken include en masse cancellation of contracts for statutorily mandated work, the mass firing of nearly 90% of IES employees, and the mass termination of remote data licenses, which researchers use to access data held by IED. The Plaintiffs are an association of scholars and practitioners working on education policy and a nonprofit research organization focused on higher education research. The Plaintiffs allege they are harmed by the Defendants’ actions because their members have lost contracts and funding; because the termination of data collection and dissemination by IES will impede the Plaintiffs from undertaking research reliant on IES’s data, given that the data is not reproducible by other entities; and because the Plaintiffs and their members are unable to publish already completed research as a result of the firing of the staff that perform disclosure reviews for data used. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ actions are ultra vires given that IES was created by statute and can only be dismantled by the same. They also argue that the Defendants violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because their actions are contrary to law as they violate the Education Sciences Reform Act, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to restoring the terminated contracts, vacating the mass firings, and vacating the decision to terminate the remote data licenses. They also seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from acting to shut down IES’s operations.
Update 1: On Apr. 17, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a memorandum in support of the motion, asking the Court to restrain and enjoin Defendants from terminating the functions of IES and to issue an order to reinstate active work status to IES employees whose work is necessary to perform IES’s statutory duties.
Update 2: On Apr. 30, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On May 6, Plaintiffs replied in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00965

Case Summary: Since Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration has taken various steps they describe as aimed at eliminating the Department of Education, including terminating grants, significantly reducing enforcement of civil rights by the agency, and drastically cutting the agency’s staff, including through a large reduction in force (RIF). On Mar. 20, Trump issued an Executive Order calling upon Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

Case No. 1:25-cv-01363

Case Summary: Maryland, along with 23 other states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint on April 29, 2025 against Americorps over its decision to place the majority of its staff on leave and its plan to terminate many of them, as well as unilaterally cancelling up to $400 million worth of programming involving the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim these actions are in violation of the separation of powers principles as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as allegedly “arbitrary and capricious” conduct, contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority. They claim the changes were not made through the proper rulemaking process and that these actions exceed the constitutional authority of the executive branch and infringe on the powers of Congress in setting up and allotting funding to Americorps. Plaintiffs claim that the improper winddown of Americorps and cancellation of its programming will cause irreparable harm to both the Plaintiffs and the public at large.
Update 1: On May 6, the Plaintiff States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum. Plaintiffs request that the court vacate Defendants’ acts and omissions that contributed to the dismantling of AmeriCorps and enjoin Defendants from taking further actions to dismantle AmeriCorps.
Update 2: Defendants responded in opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on May 13. In the event the preliminary injunction is granted, Defendants requested that it be limited to only the Plaintiff States.
Update 3: On Jun. 5, Judge Boardman granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the effort likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a notice-and-comment period before halting national service programs and discharging tens of thousands of AmeriCorps members.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01458

Case Summary: In April 2025, AmeriCorps placed 85% of its staff on administrative leave and unilaterally terminated $400 million of AmeriCorps grants. Plaintiffs are 15 non-profit entities and 3 individuals who brought suit against AmeriCorps, the Interim Agency Head of AmeriCorps, and the DOGE Team Lead for AmeriCorps, alleging that Defendants are unlawfully attempting to dismantle AmeriCorps in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Separation of Powers, and the Appointments Clause. Plaintiffs allege that these cuts will cause irreparable harm to their organizations, significantly reducing or negating their ability to recruit and retain volunteers and to provide services.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ attempts to dismantle AmeriCorps violate the APA as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, unreasonably withheld agency action, and failure to observe procedures required by law. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants’ actions violate the Separation of Powers, and that Defendant Tahmasebi, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of AmeriCorps, is exercising authority in violation of the Appointments Clause. Plaintiffs have asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from effectuating their decision to dismantle AmeriCorps, and to restore all AmeriCorps programs, grants, contracts, participants, and staff to their status as of April 14, 2025.

Case No. 1:25-cv-03657

Case summary: On Apr. 2, 2025, nearly 1500 grantees on a list of open NEH grants were informed by email that their grants were being terminated as the NEH was “repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President’s agenda” pursuant to Executive Order (EO)14217 of Feb. 19, Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy. On April 3, 80% of NEH staff members were put on administrative leave. The NEH has also announced plans to use NEH funds for an arts project, “National Garden of American Heroes” (Garden Project).
Three prominent humanities organizations—the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the American Historical Association (AHA), and the Modern Language Association (MLA)— who collectively have thousands of individual and organizational members who rely on NEH to fund and support their projects in the humanities, filed suit against the NEH, its acting chairman Michael McDonald, and officials from the U.S. DOGE Service on May 1, 2025.
The complaint alleges the actions taken to terminate grants, shut down divisions and programs, eliminate employees, and refuse to spend funds Congress has appropriated violate the Separation of Powers, the Impoundment Control Act and the Appropriations Acts, as well as the First Amendment on the basis of viewpoint discrimination. They allege that the actions violate the Administrative Procedures Act as in excess of statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious, and ultra vires and also challenge the plan to fund the Garden Project as outside of the statutory charge from Congress for grants awarded by the NEH and thus in violation of the APA. Plaintiffs also claim that Doge’s actions are unconstitutional as Congress did not authorize Doge to conduct the business of the NEH.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to restoring the terminated grants, vacating the mass firings, and enforcing the expenditure of all funds appropriated to the NEH by Congress.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01270

Case Summary: On March 21, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) abruptly closed its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), Citizen and Immigration Services Ombudsman Office (CIS Ombudsman Office), and the Office of Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) (collectively, the DHS Oversight Offices). Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations who had filed complaints or requests for assistance with the DHS Oversight Offices prior to their closure. According to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs and their clients now face hardship because they benefited from the investigations conducted by and the congressionally mandated reports published by the DHS Oversight Offices. These organizations allege that DHS’s actions are ultra vires, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, as well as arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief to block DHS from taking further steps to hinder the DHS Oversight Offices’ ability to perform their statutorily mandated tasks.
Update 1: On May 8, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that the court order Defendants not to take any further actions to to dissolve or cease the statutory functions of CRCL, OIDO, or the CIS Ombudsman’s Office; reverse work stoppages that were ordered for the DHS Oversight Offices; and enjoin Defendants from effectuating reduction-in-force scheduled for May 23, 2025.

Case no. 1:25-cv-01538

Case Summary: The Trump administration began massive staff cuts at the National Institution for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), ending new and ongoing projects and investigations, ceasing long-provided services, and ending the certification process for safety gear. The Plaintiffs represent many different unions and workers associations, which they allege will be negatively impacted by the closing of NIOSH and cessation of its services in worker safety and health research. Plaintiffs allege in their May 14 Complaint that the administration’s actions to shut down NIOSH and its activities are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as ultra vires, contrary to law, procedurally improper, and arbitrary and capricious. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the shutdown of NIOSH is unlawful, a permanent injunctions enjoining the shutdown, an order to Defendants to resume all NIOSH activities, Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys fees, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00804

Case Summary: On Feb. 19, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) mandating the reduction of the size of the federal government. The EO named the USIP, an independent nonprofit corporation created by Congress, as one of the entities covered by the EO. Since the EO was issued, all of USIP’s Board members were fired by President Trump. Several members of Trump’s cabinet who served as ex officio Board members fired USIP’s President and appointed a new President. Members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with the help of law enforcement, physically trespassed onto USIP’s headquarters and forcibly took over the building. USIP, along with several Board members, filed suit against numerous Defendants, including President Trump, DOGE, and the ex officio Board members. The Plaintiffs argue that since Congress created USIP as an independent non-profit corporation outside of the Executive Branch, the President has no authority to take action towards USIP not permitted by the statute. They also argue that since the statute outlines the process through which Board members and the President may be removed and because that process was not followed, the removals are unlawful and without legal effect. The Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering that the Board members and President cannot be removed or be treated as having been removed unless the Defendants follow the statutorily required procedure. They also seek injunctions prohibiting trespass against USIP’s real and personal property and prohibiting Defendants from exercising any access or control over USIP’s offices, computer systems, or records. Finally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the Board Member Plaintiffs remain members of the Board, the President remains in his position, and the President appointed by the ex officio Board members has not been lawfully appointed to any position in USIP.
Update 1: On Mar. 19, Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), asserting that the president’s authority in the firings is unrestricted and non-justiciable, and that Plaintiffs lack standing and have not suffered irreparable harm.
Update 2: On Mar. 19, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. The Court said the Plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
Update 3: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint reflecting additional plaintiffs and details regarding the administration’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the USIP. The amended complaint additionally alleges that Defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to rescind terminations of USIP leadership taken since initiation of the lawsuit.
Update 4: On Mar. 31, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion under the All Writs Act for a status conference on the case and requesting that the court suspend efforts taken by Defendants to transfer USIP property to the General Services Administration until the court can resolve the issue.
Update 5: On Mar. 31, Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs’ motion under the All Writs Act, asserting that Plaintiffs have no legal authority to sue and have not shown the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and that Defendants’ actions were lawful.
Update 6: On Apr. 1, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their motion under the All Writs Act, reasserting that the president does not have at-will removal authority over the USIP’s board of directors.
Update 7: On Apr. 1, Judge Beryl Howell issued a minute order denying the All Writs Act motion in part as moot and in part on the merits.
Update 8: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying statement of material facts, asserting that the facts of the case as stipulated by both parties establish that the president does not have authority to fire members of the USIP’s board at will.
Update 9: On Apr. 5, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for summary judgement.
Update 10: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgement and to oppose the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement. Defendants argue that because USIP does not exercise legislative or judicial functions, it necessarily must be considered to exercise executive functions, thereby making it part of the Executive Branch and making its officers removable by the President. Defendants also argue that, in any case, the Plaintiffs requested relief, reinstatement, is improper and beyond the equitable authority of the courts as it would put the Judicial Branch directly at odds with the President in his exercise of his duties.
Update 11: On Apr. 18, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgement. Plaintiffs put forth several arguments reiterating their claim that USIP is an independent corporate entity and does not sit within any of the three branches of government. Even if USIP is an executive agency, Plaintiffs argue, the composition of its board allows for placing limitations on the President’s removal of its officers.
Update 12: On Apr. 26, Defendants filed a reply in further support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting the President has the authority to remove USIP’s board in his discretion and that Trump appropriately exercised this discretion through his EO.
Update 13: On May 19, Judge Howell granted a summary judgment for the Plaintiffs.
Update 14: On May 21, Defendants appealed Judge Howell’s summary judgment order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01090

Case Summary: The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is a non-profit that was created by Congress in 1984 to promote peaceful conflict resolution worldwide. On Mar. 14, 2025, members of the USIP Board of Directors were fired at the direction of President Donald Trump, which was followed by additional employee terminations and other actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to terminate USIP programs and contracts. Plaintiffs are former USIP employees, board members, and other affiliates who are suing Trump, DOGE, USIP and others. Plaintiffs allege that (1) the removal of USIP board members and termination of USIP employees were Ultra Vires actions in violation of the USIP Act and the Constitution and arbitrary and capricious actions in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and (2) the dismantling of USIP and its programs was an arbitrary and capricious action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and a violation of the separation of powers / Ultra Vires. Plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin Defendants from transferring assets outside of USIP or further terminating USIP employees, restore certain benefits to those who have already been terminated, and enjoin Defendants from disclosing information about former employees and other USIP affiliates. Plaintiffs also ask the court to declare Defendants’ actions unlawful and ultra vires and restore USIP’s Board.
Update 1: On Apr. 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO arguing, among other things, that they are suffering irreparable harm as a result of the terminations.
Update 2: On Apr. 15, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO arguing the terminations were lawful.
Update 3: On Apr. 17, 2025, Judge Howell denied Plaintiffs’ TRO for failure to articulate particularized harm and likelihood of success on the merits.

Case No. 1:25-cv-04641

Case Summary: Starting in March 2025, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) has taken steps to eliminate Job Corps, a federal residential career training program. These steps included halting applicant background checks, cancelling pending or outstanding Job Corps procurements, and ceasing operations at all contractor-based Job Corps centers. Plaintiffs are DOL contractors that provide Job Corps-related services and a current Job Corps student. Plaintiffs allege that DOL’s actions 1) supersede its statutory authority and are contrary to law, 2) violate the Administrative Procedure Act through arbitrary and capricious action, 3) were ultra vires, and 4) violate the separation of powers. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants’ actions were unlawful and to enjoin Defendants from taking further steps to eliminate the Job Corps program.
Update 1: On June 4, Judge Andrew Carter granted a temporary restraining order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00415

Case Summary: On Jan. 24, 2025, the White House sent two-sentence emails to several Inspectors General (IGs) of federal departments and agencies informing them that they had been terminated from their positions. Plaintiffs, eight IGs, subsequently lost access to their government email accounts and computer systems, and were barred from entering their offices, among other actions. They filed suit, arguing their removal violates the Inspector General Act, which requires Congressional notification 30 days before an IG is removed and substantive, case-specific rationale for removal. The suit also argues defendants’ actions are ultra vires; and that plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling defendants not to obstruct them in the exercise of their duties. They seek a declaratory judgment that the termination emails are legally ineffective and that plaintiffs remain lawful IGs in their agencies; and an injunction to prevent defendants from taking action to prevent plaintiffs from carrying out their duties as IGs.
Update 1: On Feb. 14, the judge reportedly told lawyers representing the fired inspectors general to withdraw their motion for a temporary restraining order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00420

Case Summary: On Feb. 11, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order instructing agency heads to “undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs).” Plaintiffs allege that the executive order, along with the Office of Personnel Management’s “deferred resignation program,” violates separation of powers principles by undermining Congress’s authority, and the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing RIFs contrary to regulations. They seek a declaration that mass firings and the deferred resignation program are unlawful, along with injunctions to prevent agency heads from implementing RIFs and OPM from extending, expanding, or replicating its deferred resignation program.
Update 1: On Feb. 14, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Feb. 17, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Update 3: On Feb. 20, Judge Christopher R. Cooper denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ruling that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and claims must first be brought before the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Update 4: On May 27, the Plaintiffs International Union, United Automobile, and Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America voluntarily dismissed all of its claims in the action.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00748-ABA

Fourth Circuit Case No. 25-1248

Case Summary: On Feb. 11, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order instructing agency heads to “undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs).”
Plaintiff States allege that Defendant agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not abiding by the necessary statutory and regulatory requirements for RIF procedures including a required 60-day notice to states and employees; and on ground that the procedures adopted were arbitrary and capricious. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Defendant agencies to 1) cease the RIFs of probationary employees; 2) reinstate any employees who were fired as part of the mass terminations that followed President Trump’s second inauguration; 3) refrain from separating any employees pursuant to a RIF prior to reinstatement of the unlawfully terminated employees; and 4) conduct any future RIFs in accordance with applicable law, including providing advance notice to States.
Update 1: On Mar. 7, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Mar. 13, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge James Kelleher Bredar wrote that the government said “it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons. On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively.”
Update 3: On Mar. 14, the government filed a notice that it was appealing the TRO to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 4: On Mar. 20, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court stay all purported terminations against probationary employees, reinstate all affected employees, and impose a preliminary injunction prohibiting any further reductions in force without following relevant legal requirements.
Update 5: On Mar. 21, plaintiffs moved to extend the TRO pending consideration of their motion for a stay and preliminary injunction.
Update 6: On Mar. 21, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for an administrative stay or a stay pending the resolution of an appeal.
Update 7: On Mar. 24, the government filed a motion opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for a stay and preliminary injunction.
Update 8: On Mar. 26, Judge Bredar held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.
Update 9: On Mar. 26, Judge Bredar ordered the parties to provide additional briefing on the implications of an injunction that was not national in scope by 10 am on Mar. 27.
Update 10: On Mar. 26, the Court extended the TRO that was set to expire on Mar. 27 to expire on Apr. 1 at 8 pm EDT instead.
Update 11: On Mar. 27, the Defendants filed a supplemental briefing pursuant to the Court’s Mar. 26 order, arguing that any preliminary injunction should only apply to affected employees who worked in a Plaintiff State at the time of their removal.
Update 12: On Apr. 1, Judge Bredar granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and stay in part, noting the actions of the Defendant agencies likely broke the laws regulating mass terminations of government employees. Through this order, the terminations of Affected Probationary Employees on or after Jan. 20, 2025 by Defendants were stayed. Additionally, Defendants were ordered not to conduct future RIFs (unless in compliance with law).
Update 13: On Apr. 2, Defendants appealed the Apr. 1 order to the Fourth Circuit.
Update 14: On Apr. 9, the Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, issued a stay of the district court order. The majority held that the Government is likely to succeed in showing the Plaintiffs lacked standing, and noted, “[t]he Supreme Court has stayed a similar preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (referring to American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell).”

Case No. 3:25-cv-01780
(Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-1677)

Supreme Court docket 24A904

Case Summary: On Feb. 13, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management and Acting Director Charles Ezell ordered federal agencies to terminate tens of thousands of probationary employees en masse. Probationary employees are members of the competitive service in their first year of employment or of the excepted service in their first two years of employment, and may also include long-time federal workers who have recently been employed in a new position or a new agency.
Among the factual claims, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sent agencies “standardized notices of termination, drafted by OPM, that falsely state that the terminations are for performance reasons.” Plaintiffs allege that the mass termination violates multiple requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act and separation of powers principles by overriding Congressional statutes authorizing and regulating agency hiring and firing. They seek a declaration that the mass termination is unlawful and a preliminary or permanent injunction setting aside OPM’s order, ceasing terminations pursuant to the order, and rescinding any prior unlawful terminations.
Update 1: On Feb. 23, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that OPM further violated the APA by sending emails to government employees requesting updates on their week-to-week accomplishments and Musk’s stating that “[f]ailure to respond will be taken as a resignation.”
Update 2: On Feb. 27, Judge William Alsup reportedly ruled from the bench that OPM had no legal authority to issue directives for other agencies to fire probationary employees. Alsup noted that, due to jurisdictional issues, his order applies only to employees at six agencies (the National Park Service, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense), and that he could not directly order agencies to cease the firings. As for other agencies not covered, Alsup said, “I am going to count on the government to do the right thing, and to go a little bit further than I have ordered, and to let some of these agencies know what I have ruled.”
Update 3: On Feb. 28, Judge Alsup issued an Opinion and a written Order for a TRO. The Order states that OPM’s memos directing the termination of probationary workers were “unlawful, invalid, and must be stopped and rescinded,” and that OPM must provide written notice of the order to the six agencies.
Update 4: On Mar. 13, Judge Alsup held a preliminary injunction hearing and, in ruling from the bench, granted and extended the TRO. Alsup directed counsel to file briefs by Mar. 21.
Update 5: On Mar. 13, the Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Update 6: On Mar. 17, the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s request for an administrative stay.
Update 7: On Mar. 24, the government filed an application requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court immediately stay the Northern District of California’s preliminary injunction.
Update 8: On Mar. 24, Judge Alsup issued two orders on the case. In one order, Alsup concluded that the district court does have subject-matter jurisdiction in the case, and therefore reversed the part of his earlier TRO ruling denying relief to plaintiffs. In the second, he ordered the government to show cause that relief should not be extended to plaintiffs by Mar. 28.
Update 9: On Mar. 26, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction.
Update 10: On Mar. 26, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel compliance with the preliminary injunction or hold Defendants in contempt, arguing that Defendants have failed to reinstate terminated employees and notify them of the unlawful terminations as ordered by the court on Feb. 27.
Update 11: On Mar. 28, Defendants filed a brief alleging that the District Court lacked jurisdiction and the public-sector union plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm and thus should not be entitled to additional relief, as ordered to do so by Judge Alsup on Mar. 24. On the same day, Plaintiffs also filed their brief alleging the harm to the public-sector union plaintiffs and requesting a further preliminary injunction for the public-sector union plaintiffs. Plaintiffs requested that Defendants reinstate terminated probationary employees.
Update 12: On Mar. 31, Defendants filed oppositions to both the State of Washington’s motion for preliminary injunction and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with the Mar. 13 preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs and the State of Washington filed their replies in support of their motions on April 3.
Update 13: On Apr. 4, Defendants filed an additional reply in support of their Mar. 28 brief. Plaintiffs also filed their additional reply brief on the same day.
Update 14: On Mar. 26, one Plaintiff – the State of Washington – filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court extend prior relief awarded to the class of Plaintiffs to itself, require Defendants to reinstate terminated probationary employees, and order Defendants to cease unlawful terminations.
Update 15: On Apr. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay on the basis of standing. The Court wrote: “The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.”
Update 16: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable and that Defendants’ actions are valid exercises of agency discretion.
Update 17: On Apr. 18, Judge Alsup issued an order enjoining further terminations of federal employees under the policies being challenged, and ordering that any employee improperly told they were terminated for performance issues receive written notice rescinding the characterization. Judge Alsup wrote that after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “additional plaintiffs have joined the suit and seek additional relief, and an order held that the public-sector labor union plaintiffs have standing to seek provisional relief.”
Update 18: On Apr. 23, Defendants appealed Judge Alsup’s order to the Ninth Circuit.
Update 19: On May 2, Plaintiff filed a motion to relate this case and AFL-CIO v. OPM, No. 3:25-cv-01780-WHA. The motion argues that the two cases arise from a common set of events and risk creating duplicative or conflicting results, including potential Constitutional contradictions.
Update 20: On May 3, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin any issuance or reliance on marginal performance appraisals, prohibit any removal or reassignment based on OMB’s realignment directive, and cease any retaliatory actions against Plaintiff.
Update 21: On May 6, the Defendants filed an opposition to a preliminary injunction, claiming that the two cases at issue are not related, and arguing that the Court should deny the related-case motion and strike the improperly filed preliminary-injunction motion.

Case No. 3:25-cv-03698

9th Circuit No. 25-3030

Case Summary: Beginning on Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration initiated various steps to dismantle and reorganize government agencies, including by establishing the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) and by freezing agency hiring and initiating large-scale reductions in force (RIFs) under Executive Order (EO)14210. Plaintiffs, a coalition of labor organizations, non-profits, and local governments, filed suit, alleging that the EO and actions taken to implement it violate constitutional protections for separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act, as ultra vires and arbitrary and capricious. They seek declaratory judgment that Trump administration actions dismantling and reorganizing government agencies are unlawful and unconstitutional, vacation of EO 14210 and agency guidance implementing the order, and a temporary restraining order and injunction against further implementation of the EO.
Update 1: On May 1, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) which requested that the court block Defendants from taking action to implement or enforce EO 14210.
Update 2: On May 7, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, asserting Plaintiffs did not establish the immediacy TRO requirement and requesting that the court deny the motion.
Update 3: On May 9, after a hearing. Judge Susan Illston granted a Temporary Restraining Order to pause the Defendants’ reductions in force under EO 14210. Defendants immediately appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit.
Update 4: On May 22, Judge Illston granted a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread RIFs and agency reorganizations for 22 agencies across the federal government. The court found that neither the president nor the implicated agencies have shown they have the statutory authority to carry out these structural changes without Congressional approval.
Update 5: On May 23, Defendants filed a notice of appeal, appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction.
Update 6: On May 30, the Ninth Circuit denied the Defendants’ motion for a stay.
Update 7: On Jun. 2, the government asked the Supreme Court to halt Judge Illston’s ruling limiting mass Reductions in Force (RIFs) at federal agencies.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01750

A group of terminated Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees have filed a new class-action lawsuit seeking damages over their dismissals. They allege that the HHS records that DOGE used to determine which employees to fire were “hopelessly error-ridden” and contained “systemic inaccuracies.”]

Case No. 1:25-cv-00587

Case Summary: On Feb. 18, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order asserting that the Constitution vests all executive authority in the President, arguing that independent regulatory agencies exercise executive functions, and declaring the administration’s policy that such agencies fall under the supervision and control of the President. Such supervision and control requires independent agencies to abide by the President and Attorney General’s interpretations of the law. Plaintiffs, three national committees of the Democratic Party, filed suit as to how the order applies to the Federal Election Commission, an independent regulatory agency. They ask the court under the judicial review provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to construe as constitutional the provisions of the Act that vest members of the Commission with authority to interpret it (rather than the President); and they argue the order violates the FECA. They seek declaratory judgment that the FECA is constitutional and that the executive order is unlawful as applied to the FEC; and they seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
Update 1: On Mar. 11, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, along with a memorandum reasserting that the EO violates FECA and that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.
Update 2: On Mar. 14, Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, in their capacities as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss. In an accompanying memorandum, they assert that plaintiffs lack standing to sue and failed to properly state a claim and that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
Update 3: On Mar. 21, the FEC and its individual commissioners, in their capacities as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss. In an accompanying memorandum, they assert various deficiencies in plaintiffs’ suit, including failure to state a claim and lack of standing, ripeness, and subject-matter jurisdiction.
Update 4: On Mar. 25, Trump and Bondi, in their capacities as defendants, filed a memorandum opposing plaintiffs’ motion for a PI, asserting that plaintiffs’ claim lacks standing and ripeness and that plaintiffs have failed to establish imminent irreparable harm.
Update 5: On Mar. 25, the FEC and its individual commissioners, in their capacities as defendants, filed a memorandum opposing plaintiffs’ motion for a PI, asserting that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are speculative and therefore neither imminent nor irreparable.
Update 6: On April 1, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for PI reiterating their position that the EO violates FECA and is causing irreparable harm.
Update 7: On Apr. 2, plaintiffs filed a consolidated memorandum in opposition to both President Trump’s and Attorney General Bondi’s and the FEC’s motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs argue that they have sufficient standing to bring suit, and that they properly stated claims.
Update 8: On Apr. 7, defendants Donald Trump and Pamela Bondi filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, reiterating their allegations that the plaintiffs’ claims lack standing and alleging failure to state a claim for relief.
Update 9: On Apr. 7, the FEC filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ response to the FEC’s motion to dismiss, reiterating their allegations that the plaintiffs’ claims lack standing.
Update 10: On Jun. 3, Judge Ali granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00624

Case Summary: On Feb. 11, 2025, plaintiff Mary Comans, a member of the Senior Executive Service serving as the CFO of FEMA, was fired. Her firing was announced in a Department of Homeland Security press release, which stated, “DHS will not sit idly and allow deep state activists to undermine the will and safety of the American people.” Comans filed a complaint alleging that the actions of of the administration violated the Privacy Act by (1) unlawfully disseminating protected information; (2) failing to collect information directly from Comans resulting in adverse determinations concerning her rights; (3) failing to accurately maintain her records; and (4) failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure her records are accurate. She seeks declaratory judgments that defendants’ actions were unlawful and monetary damages.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00696

Case Summary: The BIE, overseen by the Department of the Interior, implemented layoffs (referred to as “Reductions in Force” or “RIF”s) and restructured its operations, resulting in degraded educational services at federally funded schools, including Isleta Elementary School and Haskell Indian Nations University.
The plaintiffs, three tribal nations (Pueblo of Isleta, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, and Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes) and five Native American students sued the Department of the Interior and argued that these actions were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of agency discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act and violated federal laws requiring tribal consultation under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2003 and 2011.
The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to stop further staff reductions and restructuring, as well as a permanent injunction to ensure compliance with tribal consultation requirements and protect educational services for Native students.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00451

Case Summary: Case Summary: On Mar. 7, DHS announced it was “ending collective bargaining for the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Transportation Security Officers.” The action was taken pursuant to Sec. Noem’s memorandum of Feb. 27, 2025.
On Mar. 13, 2025, a coalition of unions, including the AFGE, AFGE TSA Local 1121, the Communications Workers of America (“CWA”), and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (“AFA-CWA”) sued the Noem, the DHS, the TSA, and Stahl.
The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s termination of a negotiated union contract that protects approximately 47,000 TSOs (1) constitute unconstitutional retaliation against AFGE for exercising its right to advocate for federal workers, (2) violate Fifth Amendment due process, and (3) violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
The plaintiffs seek immediate injunctive relief to prevent the administration from rescinding the existing contract, eliminating union representation, and stripping workers of their bargaining rights.
Update 1: On Apr. 4, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that they are highly likely to succeed on the merits, face irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest supports injunctive relief.
Update 2: On Apr. 25, the Defendants filed a response to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On May 2, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, urging the court to grant the injunction to halt Defendants’ alleged efforts to punish AFGE from exercising its First Amendment rights.
Update 4: On Jun. 2, Judge Pechman issued a preliminary injunction blocking DHS secretary Kristi Noem from ending collective bargaining rights and rescinding the 2024 union contract for Transportation Security Officers, finding that the action was likely retaliatory, violated due process, and arbitrary and capricious.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00935

Case Summary: On Mar. 27, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that terminated certain federal employees’ collective bargaining agreements, including nearly one dozen agreements negotiated by National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), a labor union representing federal workers.
NTEU is bringing this suit against the President and the heads of certain NTEU-represented agencies, claiming that the EO will drastically reduce the number of employees it represents, diminishing the dues NTEU can collect and its influence at the bargaining table. NTEU alleges that the EO is unlawful and ultra vires on the ground that it conflicts with federal statutes (including on collective bargaining, 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1)), and violates NTEU’s First Amendment rights. NTEU asks the court to declare that the EO and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Guidance on the EO are unlawful and to enjoin all defendants other than Trump from implementing the EO and the OPM guidance on the EO.
Update 1: On Apr. 4, NTEU filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Section 2 of the Executive Order and the OPM guidance on the EO.
Update 2: On Apr. 11, the defendants filed a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, alleging that the plaintiff cannot show irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor the government.
Update 3: On Apr. 16th, the NTEU filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction, refuting the claims set forth by the defendants in their response to the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 4: On Apr. 25, the court granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On Apr. 29, defendants appealed the court’s Apr. 25 preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit.
Update 6: On May 16, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted the Defendants’ a stay pending appeal.

Case No. 4:25-cv-03070

Case Summary: On Mar. 27, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that terminated certain federal employees’ collective bargaining agreements.
A number of unions representing federal employees that lost collective bargaining protections filed suit against President Donald Trump and numerous federal agencies at which the unionized employees work. The Plaintiffs argue that the EO violates the First Amendment because it was issued in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ filing of lawsuits challenging various Trump Administration actions and because it constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The Plaintiffs also challenge the EO is ultra vires on the ground that it violates the federal statute that created the collective bargaining system and would therefore violate the separation of powers. They additionally argue that the EO violates the Fifth Amendment’s Procedural Due Process Clause, Takings Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief finding that the EO and its implementation violate the Constitution as alleged and prohibiting the Defendants from giving effect to the EO.
Update 1: On Apr. 7, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause. The TRO sought would enjoin the implementation of the EO.
Update 2: On Apr. 25, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause. The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs do not establish irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh against the Plaintiffs.

Case No.1:25-cv-01030

Case Summary: On March 27, 2025, Trump issued EO 14251 which invoked § 4103(b) of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to terminate the collective bargaining rights of all the Foreign Service members employed by the U.S. State Department and USAID. AFSA – a professional association that represents approximately 18,000 members of the Foreign Service – asserted that the Trump administration exceeded its authority under the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute by terminating AFSA’s collective bargaining rights for non-national security reasons. AFSA also alleged that its First Amendment rights have been violated, asserting that the EO retaliates against AFSA for opposing other actions taken by the Trump administration. The plaintiff sued, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, to enjoin the Trump administration from enforcing the EO.
Update 1: On Apr. 14, AFSA filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in which it requested the Court to enjoin the application of the EO and OPM’s guidance on the order.
Update 2: On Apr. 25, the Trump Administration filed its opposition to AFSA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On May 14, Judge Paul Friedman granted a preliminary injunction.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00977

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14158 establishing the Department of Government Efficiency Service (DOGE), which is allegedly led by Elon Musk. Under the direction of Defendants Musk and DOGE, the Social Security Administration (SAA) has eliminated two offices that enable it to meet the needs of beneficiaries with disabilities: the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO) and the Office of Transformation. SAA’s workforce has also been significantly reduced, which is impacting its ability to provide its beneficiaries of essential services, and SSA has eliminated the ability of many beneficiaries to use the telephone to, among other things, file benefit claims. Plaintiffs are disability rights organizations and individuals with disabilities, including older adults, who depend on Social Security benefits to meet their most basic and essential needs. They are suing the SAA, DOGE, and the leaders of these two organizations for their roles in dismantling and reducing the SAA workforce. Plaintiffs allege the government’s actions constitute violations of Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Fifth Amendment procedural due process, the First Amendment right to petition the government, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (specifically, claiming that these actions are arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, not in accordance with law, and unlawfully withheld). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the restrictions on access to SSA benefits and ensure SAA is compelled to fulfill its statutory duties following the dismantling of its workforce.
Update 1: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the Court order SSA and DOGE to revoke their actions and prevent these agencies from making additional workforce changes until they can ensure such changes will not impact Plaintiffs’ access to services.
Update 2: On Apr. 3, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction without issuing a full opinion due to the expedited nature of the matter.
Update 3: On Apr. 16, SSA and DOGE filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. These agencies argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits, and that the SSA’s administrative reforms were adequately explained and subject to agency discretion.
Update 4: On Apr. 21, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in which they note SSA and DOGE provide no evidence of widespread fraud to justify their overhaul of the SSA.
Update 5: On May 6, the Court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00128

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which drastically reduces funding and staffing at the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS). The attorneys general of 21 states sued, alleging that the actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to constitutional rights and contrary to law as it violates the notice-and-comments requirements, the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, Appropriations Clause, and separation of powers protections as well as the Impoundment Control Act by seeking to eliminate agencies without Congressional action. They seek to have the administration’s actions declared unlawful and unconstitutional and the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions reversing the steps taken to eliminate the agencies and preventing further such actions.
Update 1: On Apr. 4, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendants from implementing Executive Order 14,238 as it relates to the IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS, pending review of the case on the merits.
Update 2: On Apr. 9, Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly filed a stipulation converting Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction and setting a timeline for further responses to the motion.
Update 3: On Apr. 14, Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency TRO, asserting that Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on any of their claims.
Update 4: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed a reply supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction, reasserting that Defendants’ actions in closing the agencies violated the APA and Constitutional separation-of-powers provisions.
Update 5: On May 6, Judge John McConnell granted a preliminary injunction.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01050

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which calls for the elimination of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and instructs the agency to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law” while instructing the Office of Management and Budget to reject funding requests from the agency. Following the promulgation of the EO, employees from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) terminated nearly all of IMLS’s staff and began canceling grants, while Acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling fired all 23 members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. Plaintiffs, including a nonprofit membership organization promoting library access and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, allege that the actions violate the Constitution’s Take Care Clause and separation of powers protections by seeking to eliminate agencies without Congressional action, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, the Appropriations Act, and MLSA §203 (a) which established IMLS as an independent agency.. They seek to have the administration’s actions declared unlawful and unconstitutional and the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions reversing the steps taken to eliminate the IMLS and preventing further such actions.
Update 1: On Apr. 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to cease actions taken to dissolve the IMLS while the court considers the case. Plaintiffs also filed a memorandum in support of their motion reasserting their arguments that the administration’s actions toward IMLS violate the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Update 2: On Apr. 21, Defendants filed an opposition brief to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing, that their claims should be heard in a different court or administrative body, and that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their statutory and constitutional claims.
Update 3: On Apr. 28, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs argued that they have standing, have filed their claims in the right court, and that they have shown a likelihood of success on the merits for their statutory and constitutional claims.
Update 4: On May 1, Judge Richard Leon granted a temporary restraining order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-03072

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which calls for the elimination of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) and instructs the agency to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law” while instructing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reject funding requests from the FMCS. Following the promulgation of the EO and the promulgation of a plan imposing less drastic cuts by FMCS, employees from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) terminated nearly all of FMCS’s staff. On Apr. 14, a group of unions filed suit against the FMCS, the United States, the OMB and associated officials, arguing that the government is violating the separation of powers; acts in excess of statutory authority; and is arbitrary and capricious, and has unlawfully withheld required agency action, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek to have the court find the EO unlawful as it applies to FMCS, issue a preliminary and permanent injunction and return the agency to its status prior to the EO, declare the dismantling of FMCS as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act, and compel FMCS to resume providing the mediation services it provided prior to the EO.
Update 1: On Apr. 16, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum in which they requested an order to block Defendants from dismantling FMCS and to restore the status quo ante.
Update 2: On Apr. 24, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs replied to this opposition on Apr. 28.
Update 3: On May 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which continues to focus on the dismantling of the FMCS and the resulting inability of labor unions to access federal mediation services.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00239-LLA

Case Summary: The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The plaintiff organizations, represented by Democracy Forward, are small businesses and nonprofits that receive federal funds. The suit sought a temporary restraining order to allow the Court “an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions,” alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.
Update 1: On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government.
Update 2: On Jan. 29, 2025, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00039

(First Circuit Case No. 25-1236)

Case Summary: The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the policy. The suit alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.
Update 1: On Jan. 28, 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.

Case No. 2:25-cv-00763

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00605

CASE CLOSED

Case No. 1:25-cv-00740

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: Plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO on Mar. 13, 2025. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the TRO on Mar. 15, and Plaintiff filed a reply on Mar. 16.
Update 2: On Mar. 17, 2025, Judge Timothy Kelly denied Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00208

Case Summary: On Apr. 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00206

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01510

Case Summary: 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.

Update 1: On Feb. 28, Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Update 2: On Mar. 3, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Update 3: On Mar. 20, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (redline here).

Case No. 1:24-cv-00698

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 3:25-cv-30041

Case Summary: 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, 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10787

Case Summary: 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 have 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.
Update 1: On Apr. 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from implementing the EOs, along with a memorandum of law supporting the motion.
Update 2: On May 12, 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.
Update 3: Judge William Young collapsed the motion for a preliminary injunction into a motion to dismiss and, on May 30, granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss three counts but denied the motion to dismiss on all other counts.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10814

Case Summary: 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 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.
Update 1: On 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.
Update 2: On May 1, 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.
Update 3: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, rebutting the arguments of the Defendants put forth in their May 1st Opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion and reiterating the arguments in favor of a Preliminary Injunction.
Update 4: On May 12, the Court found that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01275

Case Summary: 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 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-02990

Case summary: 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 Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, arguing that since both the Rescission Letter and a subsequent letter on April 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, the Judge granted the Preliminary Injunction, enjoining the Defendants from enforcing or implementing the directives in the Rescission Letter against Plaintiffs and requiring them to provide 14 days’ notice going forward prior to modifying any previously approved liquidation periods.

Case No. 1:25-cv-11116

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Jun. 3, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted a preliminary injunction, and the Government appealed to the Second Circuit the following day.

Case No. 8:25-cv-01620

Case Summary: 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.

Case No: 1:25-cv-01643

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00998

Case No. 1:25-cv-10338

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Mar. 5, 2025: Judge Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance “in any form with respect to institutions nationwide.”
Update 2: On 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.
Update 3: On 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10346
Appellate Case (First Cir.) 25-1345

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Mar. 5, 2025: Judge Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance “in any form with respect to institutions nationwide.”
Update 2: On Apr. 4, 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.
Update 3: On Apr. 8, Defendants appealed the final judgment and permanent injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10340

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Mar. 5, 2025, Judge Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting implementation of the NIH Guidance “in any form with respect to institutions nationwide.”
Update 2: On 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.
Update 3: On 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10912

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-11231

Case Summary: On May 2, the NSF issued a new policy imposing an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of all new grant and cooperative agreement awards to universities, 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% (the “Rate Cap Policy” will have immediate destructive effects on NSF-funded research. The plaintiffs sued on May 5, arguing the policy is unlawful under the APA in that it is in violation of authorizing statutes, including federal laws governing negotiated cost rates and cost recovery regulations, and is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Rate Cap Policy is unlawful and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief.

Update 1: On May 8, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Summary Judgment with an accompanying Memorandum in Support.
Update 2: On May 16 Defendants agreed to stay implementation of the Rate Cap Policy through June 13, the date of a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for Summary Judgement.

Case No. 1:25-cv-02429

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10910

Case Summary: 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. 14th 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 5th. Leave to file was granted on May 20, at which time the second amended complaint was filed.

Case No: 1:25-cv-11048

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-11472

Case Summary: 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 June 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.

Case No. 3:25-cv-04737

Faculty members and researchers from the University of California filed a class action lawsuit, challenging the termination of federally funded research grants across multiple agencies, including the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and National Science Foundation. The plaintiffs allege that the cancellations cut off congressionally funded awards without notice, explanation, or legal authority to do so.]

Case No. 1:25-cv-00097

Case Summary: President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14154 mandates that all agencies immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) that pertain to policies outlined in Section 2 of the EO, which relate to climate change, infrastructure improvement, and public health protection. The EO requires agencies to seek the approval of both the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, who must review and ensure disbursements are consistent with EO’s policies, prior to disbursing funds. OMB issued a memo to that effect.
The six Plaintiffs are three nonprofits with environmental and conservation missions, one conservation district, one nonprofit community development corporation, and a network of nonprofit organizations. They are suing the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and their respective Secretaries. They are also suing the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, the Office of Management and Budget and its Director, and the Director of the National Economic Council.
Following the Executive Order and the OMB memo, the named federal agencies paused all funding appropriated by the IRA and IIJA. The plaintiffs argue that this “freeze first, ask questions later” approach violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it (1) is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; (2) exceeds statutory authority; and (3) is contrary to the law.
The Plaintiffs seek to have the OMB Memo held unlawful to the extent that it directs agencies to freeze all funds authorized by the IRA and IIJA. They also request a stay preventing the federal agencies from continuing the freeze and requiring them to disburse the funds previously frozen.
Update 1: On Mar. 17, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that they are highly likely to show that the defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and that the defendants’ actions, if not enjoined, will continue to cause serious and irreparable harms to the plaintiffs.
Update 2: On Mar. 27, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. They claim that plaintiffs’ claims are not properly before the court, there are no cognizable Administrative Procedure Act claims, and that the plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits, so the motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.
Update 2: On Mar. 31, the plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits on each of their three claims, that they have put forward evidence of ongoing irreparable harm, and that the public interest favors immediate relief.
Update 4: On Apr. 15, Judge Mary McElroy granted a preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On Apr. 30, the defendants appealed Judge McElroy’s Apr. 15 preliminary inunction order to the First Circuit.

Case No. 2:25-cv-02152-RMG

Case Summary: On Jan. 20 and Feb. 26, 2025, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders that froze or terminated congressionally appropriated funds under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations and municipalities, filed suit against President Trump and various federal agencies, alleging that the executive orders unlawfully violate the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other constitutional and statutory provisions by preventing the disbursement of funds for environmental, agricultural, and infrastructure projects. Further, they argue that the administration’s actions have caused significant financial harm, disrupted community projects, and undermined congressional intent. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief asserting that the funding freeze is unlawful, injunctions to prevent further interference with grant disbursements, and the restoration of previously frozen funds.
Update 1: On Mar. 26, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include additional Plaintiffs Earth Island Institute and Organic Association of Kentucky and their related factual allegations, additional grants that have been frozen, and additional Defendants the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Secretary of the DOE Chris Wright. On the same day, Plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from freezing or terminating federal grants. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited discovery from five defendants–the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency Service (DOGE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and DOE–that day as well.
Update 2: On Mar. 31, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Recent Developments to update the court of factual developments relating to the EPA (one of the Defendants) unilaterally terminating four of the grants in dispute. On Apr. 1, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Recent Developments, opposing any shortening of briefing deadlines or hearing timelines.
Update 3: On Apr. 2, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery. On Apr. 3, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion for expedited discovery.
Update 4: On Apr. 7, Judge Richard Gergel narrowed Plaintiffs’ expedited discovery requests to a single request and ordered the five defendant agencies named in Plaintiffs’ motion to produce all documents from Jan. 20, 2025 to present relating to the freeze, pause, and/or termination of any of the grants identified by Plaintiffs in their motion for expedited discovery.
Update 5: On Apr. 9, the Court denied the administration’s motion to reconsider and stay an expedited discovery order. The court granted the motion to strike discovery from DOGE.
Update 6: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of motion for preliminary injunction to block Defendants from freezing or terminating federal grants.
Update 7: On Apr. 17, DOE, DOT, USDA and the EPA, replied to the order for expedited discovery with responsive documents. The EPA requested an extension to provide the remainder of responsive documents by Apr. 18 and subsequently requested an additional extension until Apr. 21.
Update 8: On June 5, a federal appeals court granted the administration’s request to stop a district court order that had restored 32 federal grants supporting environmental and infrastructure projects. The order allows the administration to continue suspending the grants while the appeal proceeds.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00820

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to freeze or terminate congressionally appropriated funds under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Plaintiffs, four “green” banks that provide financial services to pollution-reducing projects, filed suit against Citibank and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging that the EPA unlawfully blocked access to $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants. Further, the plaintiffs allege that, due to the EPA’s pressure, Citibank is no longer honoring contracts with the Plaintiffs meant for pollution-reduction projects. They argue that these actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and constitutional separation of powers under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment. They seek declaratory relief affirming the freeze as unlawful, injunctions to restore access to funds and prevent further interference, and contractual relief compelling Citibank to release the funds.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In this motion, Plaintiffs requested that (1) the court convert the relief extended in the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in the related case of Climate United Fund v. Citibank to a preliminary injunction, and (2) further enjoin Citibank from violating its obligations to disburse funds.
Update 2: On Mar. 25, this case was consolidated with Climate United Fund v. Citibank.
Update 3: On Apr. 16, Judge Tanya Chutkan granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00737

Case Summary: On Jan. 20, President Trump issued an executive order to freeze or terminate congressionally appropriated funds under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Plaintiffs include IRA grant recipient farms and non-profit organizations dedicated to advancing environmental issues. Following the EO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed government agencies to temporarily pause all activities related to the disbursement of all federal financial assistance. Despite OMB rescinding this direction, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) allegedly continues to withhold funds from Plaintiffs.
While courts have issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to Defendants regarding the frozen funds, Plaintiffs have yet to receive their grants. This freeze of funds allegedly continues to impact Plaintiffs’ ability to operate their respective businesses and organizations. Plaintiffs allege this freeze of funds violates the Administrative Procedure Act (contrary to law as an unlawful impoundment; and “arbitrary and capricious” conduct), the constitutional separation of powers under the Spending Clause, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. They seek declaratory relief stating the freeze is unlawful, and injunctions to restore access to funds and prevent any further interference.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00799

Case Summary:Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump passed an Executive Order (EO) that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum, with the agencies being the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, and the Minority Business Development Agency. Plaintiff Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (“RFE/RL”) is a private, nonprofit news organization funded by congressionally appropriated funds distributed by USAGM. On Mar. 15, Kari Lake, a Senior Advisor to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM, purported to terminate RFE/RL’s grant agreement on the basis of the Mar. 14 EO. USAGM has informed RFE/RL that it will not disburse to RFE/RL its congressionally appropriated funds for Mar. 1, 2025, through Sep. 30, 2025. Defendants are USAGM, Kari Lake, and Victor Morales, Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM.
Plaintiff requests that the court find USAGM’s impoundment of RFE/RL’s congressionally appropriated funds and termination of RFE/RL’s grant agreement to be unlawful, to obligate USAGM to disburse to RFE/RL the appropriations of ~$7.5 million covering Mar. 1-14, 2025, and ~$70 million covering Mar. 15-Sep. 30, 2025, and to issue a permanent injunction. Plaintiff’s counts include an alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (for “arbitrary and capricious” action and action in violation of statutory non-discretionary duty); the Presentment, Spending, and Take Care Clauses; and the separation of powers.
Update 1: On Mar. 19, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a TRO and preliminary injunction on the grounds of irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s operations, employee safety, and reputation, and the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on its Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional claims. On Mar. 21, the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO and preliminary injunction. On Mar. 23, Plaintiff filed a further reply in support of its request for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Update 2: On Mar. 24, USAGM filed a motion stating that it is taking the administrative steps to disburse $7,464,559, the amount sought by Plaintiff for work completed during the period from Mar. 1-14, 2025.
Update 3: On Mar. 25, Judge Royce Lamberth granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 4: On Mar. 26, the Defendants’ submitted a Notice of Withdrawal of Grant Termination. The notice states, “Plaintiff has secured the primary relief—withdrawing the termination of its grant agreement—that it requested in the complaint. Now that Plaintiff has received that relief, Defendants’ position is that this matter is now moot.”
Update 5: On Mar. 28, Plaintiff submitted a response to Defendants’ Mar. 26 Notice, asserting the case is not moot in light of Defendants’ withdrawal of the termination of the grant agreement because Plaintiff’s complaint seeks the additional relief of the full disbursement of the grant funds that have yet to be addressed by Defendants. Plaintiff also reiterated their request that the Court grant its preliminary injunction motion.
Update 6: On Mar. 31, Plaintiff reaffirmed its request that the court enter a further TRO allowing Plaintiff to continue its operations without the requirement to “recover” and “promptly refund[] to USAGM” the funds spent in April because Defendants have yet to approve Plaintiff’s April 2025 financial plan.
Update 7: On Apr. 8, Judge Lamberth extended the TRO for an additional 14 days pending the presentation of a new grant agreement to RFE/RL and a status update on said grant agreement.
Update 8: On Apr. 9, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a further TRO “to immediately disburse to RFE/RL the amount of RFE/RL’s congressionally appropriate funds” for April 2025. In a memorandum supporting the motion, Plaintiffs assert that new grant conditions by Defendants are unlawful.
Update 9: On Apr. 10, Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the TRO, asserting that no party had requested the court’s extension and that new grant terms had rendered the TRO moot.
Update 10: On Apr. 11, Plaintiff filed a motion opposing Defendants’ motion to dissolve the TRO, both on the merits and because of Plaintiff’s motion for a new TRO.
Update 11: On Apr. 13, Defendants filed a reply supporting their motion to dissolve the TRO.
Update 12: On Apr. 14, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding additional delta and two additional claims for relief, alleging violations of the APA, for unlawfully withheld agency actions and that USAGM’s onerous grant conditions are arbitrary and capricious and unreasonable on their face.
Update 13: On Apr. 22, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that the Court order Defendants to take all steps necessary to ensure USAGM is party to a grant agreement with Plaintiff that does not contain unlawful, unreasonable, or unworkable conditions and that provides all funds congressionally appropriated for Plaintiff through Sept. 30, 2025. Defendants opposed this motion on Apr. 25 and noted Plaintiffs’ request is out of the court’s jurisdiction because the parties are currently negotiating a new grant agreement. Plaintiff replied to Defendants’ opposition on Apr. 27 and urged the court to grant the preliminary injunction.
Update 14: On Apr. 29, Judge Lamberth granted Plaintiff’s Apr. 9 motion for a TRO. Judge Lamberth’s order requires Defendants to immediately disburse Plaintiff’s April funding totalling $12,178,590.
Update 15: On May 1, Defendants appealed Judge Lamberth’s Apr. 29 TRO order to the D.C. Circuit.
Update 16: On May 1, the DC Circuit imposed an administrative stay.

Note: On May 3, the DC Circuit issued a stay for the group of consolidated cases included in the May 1 order. But the May 3 order did not include RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake. The DC Circuit stated, “The government has filed a separate motion to stay that order, which we do not resolve here.”
Update 17: On May 4, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency appeal for an en banc stay of the panel’s order.
Update 18: On May 7, the DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s order, restoring the district court’s order.
Update 19: On May 30, the district court granted to a temporary restraining order requiring the government to immediately disburse $12,174,979 to cover RFE/RL’s expenditures for the month of May 2025.

Case No. 1:25-cv-02390

D.D.C. Case No. 1:25-cv-01015

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum. Voice of America (VOA) is a government-funded media outlet under the USAGM.
VOA journalists, a director at USAGM, Reporters without Borders, and numerous unions representing federal employees, journalists, and foreign service workers brought a suit against Kari Lake, Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of USAGM, Victor Morales, Acting CEO of USAGM, and USAGM for the dismantling of USAGM.
The Plaintiffs argue that the government’s conduct violates the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act (as “arbitrary and capricious” action, not in accordance with law, and unreasonably withholding agency action), the Statutory Firewall law, and the Appointments Clause.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and a preliminary and permanent injunction to return USAGM and its employees, contractors, and grantees to their prior status and to restore all programming and grant funding.
Update 1: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a TRO and a preliminary injunction, on the basis that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm and are likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act, separation of powers, and constitutional claims.
Update 2: On Mar. 25, Plaintiffs renewed their request for an immediate TRO in response to statements by Defendant Lake indicating an intent to proceed with the dismantling of VOA.
Update 3: On Mar. 26, Plaintiffs reiterated their request for emergency relief in response to notice of USAGM’s intent to terminate multiple broadcasting positions.
On that same day, Defendants requested the case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Update 4: On Mar. 27, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, claiming that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm nor established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims.
Update 5: On Mar. 28, Judge J. Paul Oetken granted a temporary restraining order.
Update 6: On Apr. 4, Judge Oetken granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Update 7: On Apr. 8, Defendants moved to dissolve the TRO in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a TRO in Dep’t of Education v. California.
Update 8: On Apr. 14, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
On that same day, Plaintiffs’ filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dissolve the TRO and emphasized that the court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
Update 9: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. On that same day, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dissolve the TRO.
Update 10: On Apr. 18, Judge Royce Lamberth extended the TRO issued by Judge Oetken on Mar. 28 through Apr. 22, 2025.
Update 11: On Apr. 22, Judge Lamberth issued an order that granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The memorandum opinion explains the court ordered Defendants to take all necessary steps to return USAGM employees and contractors to their status prior to the EO, restore the grant funding to Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and restore VOA programming. The motion was denied to the extent it relates to RFE/RL and OTF.
Update 12: On Apr. 24, Kari Lake appealed Judge Lamberth’s Apr. 22 order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Update 13: On May 1, the DC Circuit imposed an administrative stay including in a set of consolidated cases, but for this case, the DC Circuit did not stay the district court’s preliminary injunction with respect to ordering the administration to reinstate staff at Voice of America and resume the media outlet’s news programming.
Update 14: On May 3, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted a stay. The majority held that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over agency employment decisions, which should have been brought to administrative bodies for adjudication; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction over contract disputes, which should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims (citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025); and that the government, not the Plaintiffs, would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. The court left in place the specific part of the district court’s preliminary injunction requiring the resumption of VOA’s statutorily required programming levels, which the government had not appealed.
Update 15: On May 5, the Plaintiffs petitioned the full DC Circuit for an en banc review of the pane’s May 3 decision.
Update 16: On May 7, the DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s order on the Global Media entities, restoring the district courts’ orders across those cases, except for provision (1) on VOA staffing. Provision 2 is about grantees Networks Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Provision 3 – on the statutory mandate that VOA “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news” – was not appealed by the government.

Update 16: On May 7, the DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s May 3 order, but not on matters involving VOA.
The DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s order on the Global Media entities, restoring the district courts’ orders across those cases, except for provision (1) on VOA staffing. The DC Circuit en banc restored Provision 2 of the district court order, which relates to grantees Networks Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Provision 3 – on the statutory mandate that VOA “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news” – was not appealed by the government.
Update 17: On May 22, the DC Circuit en banc declined to reconsider the panel’s May 3 decision to stay provision (1) of the district court order, which would have required the administration to reinstate VOA staff.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00887

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum. Voice of America (VOA) is a government-funded media outlet under the USAGM. Michael Abramowitz, the current director of VOA, and three VOA journalists, including two whose visas depend on their employment with VOA, sued Kari Lake (Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of USAGM), Victor Morales (Acting CEO of USAGM), and USAGM alleging that the dismantling of USAGM was unlawful. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ conduct violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the separation of powers clause of the Constitution, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and exceeds their statutory and constitutional authority. Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary and permanent injunction to permanently or at least temporarily enjoin defendants from terminating VOA employees and dismantling VOA and to restore the jobs of all employees placed on administrative leave so that VOA’s broadcasting activities can resume.
Update 1: On March 28, Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary relief, opposing plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs have not met the burden required to justify a TRO or preliminary injunction, and that the court should require Plaintiffs to post a bond commensurate with the scope of any temporary order (which Defendants suggested should be in excess of $15 million in this case).
Update 2: On April 1, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s proposed schedule and motion to stay proceedings. Defendants moved to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v. Lake, Civ. A. No. 25-2390 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2025), where a temporary restraining order was filed on March 28, 2025. Defendants argued that the relief sought in Widakuswara “largely provides the relief sought in this action.” In the alternative, Defendants requested the court provide three weeks for Defendants to file their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Apr. 2, the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and proposed schedule, along with a declaration from VOA director Michael Abramowitz. The Plaintiffs claim that their case concerns different plaintiffs and causes of action than Widakuswara, and that the Defendants have not satisfied their high burden for a stay.
Update 4: On Apr. 14, the Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On Apr. 16, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that the government’s shutdown of VOA violates several administrative and constitutional laws.
Update 6: On Apr. 22, Judge Royce Lamberth granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, issuing the order alongside Widakuswara v. Lake to facilitate appellate review. In granting this motion, Judge Lamberth blocked Defendants from dismantling VOA. Defendants appealed this order to the D.C. Circuit on Apr. 24.
Update 7: On May 1, the DC Circuit imposed an administrative stay.
Update 8: On May 3, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted a stay. The majority held that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over agency employment decisions, which should have been brought to administrative bodies for adjudication; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction over contract disputes, which should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims (citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025); and that the government, not the Plaintiffs, would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. The court left in place the specific part of the district court’s preliminary injunction requiring the resumption of VOA’s statutorily required programming levels, which the government had not appealed.
Update 9: On May 5, the Plaintiffs petitioned the full DC Circuit for an en banc review of the pane’s May 3 decision.
Update 10: On May 7, the DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s May 3 order, but not on matters involving VOA.
The DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s order on the Global Media entities, restoring the district courts’ orders across those cases, except for provision (1) on VOA staffing. The DC Circuit en banc restored Provision 2 of the district court order, which relates to grantees Networks Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Provision 3 – on the statutory mandate that VOA “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news” – was not appealed by the government.
Update 11: On May 22, the DC Circuit en banc declined to reconsider the panel’s May 3 decision to stay provision (1) of the district court order, which would have required the administration to reinstate VOA staff.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00907

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum. Plaintiff is Radio Free Asia (RFA), a private non-profit news organization whose goal is to provide uncensored reporting in Asian countries that otherwise lack access to free press. RFA is funded directly by Congress through appropriated funds distributed by USAGM.
On Mar. 15, Kari Lake, Senior Advisor to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM, purported to terminate RFA’s grant agreement on the basis of the Mar. 14 EO, on the grounds that RFA “no longer effectuates agency priorities”. USAGM has informed RFA that it will not disburse to RFA its congressionally appropriated funds for Mar. 1, 2025, through Sep. 30, 2025. Defendants are USAGM, Kari Lake, Victor Morales, Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russell Vought, Director of the OMB, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and Scott Bessent, United States Secretary of the Treasury.
RFA alleges that USAGM has unlawfully impounded RFA’s congressionally appropriated funds and that its conduct violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, RFA alleges that USAGM’s actions are contrary to law under the International Broadcasting Act and related appropriations laws; contrary to the U.S. Constitution in violation of the Separation of Powers, and the Appropriations, Presentment, Spending, and Take Care Clauses of the Constitution; and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA. RFA has asked the court to declare the grant termination unlawful and has requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring Defendants from impounding RFA’s funding, as well as a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to disburse the funds.
Update 1: On Mar. 28, RFA filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block Defendants from impounding or otherwise interfering with RFA’s congressionally appropriated and mandated funding.
Update 2: On Apr. 10, the parties agreed to convert RFA’s motion for a TRO into a motion for a preliminary injunction and to brief this case alongside Middle East Broadcast Networks v. United States.
Update 3: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a combined opposition to RFA and Middle East Broadcasting Network’s (MBN) preliminary injunction motions, contending that the court lacks jurisdiction over RFA and MBN’s claims following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dep’t of Education v. California.
Update 4: On Apr. 12, RFA and MBN filed a combined reply in support of their motions for preliminary injunctions.
Update 5: On Apr. 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter an order granting a preliminary injunction.
Update 6: On Apr. 25, Judge Royce Lamberth granted Plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to restore grants with USAGM Networks Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting.
Update 7: On Apr. 25, Defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal.
Update 8: On May 1, the DC Circuit imposed an administrative stay.
Update 9: On May 3, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted a stay. The majority held that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over agency employment decisions, which should have been brought to administrative bodies for adjudication; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction over contract disputes, which should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims (citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025); and that the government, not the Plaintiffs, would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.
Update 9: On May 5, the Plaintiffs petitioned the full DC Circuit for an en banc review of the pane’s May 3 decision.
Update 10: On May 7, the DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s order, restoring the district court’s order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00966

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum. USAGM is responsible for distributing congressionally appropriated funds to plaintiff Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), a private, non-profit American Arabic-language media organization that delivers news and information to the Middle East and North Africa. Defendants are USAGM, Kari Lake, Senior Advisor to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM, Victor Morales, Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russell Vought, Director of the OMB, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and Scott Bessent, United States Secretary of the Treasury.
MBN argues that USAGM has a non-discretionary duty to make annual grants available to MBN, and that withholding these funds has led to it furloughing nearly all its U.S.-based employees, reducing its television newscasts and digital content, and effectively shuttering its headquarters.
MBN alleges that USAGM has unlawfully impounded MBN’s congressionally appropriated funds and that its conduct violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, MBN alleges that USAGM’s actions are contrary to law under the International Broadcasting Act and related appropriations laws; contrary to the U.S. Constitution in violation of the Separation of Powers, and the Appropriations, Presentment, Spending, and Take Care Clauses of the Constitution; and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA.
MBN has asked the court to declare the grant termination unlawful and has requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring Defendants from impounding MBN’s funding, as well as a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to disburse the funds.
Update 1: On Apr. 9, MBN filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The next day, the parties agreed to brief this case alongside Radio Free Asia v. United States.
Update 2: On Apr. 11, Defendants filed a combined opposition to MBN and Radio Free Asia’s (RFA) preliminary injunction motions, contending that the court lacks jurisdiction over RFA and MBN’s claims following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dep’t of Education v. California.
Update 3: On Apr. 12, RFA and MBN filed a combined reply in support of their motions for preliminary injunctions.%
Update 4: On Apr. 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter an order granting a preliminary injunction.
Update 5: On Apr. 25, Judge Royce Lamberth granted Plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to restore grants with USAGM Networks Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting.
Update 6: On Apr. 25, Defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal.
Update 7: On May 1, the DC Circuit imposed an administrative stay.
Update 8: On May 3, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted a stay. The majority held that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over agency employment decisions, which should have been brought to administrative bodies for adjudication; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction over contract disputes, which should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims (citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025); and that the government, not the Plaintiffs, would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.
Update 9: On May 5, the Plaintiffs petitioned the full DC Circuit for an en banc review of the pane’s May 3 decision.
Update 10: On May 7, the DC Circuit en banc stayed the panel’s order, restoring the district court’s order.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00840

Case Summary: On Mar. 14, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies, including the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum.
Plaintiff is Open Technology Fund (OTF), a non-profit organization with the goal of advancing global internet freedom that is funded by Congress with grants distributed through USAGM. On Mar. 15, Kari Lake, a Senior Advisor to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM, purported to terminate OTF’s grant agreement on the basis of the Mar. 14 EO. OTF has sued USAGM, the Office of Management and Budget, Victor Morales (Acting Chief Executive Officer of USAGM), and Kari Lake (senior advisor to Lake) alleging this grant termination was unlawful under the constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act and other laws.
Plaintiff asked the court to declare the grant termination unlawful and requested an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on withholding of these funds while the case proceeds, as well as a permanent injunction.
Update 1: On Mar. 20, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a TRO to prevent withholding of funds on the grounds of irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s operations and the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on its Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional claims.
Update 2: On Mar. 24, Defendants filed a motion in opposition to the TRO request, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to show jurisdiction and likelihood of irreparable harm.
Update 3: On Mar. 26, Plaintiff filed a response opposing Defendants’ motion in opposition of a TRO, again arguing that it will suffer irreparable harm and public interest favors granting the TRO.
Update 4: On Apr. 3, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of its motion for a TRO because Defendants have withdrawn the prior termination of the grant agreements. Plaintiff noted no emergency relief from the Court is required at this time, but requested they be allowed to seek additional relief in a future motion if necessary.
Update 5: On Apr. 29, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting the Court order Defendants to halt their allegedly unlawful efforts to terminate, impound, interfere, or otherwise prevent Plaintiff from obtaining its congressionally appropriated funds.
Update 6: On May 7, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, has made no showing of cognizable irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and the public interest goes against the Plaintiff’s request.
Update 7: On May 15, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction, claiming that the Court has jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, and the balance of equities and public interest favor granting the preliminary injunction.

Case no. 1:25-cv-01305

Case Summary: On Apr. 28, Trent Morse, Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel, allegedly sent an email to three of the Board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), asserting that President Trump had terminated their positions on the Board. On Apr. 29, the three individual board members and CPB brought suit against Trump, Morse, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and several other officials seeking (1) a judicial declaration that the email had no legal effect and (2) a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking defendants from taking actions to give effect to the email or otherwise seeking to interfere with or control the governance and operations of the CPB. The plaintiffs assert that the President has no authority to remove or terminate CPB Board members, because they contend that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (the CPB Act), legal precedent, and government guidance make clear that CPB was established as “a private corporation [to] be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to
afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.”
The plaintiffs assert that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act as an excess of statutory authority; a violation of the separation of powers; and a violation of the Presentment, Appropriations, and Take Care Clauses.
Update 1: On May 6, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion, asserting that Trump has the lawful authority to remove CPB Board members. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their TRO motion on May 9, noting that it would be proper for the court to instead grant a preliminary injunction because the underlying facts at issue would not change in the upcoming weeks.

Case No: 1:25-cv-01674

Case Summary: Through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, (the “Act”) Congress established the infrastructure for a public radio station, including the appropriation of federal funding to support independent public broadcasting and the creation of a separate private entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), to act as an independent structure between the government and the recipient of funds. The Act expressly denies “authoriz[ation to] any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over public telecommunications, or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors….”. 47 U.S.C. § 398(a).
NPR, an independent, nonprofit media organisation, produces, acquires and distributes programming and makes it available to independent locally owned and operated public radio stations around the country, including the plaintiff member stations. It also manages the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS), the nation’s public radio interconnection system. A portion of NPR’s funding comes from membership fees and fees for the management of the PRSS from member stations, as well as direct grants from CPB. Each of the plaintiff member stations also receives federal funding from the CPB, some of which is used to pay membership and programming fees to NPR.
On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14290, entitled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media”. The EO directs federal agencies as well as the CPB to withhold all federal funding, direct or indirect, from NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as well as ensuring that local stations that receive grants from CPB do not use those funds to acquire NPR or PBS programming, and to revise existing grant agreements to prohibit grantees from funding NPR or PBS. The EO stated that it was expressly predicated on the view that their news was not “fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” An accompanying Fact Sheet confirmed that the EO was based on the opinion that NPR and PBS distributed “left-wing propaganda” and listed specific news coverage and editorial choices with which the President disagrees. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) subsequently terminated a grant award to NPR in compliance with the EO.
Plaintiffs sued, contending that the EO is retaliatory and viewpoint-based discrimination, and that it interferes with plaintiff local member stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion by preventing them from affiliating with NPR. They argue that the EO violates specific requirements of the Act as enacted by Congress, statutes governing the NEA’s grant-making functions, the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause of the Constitution by unilaterally imposing restrictions and conditions on funds in contravention of Congress, and the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom and speech and of the press. They also argue that the EO violates the Due Process Clause by disregarding NPR’s reliance interests in its continued eligibility for such funding without process and due to vagueness, that it violates the APA for lack of statutory authority and violations of the Constitution, and is ultra vires.
Plaintiffs seek an order declaring the EO and all actions implementing it unlawful and unconstitutional and that the NEA and the CPB may not condition the receipt of funding or withhold funding from NPR and any local member station on the basis of the EO, and an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the implementation of the EO.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01722

Case Summary: Through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, (the “Act”) Congress established the infrastructure for public television, including the appropriation of federal funding to support independent public broadcasting and the creation of a separate private entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), to act as an independent structure between the government and the recipient of funds. The Act expressly mandates that CPB should not be an agency of the government in order to “afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.”
PBS, a private non-profit membership organization comprising 336 local public television broadcast studios who pay dues to PBS, provides a broad array of commercial-free educational television programming and services throughout the United States. PBS produces, acquires and distributes programming and makes it available to its member stations, including Lakeland, and also serves as a source of support for its member stations through the procurement and distribution of development training, brand management, and other services, as well as providing a public safety wireless emergency alert system. A portion of PBS’s funding comes from membership fees and fees for providing services to member stations, with the majority of the remaining funding coming from federal grants.
Member stations, including Lakeland, also receive federal funding from the CPB, which is used both to produce local programming and to pay pay membership and programming fees to PBS. Lakeland relies on PBS for both a large percentage of its programming and for the support PBS offers its member stations.
On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14290, entitled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media”. The EO directs federal agencies as well as the CPB to withhold all federal funding, direct or indirect, from PBS and NPR as well as ensuring that local stations that receive grants from CPB not use those funds. to acquire PBS or NPR programming, and to revise existing grant agreements to prohibit grantees from funding PBS or NPR. The EO stated that it was expressly predicated on the view that their news was not “fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” An accompanying Fact Sheet confirmed that the EO was based on the opinion that NPR and PBS distributed “left-wing propaganda” and listed specific news coverage and editorial choices with which the President disagrees. On May 2, Defendant United States Department of Education (ED) notified CPB that in compliance with the EO it was terminating a federal award under which CPB had granted funds to PBS for educational programs.
The Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the EO violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and editorial discretion and is ultra vires conduct as it violates specific requirements of the Act as enacted by Congress. They contend that the EO is retaliatory and viewpoint-based discrimination, and that it also violates the First Amendment by imposing unconstitutional restrictions and requirements as a condition of funding. They also argue that the EO violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs seek an order declaring the EO and all actions implementing with respect to PBS and PBS member stations unlawful and unconstitutional, and injunctive and expedited relief barring the termination of the funding.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00121

Case Summary: Beginning on Mar. 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated $11 billion in public health funding on the ground that the funds were no longer necessary because they were appropriated under various laws responding to the Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs are 20 states, the District of Columbia, and two Democratic governors. They assert that Congress appropriated these funds to strengthen public health programs and that the funds were not limited to addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, and that Congress and HHS continued to make these funds available even after the end of the public health emergency was declared in May 2023. Plaintiffs allege that these terminations of funding are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (as “arbitrary and capricious” conduct and contrary to law, for example, by allegedly unlawfully applying the “for cause” provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 300x-55). They request that the Court declare the terminations unlawful and enjoin Defendants from implementing and enforcing the terminations.
Update 1: On Apr. 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block Defendants from implementing and enforcing the public health terminations.
Update 2: On Apr. 5, Judge Mary McElroy granted Plaintiff’s request for a TRO against Defendants, which required Defendants to immediately cease the withholding of funds and implementing or enforcing the funding terminations.
Update 3: On Apr. 8, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs added an additional claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (alleging Defendant’s public health funding decision is contrary to law) as well as claims for the violation of the Separation of Powers, Spending Clause, and an allegation that Defendants’ actions are ultra vires violations.
On that same day, Plaintiff States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from enforcing or implementing the decision to terminate funding for Plaintiff States and their local health jurisdictions.
Update 4: On Apr. 14, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, alleging the court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims. The next day, on Apr. 15, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction and noted Defendants failed to identify any statutory basis for the authority it exercised in implementing and enforcing the terminations.
Update 5: On Apr. 24, Defendants submitted a supplemental brief in support of its Apr. 14 opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants assert that HHS complied with Congress’s direction to make allocated amounts available to the Plaintiff states as part of the broad appropriation of funds in response to COVID-19 and consequently its decision to terminate the grants was not in violation of the Constitution.
Update 6: On Apr. 29, the Plaintiff States submitted a supplemental brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, flagging that Defendants’ supplemental brief did not address any of the Plaintiff States’ constitutional claims.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00131

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10195-GAO

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

Case No. 1:25-cv-00286-RCL

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

Case No. 1:25-cv-00401

Amended Complaint (Feb. 28, 2025)

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00691

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00240

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

Case No. 2:25-cv-00241

Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-2039

Case Summary: 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).

Case no. 1:25-cv-01918

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Mar. 18, Plaintiffs filed a request for a TRO on the grounds of irreparable harm and that Plaintiffs would win on the merits of their Equal Protection claim.
Update 2: On Mar. 20, the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO. On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a further reply in support of their request for a TRO.
Update 3: On Mar. 24, Judge Christine O’Hearn granted Plaintiffs’ request for a 14-day TRO, finding that the EOs present a clear violation of constitutional rights and that attempting to exhaust administrative procedures would be inadequate to address irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00337-BAH

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order prohibiting the federal government from expending federal funds to promote “gender ideology,” the idea that gender identity can differ from biological sex. On January 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. 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.

Case Summary: 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.
Updated 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-10313

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01344

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On May 14, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00251

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC

Case Summary: 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).
Update 1: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Feb. 24, 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.
Update 3: On Apr. 17, DHS and Noem filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and supporting memorandum, which request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claims specifically.
Update 4: On Apr. 24, DHS and Noem appealed the Feb. 24 preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit.
Update 5: On May 1, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00403

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00474

Case Summary: 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 recission 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00532

Case Summary: 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, the 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, the 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, the Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to DC Circuit.
Update 8: On Apr. 16, the Associated Press submitted a motion to enforce the 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 Jun. 6, a federal appeals court 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 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.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00731-LMB-JFA
(Fourth Circuit docket: 23-2235)

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00716

Case Summary: 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, 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00916

Case Summary: 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, 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 granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00917

Case Summary: 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, 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 the plaintiffs counts VIII (equal protection), IX (right to counsel) and XI (spending power), but granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the other eight counts.

Case no. 1:25-cv-01107

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01124

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01365

Case summary: Mark Zaid’s limited access security clearance was rescinded by the Trump Administration after a Mar. 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-01263

Case Summary: 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.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00952

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Apr. 3, this case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (complaint) and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (complaint). These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00946

Case Summary: On Mar. 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.
strong>Update 1: On Apr. 3, this case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (complaint) and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (complaint). These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

Update 2: On Apr. 4, 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.
Update 3: On Apr. 5, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order modifying the consolidation order to allow the plaintiffs to rule separately.
Update 4: On Apr. 7, 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.
Update 5: On Apr. 7, 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.
Update 6: On Apr. 24, 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 Executive Order 14248.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00955

Case Summary: 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.
Update 1: On Apr. 3, this case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (complaint) and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (complaint). These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.