Legal Actions

Two migrants detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base have filed this class action suit against the Trump administration in order to challenge restrictions on detainees' access to counsel. On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled "Expanding Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to Full Capacity," which instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand capacity at Guantanamo Bay to detain migrants. The plaintiffs argue that detainment at Guantanamo violates migrants' First Amendment right to communicate with the outside world and their Fifth Amendment right to due process. The plaintiffs request that the court order the Government to restore detained migrants' ability to communicate with legal counsel and family.

A coalition of medical school and teaching hospital associations sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to challenge federal funding cuts to facilities, equipment, personnel, and other indirect costs associated with medical and public health research. On February 7, 2025, NIH issued Notice Number NOT-OD-25-068 and announced it would immediately cut funding for indirect costs to an across-the-board rate of 15%. The plaintiffs in this case argue that NIH violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the NIH Notice is arbitrary and capricious, is not in accordance with law, and violates the statutory and constitutional prohibitions on retroactivity. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that NIH acted without observance of the procedure required by law. The plaintiffs requested that the court find Notice Number NOT-OD-25-068 unlawful and issue a permanent injunction preventing it from being enforced.

A coalition of American research universities and university associations have sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to challenge federal funding cuts to facilities, equipment, personnel, and other indirect costs associated with medical and public health research. On February 7, 2025, NIH issued Notice Number NOT-OD-25-068 and announced it would immediately cut funding for indirect costs to an across-the-board rate of 15%. The plaintiffs in this case are research universities who receive NIH grands and awards that would be heavily impacted by the reduced indirect cost rate. The plaintiffs argued that Notice Number NOT-OD-25-068 violates the Administrative Procedure Act by contradicting existing negotiated cost rate statutes. The plaintiffs requested that the court find the notice unlawful and prevent it from being implemented.

Twenty-two states sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to challenge federal funding cuts to facilities, equipment, personnel, and other indirect costs associated with medical and public health research. On February 7, 2025, NIH issued Notice Number NOT-OD-25-068 and announced it would immediately cut funding for indirect costs to an across-the-board rate of 15%. The plaintiffs in this case argue that NIH violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the NIH Notice is arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law, and because NIH acted outside the agency's authority and without observance of the procedure required by law. The plaintiffs requested that the court find Notice Number NOT-OD-25-068 unlawful and issue a permanent injunction preventing it from being enforced.

The Personal Services Contractor Association (PSCA) has sued the Trump administration challenging the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The PSCA is an organization that advocates for U.S. Personal Services Contractors (USPSCs) who work abroad to implement USAID's sustainable development programs. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14169, which suspended all foreign aid for 90 days. Soon after, the Secretary of State issued a stop-work order for all foreign aid workers. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, then took control of USAID payment systems and personnel files and began blocking USAID employees' access to their work accounts. As a direct result, of the over 1,000 USPSCs PSCA represents, a majority have been laid off or locked out of their work accounts. The plaintiff argued that the Trump administration's actions amount to the dismantling of USAID, which violates the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. PSCA requests that the court find the Trump administration's actions unlawful and order the defendants to restore foreign aid funding and allow USAID to resume its functions.

The plaintiff in this case, Cathy A. Harris, was a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent government agency tasked with protecting civil servants against unfair and partisan political personnel practices. Harris had served on the Board since June 2022, with her term expiring on March 1, 2028. In a one-sentence email sent on February 11, 2025, President Trump removed Harris from her position on the board. Harris has sued the Trump administration, claiming that her termination violates statutory law, which states that a member of the MSPB may be removed by the President only in cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Having received no proper accusation of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, Harris argues that the court ought to declare her termination unlawful and prevent the defendants from removing her from her office.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and a federal government employee (Doe 1) have sued the Trump Administration for granting Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to payment system data and personnel records at the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management. Upon its creation by President Trump in January 2025, DOGE has gained access to the payment systems and records of several government agencies, many of which contain the highly sensitive personal and financial information of American citizens. The plaintiffs in this case argue that DOGE's ability view confidential agency information intrudes upon the privacy of millions of Americans, violates the Privacy Act, and denies Americans their Fifth Amendment Right to informational privacy. The plaintiffs request that the court declare DOGE's actions unlawful and issue an injunction preventing DOGE from gaining any further access to confidential government records.

A coalition of government employee unions have filed a lawsuit challenging the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) federal employee buyout. On January 28, 2025, OPM issued a directive titled "Fork in the Road," instructing nearly all federal employees to either resign from their position and receive their wages until September 30, 2025, or stay and risk being terminated without compensation. The plaintiffs alleged that this directive seeks to replace non-partisan career civil servants with partisans of the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argued that this directive violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by failing to follow the APA's rule-making regulations and taking arbitrary and capricious action.