Legal Actions

A U.S. citizen serving as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court filed suit against President Trump, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of State, challenging Executive Order 14203, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” The order imposed civil and criminal penalties on U.S. persons providing services to sanctioned ICC officials. Plaintiff argued that the order's broad reach placed him at risk of severe liability for his professional activities. He claimed the order exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and violated the First Amendment, and he sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff secured a specific license authorizing his work, thereby rendering his claims moot. Subsequently, on May 13, 2025, the Court dismissed the case after Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

A coalition of two Commerce Department unions brings this action against President Trump and relevant federal officials, challenging Executive Order 14343. Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order unlawfully strips federal employees of their collective bargaining rights in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act and the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of association. They contend that the Executive Order exceeds presidential authority and was issued in bad faith to dismantle lawful union representation within the civil service. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief restoring their collective bargaining rights and invalidating the Executive Order in its entirety. 

Five non-profit immigration and criminal defense organizations have brought this suit to challenge a secret U.S.-El Salvador agreement that allows the indefinite detention of U.S. deportees, including asylum seekers and citizens, in brutal Salvadoran mega-prisons. This agreement, which plaintiffs argue bypasses Congress and violates U.S. and international law, involves covert U.S. funding to El Salvador for these incommunicado detentions. The lawsuit seeks to stop the U.S. government from outsourcing human rights abuses and argues that the State Department's deal violates the Administrative Procedure Act, exceeds executive authority, and endangers lives. It demands the agreement be publicized, declared illegal, and halted.

The cities of Chicago, Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle brought this action against the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security to enjoin the Trump administration's freeze on funding under the Securing the Cities counterterrorism program. Congress created the program to prevent nuclear and other terrorist attacks in high-risk urban areas, requiring DHS to provide resources to local governments through cooperative agreements. Until early 2025, DHS routinely reimbursed Plaintiffs within days for approved expenditures. Beginning in February 2025, however, DHS stopped processing reimbursements despite acknowledging that Plaintiffs’ requests were approved. DHS employees told Plaintiffs that “all” payments were “on pause,” and on May 14, 2025, DHS directed Securing the Cities regions to halt purchases of nuclear and radiological detection equipment due to supposed “funding constraints.” DHS has also failed to issue new awards for 2025, creating the risk that Plaintiffs’ programs will collapse when their current budget periods expire. Plaintiffs argue that this freeze has already impaired public safety by forcing cancellations of vendor work and critical training. Plaintiffs contend DHS’s funding freeze is unlawful and unconstitutional. They argue the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to appropriate funds and requires the executive branch to carry out those laws, not withhold them. They further argue that DHS has violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to reimburse approved requests within 30 days, as required by regulation, and by withholding funds without any finding that the requests were improper. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Nineteen states filed suit challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s April 3 Agency Action, which directed State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to complete a new certification related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under longstanding practice, SEAs and LEAs provide written assurances that they comply with Title VI as a condition of receiving federal education funds that support programs for low-income students, special education, English language learners, teacher recruitment and training, and other critical services. The plaintiffs allege that the April 3 Agency Action departs from this established process and imposes new, vague, and unlawful requirements that effectively condition billions of dollars in federal funding on agreement with an unsupported interpretation of Title VI. The States argue that the action exceeds statutory authority, fails to comply with required procedural safeguards, and threatens the immediate withdrawal of essential federal funds, creating severe harm to students, including those with disabilities and other vulnerable populations. The States reaffirmed their existing Title VI certifications but declined to comply with the April 3 Agency Action, asserting that it is unlawful, unconstitutional, and unauthorized.

Three anonymous law students have sued the Trump administration to challenge steps that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken to investigate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices at major law firms. The plaintiffs contend that the EEOC's extensive requests for sensitive personal data of applicants and attorneys at major law firms exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and violates Title VII. According to the complaint, Title VII permits the EEOC to initiate investigations only in response to a written complaint from an employee, and the plaintiffs argue that no such complaint accompanied the EEOC’s March 2025 data requests. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Professors' associations have sued the Trump administration for arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian activism. The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. On April 23, 2025, the court collapsed Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction with a trial on the merits in accordance with Rule 65(a). The court held a two-week bench trial in July 2025. On September 30, 2025, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that Defendants' policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty who engaged in pro-Palestinian protest violated the First Amendment and was contrary to constitutional right and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

A group of nonprofits and academic institutions have sued the Trump administration for dismantling the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), a federal agency that focuses on community-driven development across Latin America and the Caribbean. The administration has cancelled contracts and grants and placed all employees on administrative leave. The plaintiffs argue that this attempt to dismantle IAF violates the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.