Legal Actions

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought this lawsuit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The dispute arose after the ACLU submitted FOIA requests to over 40 federal agencies seeking information about the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to sensitive personal data. While many agencies complied or granted expedited processing, SSA denied expedited processing and did not respond to an appeal, and the VA failed to respond altogether. Neither agency released records in response to the ACLU’s requests. The lawsuit claims that both agencies unlawfully withheld records, failed to conduct proper searches, and ignored statutory obligations under FOIA. The ACLU asks the court to compel expedited processing, require the release of responsive documents, prohibit the agencies from charging fees, and award attorneys’ fees. On June 26, 2026, the ACLU withdrew its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Harvard University filed this action against multiple federal agencies, challenging the federal government’s conditioning of the University’s receipt of federal funds on the implementation of programmatic and structural changes purportedly addressing antisemitism. Harvard contends that the termination of funding violated the Administrative Procedure Act, exceeded the government’s statutory authority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, infringed upon First Amendment rights, and was effectuated without adherence to applicable regulatory procedures. The complaint further asserts that the government acted ultra vires in taking these actions. The case was marked related to a separate lawsuit filed by the American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter, which raised similar issues.

The plaintiffs, two Venezuelan nationals married to each other, filed this habeas corpus action against the U.S. government challenging their detention and proposed deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. The petitioners had entered the United States in 2022, were initially paroled, and later granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The government subsequently withdrew their TPS, citing alleged ties to the gang Tren de Aragua (“TdA”), which had been designated a foreign terrorist organization. The petitioners argue that their detention was unlawful because their TPS remained in effect during the pendency of their appeals, and that the government lacks sufficient evidence to designate them as “alien enemies.” They seek release from custody and an injunction preventing removal from the district or the United States. The court granted a temporary restraining order and, following briefing and a hearing, issued a habeas order directing the petitioners’ release. The court concluded that the government had failed to provide credible evidence linking the petitioners to TdA, and that their confinement violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process. The order also included broader district-wide provisions prohibiting removal of other individuals in the Western District of Texas affected by the March 2025 TdA proclamation without notice and the opportunity to seek judicial review. The petitioners’ motion to enforce the judgment was denied, and the government’s subsequent request to stay the district-wide portion of the order pending appeal was granted. The court formally entered final judgment on the individual habeas claims while leaving the broader injunctive relief stayed.

The plaintiffs, the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom, brought this action against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The lawsuit challenged a series of executive orders imposing broad tariffs on imported goods, including increased tariffs targeting specific countries such as China, Canada, and Mexico. The plaintiffs contended that these executive actions exceeded the authority granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by effectively allowing the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. They sought a declaration that the orders were unlawful, an injunction preventing their enforcement, and recovery of court costs. The defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), asserting that court has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff-related matters. The plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, citing potential irreparable harm from the tariffs. While the motions were pending, other related cases challenged the same tariffs in different courts, with mixed rulings, including preliminary injunctions and determinations of unlawfulness that were stayed pending appeal. The district court ultimately found the court lacked jurisdiction, but denied the defendants’ motion to transfer and dismissed the case at the plaintiffs’ request to facilitate an immediate appeal on the jurisdictional question. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit and requested expedited review. The Ninth Circuit is holding the proceedings in abeyance until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. No. 25-250 and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287.

The Harvard Faculty Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the American Association of University Professors, and a union representing university workers have filed a lawsuit in response to the Trump administration's demands that Harvard University restrict speech and restructure its core operations or else face the cancellation of $8.7 billion in federal funding for the university and its affiliated hospitals. The plaintiffs allege these actions are unlawful because they violate the Administrative Procedure Act, Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the First Amendment, the separation of powers, the Spending Clause of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Employees and partners of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) sued the Trump administration for dismantling USIP, which is a congressionally-mandated nonprofit organization created to promote global conflict resolution. The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) does not have the authority to terminate USIP employees and board members. They argue that the administration's actions violate the USIP Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the separation of powers. This case is related to _U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson _(1:25-cv-00804). In that case, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on May 19, ruling that the President’s removal of USIP directors was unlawful and voided all acts by the replacement leadership. The government appealed, and the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the _Jackson_ judgment pending appeal. On June 5, this court granted a joint motion to stay proceedings in _Pippenger_ pending further developments in _Jackson_. The stay was automatically lifted on June 27 when the D.C. Circuit stayed the _Jackson_ judgment, but both parties then jointly moved to reinstate and modify the stay. On July 7, the court approved a new stay structure. The stay will now remain in place until either (1) the D.C. Circuit denies _en banc_ rehearing in _Jackson _or the Supreme Court grants a stay, or (2) the _Jackson_ judgment is modified or vacated. The plaintiffs may also lift the stay at any time with two weeks’ notice.

A coalition of sixteen states sued the Trump administration for its attempt to disrupt and terminate grant funding issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The grants were cancelled in response to President Trump's Executive Orders limiting work on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and transgender matters. The plaintiffs allege that the administration does not have the authority to terminate congressionally-appropriated funds. The plaintiffs argue the administration has violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the Public Health Service Act, and federal regulations governing NIH grants. On May 29, 2025, the parties agreed that the case should proceed to the merits without resolution of the requests for temporary relief. They also agreed that the case should proceed on a two-track basis, with the first phase of litigation focusing on the plaintiffs' claims as related to the termination of grants, and the second phase of litigation focusing on plaintiffs' unreasonable-delay claims.

Enrolled members of the Blackfeet Tribe have sued the Trump administration for imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum products from Canada. The plaintiffs argue the executive orders violate the separation of powers and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On April 25, 2025, the case was transferred to the United States Court of International Trade, and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision.