Donald Trump began his second presidential term in office on January 20, 2025.
Upon taking office, Trump signed a series of executive orders. Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action. [1] He issued more executive orders on his first day than any other president. [2] In the administration's first two months, 127 lawsuits were filed against it, according to data at New York University. [3] In his first weeks, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars. [4] [5] [6]
Many cases have been brought in response to Executive Order 14158, establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). [7] [8] Trump identified billionaire and tech CEO, Elon Musk, as leading DOGE, although he did not hold the office of DOGE Administrator. [9] Musk began federal cost-cutting measures, including layoffs, shutting down departments and agencies, ending aid, and removing programs, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. [10]
The Trump administration has claimed that they have wide powers to bypass Congressional oversight, [11] while many others believe these actions to be unconstitutional. [12] By mid-July, a Washington Post analysis found he defied judges and the courts in roughly one third of all cases against him, actions which were described by legal experts as unprecedented for any presidential administration. [13] His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis. [14]
Federal judges found many of the administration's actions to be illegal. [15] By August 2025, several grant terminations and spending freezes were found by judges and the Government Accountability Office as being illegal and unconstitutional. [16] [17] [18] His attempt to remove birthright citizenship was called "blatenty unconstitutional" by Reagan-appointed Judge John C. Coughenour, [19] and judges have also described other actions to be unconstitutional such as his unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers as part of his wider actions targeting political opponents and civil society. [20] [21] [22]
Multiple analyses conducted by academic scholars and The New York Times found that both Republican and Democratic judicial appointees have found numerous constitutional and statutory flaws with Trump administration policies. [23]
Color Key
Case name | Date Filed | Case Summary | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00716 [24] | March 11, 2025 | On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14230, barring the federal government from using the services of law firm Perkins Coie and suspending security clearances. [25] On May 2, the court granted summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP and on June 30, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit. [26] | Summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP Ongoing |
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00917 [27] | March 28, 2025 | On March 27, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14250, ending contracts with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr clients. The executive order cited their ties to Robert Mueller who led the Mueller special counsel investigation. [28] On May 27, the court declared the executive order unconstitutional and on June 6, the firm amended the judgement, seeking to extend it to all federal agencies, not just the ones named in the complaint. [29] | Summary judgement for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Ongoing |
Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00916 [30] | March 28, 2025 | On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14246, suspending security clearances for the employees of Jenner & Block, restricted their access to federal buildings, and directed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. It cited the firm's prior association with Andrew Weissmann who was involved in the Mueller special counsel investigation. [31] On May 23, the court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment. | Summary judgement for Jenner & Block |
Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01107 [32] | April 11, 2025 | On April 9, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14263, suspending Susman Godfrey LLP's security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and direct agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. The court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. [33] | Summary judgement for Susman Godfrey LLP |
Doe1 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01124 [34] | April 15, 2025 | Three law students filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the government's investigation against the law firms violated their reasonable expectation of privacy. [35] | Ongoing |
Zaid v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01107 [36] | May 5, 2025 | On March 22, 2025, Presidental Donald Trump issued a Presidential Memoranda, rescinding security clearances and access to classified information to a number of lawyers, including Mark Zaid. [37] | Ongoing |
American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01888 [38] | June 16, 2025 | The American Bar Association alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and separation of powers by targeting law firms such as suspending their security clearances and cutting off federal contracts. [39] | Ongoing |
Case name | Date Filed | Case Summary | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Baraka v. Habba (D.N.J.), 2:25-cv-06846 [40] | June 3, 2025 | On May 9, 2025, Newark mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing after protesting against the opening of a new immigration detention facility. [41] Baraka was released on bail and the charges were dropped. [42] After the charges were dropped, Baraka announced that he was suing for damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution and accused the prosecutor, Alina Habba of defamation for comments that she had made about the arrest on X (formerly known as Twitter). [43] | Ongoing |
Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission (D.D.C) 1:25-cv-01959 [44] | June 23, 2025 |
Case name | Date Filed | Case Summary | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01161 [45] | April 16, 2025 | 37 former death row inmates who had their sentence commuted to life without parole by the Biden administration are suing the Trump administration for bypassing statutorily-required procedures for reassignment of prisoners, by using Executive Order 14164 to be move them to ADX Florence, despite the Federal Bureau of Prisons determining that they were not suitable for transfer to ADX Florence. [46] | Preliminary injunction denied |
Case name | Date Filed | Case Summary | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00313 [47] | February 3, 2025 | Federal employee unions sued the Treasury Department for granting DOGE access to sensitive financial data without legal justification, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act. [48] | Preliminary injunction denied |
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00339 [49] | February 5, 2025 | The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations are suing the Department of Labor for allowing DOGE access to confidential agency records. The court denied the plaintiff's preliminary injunction and stated that they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. [50] | Preliminary injunction denied |
State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01144 [51] | February 7, 2025 | 19 states, led by New York sued President Donald Trump and the United States Department of the Treasury claiming that they unlawfully expanded access to Treasury financial systems to DOGE, risking unauthorized data use and potential misuse of federal funds. On 21 February, a preliminary injunction was granted, barring the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE. [52] | Preliminary injunction granted |
University of California Student Association v. Carter (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00354 [53] | February 7, 2025 | The University of California Student Association sued over the United States Department of Education's decision to allow DOGE to access student financial records, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Internal Revenue Code and the Privacy Act. Judge Randolph D. Moss denied the plaintiff's TRO, stating that access to view data did not create irreparable injury and on April 8, the plaintiff's dropped the case. [54] | Voluntarily dismissed |
National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00380 [55] | February 9, 2025 | The National Treasury Employees Union allege that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's sharing of personnel records with DOGE violated privacy laws. [56] | Ongoing |
American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00430 [57] | February 10, 2025 | The plaintiffs alleged that the United States Department of Education had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. The court issued a TRO on February 24 and a preliminary injunction on March 24. On April 7, the Fourth Circuit granted the government's motion to stay. [58] | Preliminary injunction granted, then stayed by 4th Circuit |
American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01237 [59] | February 11, 2025 | Current and former employees allege that the Office of Personnel Management had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. The court granted injuctive relief prohibiting any further disclosure of OPM records. [60] | Preliminary injunction granted |
Morris v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00435 [61] | February 11, 2025 | Deborah Morris filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, declaring that the creation and actions of DOGE were in violation of the Privacy Act and the False Claims Act. The court dismissed it the following day, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing as she was not personally involved in the claims made. [62] | Dismissed by court |
Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00407 [63] | February 11, 2025 | Five federal employees filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Office of Personnel Management, claiming that they had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. [64] | Ongoing |
Gribbon v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00422 [65] | February 12, 2025 | Six individual plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit stating that DOGE unlawfully accessed their personal information. On May 15, they voluntarily dropped their case. [66] | Voluntarily dismissed |
Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00457 [67] | February 17, 2025 | The Center for Taxpayer Rights challenges DOGE's access to taxpayer information stored by the Internal Revenue Service. [68] | Ongoing |
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.), 1:25-cv-00255 [69] | February 17, 2025 | The Electronic Privacy Information Center alleges a mass data breach of federal employee and taxpayer information, citing screenshots of confidental Treasury payments. The court stated that they had not met the burden for a TRO or preliminary injunction. [70] | Preliminary injunction denied |
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00596 [71] | February 21, 2025 | The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alleged that the Social Security Administration's gave sensitive data to DOGE personnel. The court granted a temporary restraining order on March 7 and on April 1, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by the defendant. On April 15, the District court granted a preliminary and on April 30, the Fourth Circuit denied a motion to stay. On May 2, a request for an administrative stay was appealed to SCOTUS, which was granted on June 6. [72] | TRO granted, then stayed by SCOTUS |
American Civil Liberties Union v. Social Security Administration (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01217 [73] | April 21, 2025 | The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Social Security Administration and United States Department of Veterans Affairs for denying their Freedom of Information Act requests to information regarding DOGE’s access to sensitive personal data. [74] | Ongoing |
Case name | Date Filed | Case Summary | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00167 [75] (consolidated with Public Citizen v. Trump) | January 20, 2025 | The plaintiffs challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On February 18, it was consolidated into Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump. [76] On May 12, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. [77] | Voluntarily dismissed |
Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00166 [78] (consolidated with Public Citizen v. Trump) | January 20, 2025 | The plaintiff challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On February 4, it was consolidated into Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump. [79] | Ongoing |
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00164 [80] (consolidated with Lentini v. DOGE and American Public Health Association v. OMB) | January 20, 2025 | The plaintiff challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On March 3, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. [77] | Voluntarily dismissed |
State of New Mexico v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00429 [81] Petitioned to D.C. Circuit, In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072 [82] (consolidated with Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk) | February 13, 2025 | 14 states challenges Elon Musk's role in DOGE, asserting that he is performing governmental duties without official nomination by the President or confirmation by the Senate. [83] | TRO denied |
J. Does 1–26 v. Musk (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00462-TDC [84] Appealed to 4th Cir., 25-1273 [85] | February 26, 2025 | 26 anonymous plaintiffs, current and former employees of the United States Agency for International Development alleged that the broad scope of DOGE was in violation of the Appointments Clause and separation of powers, since Elon Musk was never confirmed by the Senate. On March 18, a preliminary injunction was granted, prohibiting the defendants from taking further action to shut down USAID, however, a stay was issued by the Fourth Circuit on March 28. | Ongoing |
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00612 [86] | March 3, 2025 | The Center for Biological Diversity allege that the creation of DOGE violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that several federal agencies had failed to respond to FOIA requests. [87] | Ongoing |
Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00643 [88] (consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk) | March 5, 2025 | The plaintiffs allege that DOGE overstepped its authority when cutting federal spending, terminating government employees and dismantling government agencies. On March 20, it was consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk. [89] | Consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk) |
Case name | Date Filed | Case Summary | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00165 [90] | January 20, 2025 | The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit seeking Trump presidential transition and DOGE records regarding environmental related issues such as air and water quality, climate change, public land and imperiled plants and wildlife. [91] | Ongoing |
American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00409 [92] | February 11, 2025 | The American Oversight organization filed a lawsuit against DOGE, requesting communication between Elon Musk and his staff after the Office of Management and Budget failed to issue a determination within the required time for FOIA requests. [93] | Ongoing |
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00511 [94] In re: U.S. DOGE Service (D.C. Cir.), 25-5130 [95] U.S. Doge Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (U.S. Supreme Court), 24A1122 [96] | February 20, 2025 | The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington allege that the United States Digital Service and DOGE wrongfully withheld documents relating to DOGE and its activities. On March 10, the court partially awarded a preliminary injunction and on April 15, ordered limited discovery into DOGE's activities. After being denied a stay by the D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the discovery order had to be narrowed, but left the rest of the discovery order intact. [97] | Preliminary injunction granted |
Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00527 [98] | February 21, 2025 | The Project on Government Oversight alleges that the Trump administration's recordkeeping practices are subject to the Federal Records Act and that they have unlawfully designated their records as presidential to avoid transparency obligations. On June 17, the court denied a preliminary injunction. [99] | Preliminary injunction denied |
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00684 [100] | March 7, 2025 | The Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit after being denied a FOIA request regarding communication between DOGE, government agencies and the White House. | Preliminary injunction denied |
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00749 [101] | March 14, 2025 | The Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit after several FOIA requests related to communications between the United States Marshals Service and federal judges about cases relating to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, potentially following direction from DOGE. [102] | Ongoing |
The Intercept v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02404 [103] | March 24, 2025 | The Intercept alleges that DOGE and the United States Digital Service wrongfully withheld information regarding emails between Elon Musk and staffers that were subject to a FOIA request on the erroneous assertion that they are not subject to FOIA. | Ongoing |
Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01768 [104] | April 8, 2025 | In December 2024, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a FOIA request related to DOGE to a number of government agencies and did not hear back from any of them. [105] | Ongoing |
Democratic National Committee v. Trump, League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump have been consolidated and proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.
The Associated Press has sued three members of the White House Office for banning them from press pool events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One, in response to the organization's continued references to the Gulf of Mexico instead of the "Gulf of America", the name promulgated in Executive Order 14172.
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01774 [365]
On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The executive order argues that the children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.
On January 20, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump Administration, citing the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as affirming birthright citizenship, on behalf of New Hampshire Indonesian Community, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Make the Road Work. [379] [380]
On February 10, 2025, Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction. [381]
In Massachusetts, a plaintiff, going by "O. Doe", along with a group of pregnant women whose children would not receive citizenship, if birthright citizenship were to be rescinded due to Executive Order 14160, sued [382] Donald J. Trump et al., [383] citing the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
On February 13, 2025 Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction [384] blocking enforcement of the Executive Order.
Note: the Supreme Court consolidated Trump v. Casa Inc., Trump v. State of New Jersey, and Trump v. State of Washington.
J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) is a class action and habeas corpus lawsuit brought by five Venezuelan men in immigration custody, contesting Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in presidential proclamation 10903 and the attempt to deport Venezuelan citizens in the US who are alleged to be members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The district court judge granted temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs and then, after certifying the class, granted another temporary restraining order for the class. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which denied the appeal, and then to the Supreme Court, which vacated the temporary restraining orders, stating that any challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought as a habeas corpus petitions, which requires that the petition be filed in the district where a petitioner is detained, and since the petitioners were detained in Texas, their petition in the District of Columbia had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction. [436] The court did not reach whether the use of the AEA to deport the men was constitutional, nor whether it applied to the plaintiffs. [436] It added that the government had to give anyone it sought to deport under the AEA enough notice that they could file habeas complaints challenging their removal. [437] Related cases were then filed in other districts.
In addition to this class action suit, there are over 100 other suits. [168]
He issued more executive orders on Day 1 than any previous president
A comprehensive analysis of hundreds of lawsuits against Trump policies shows dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty, which experts say pose an unprecedented threat to the U.S. legal system. [...] The Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases — almost 35 percent. Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary's role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.
The Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, has repeatedly ruled that canceled or delayed funding for biomedical research, K-12 education, and more is illegal and runs afoul of the Impoundment Control Act, a federal law regulating when presidents can withhold spending.
The failure to fund grant awards violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Constitution, which certified Congress as the branch of government responsible for funding decisions, said GAO. If a law is passed by Congress and signed by a president, it must be carried out by the executive branch, the watchdog said.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)A federal judge on Friday struck down President Trump's executive order targeting the prominent law firm of Perkins Coie, finding it unconstitutional and declaring it an attack on the foundational principles of the American legal system.
[...] marked an unprecedented attack on their ability to do business.
Since Trump returned to power in January, at least 60 judges or appeals courts have slowed or blocked some of his administration's initiatives. [...] They included jurists appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
[...] a recent review by Georgetown law scholar Stephen I. Vladeck found that Republican judges have ruled against Trump at a striking clip.
Dozens of judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents have ruled against the administration. [...] 'Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,' said Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University.
Mark Graber, a law professor at the University of Maryland, described the situation, writing by email, 'Both Republican and Democratic judicial appointees have found numerous constitutional and statutory flaws with Trump administration policies.'
Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's Leasing 3 and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects90 FR 8363