Legal Actions

Immigrant legal services organizations have sued the Trump administration for terminating federal funding for programs that support immigrant children entering the U.S. without a parent or guardian. The lawsuit aims to restore immediate access to these programs and ensure that unaccompanied immigrant children receive legal representation. Plaintiffs allege that the termination of this funding through the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Refugee Resettlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Law firm Jenner & Block LLP has sued the Trump administration for its executive order singling out the firm for partisan work and representation of transgender and immigrant clients. The plaintiff argues that the administration's actions violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

Inclusiv, one of five Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) award recipients under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), has sued the Trump administration and Citibank for attempting to terminate their funding. Inclusiv argues that it is unlawful for President Trump to withhold allocated funds and terminate a program created and funded by Congress. The plaintiffs allege that the Trump administration has violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the separation of powers, and other federal laws and regulations, while Citibank has breached its contract. On April 15, 2025, the case was consolidated with other similar cases. Updates can be found under Climate United Fund v. Citibank (25-cv-698).

The plaintiffs in this case are 21 federal prisoners whose death sentences were commuted to life without parole by President Biden. They filed suit against President Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and other DOJ and BOP officials, challenging the decision to transfer them to ADX Florence, the federal system’s most restrictive “supermax” facility. ADX Florence, sometimes called the “Alcatraz of the Rockies,” subjects inmates to extreme isolation, limited phone and visitation privileges, restricted access to exercise and recreation and significant barriers to legal representation. The plaintiffs contend that this transfer, directed by Executive Order 14164, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and their constitutional rights, including procedural due process, equal protection, protections against bills of attainder and ex post facto punishments, and the presidential power to grant clemency. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the executive order and ensure any reassignment complied with statutory procedures.

Plaintiffs, a group of parents representing their minor children, have filed suit against the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), its Director, and the Secretary of Defense for the removal or restriction of books and curricular content in federally operated schools for military families. Defendants took such action pursuant to President Trump's executive orders that prohibit materials addressing gender transition, nonbinary identities, or gender fluidity; require removal of “divisive concepts”; and direct curricula revisions to reflect “patriotic values.” The plaintiffs allege that these actions have resulted in widespread censorship and the cancellation of longstanding school events. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint-based censorship and denying students access to information, and that the removal of materials lacked any legitimate educational justification.

The State of Minnesota filed suit against the Trump Administration, challenging President Trump's executive orders that restrict recognition of transgender individuals under federal law, bar the use of federal funds for programs deemed to promote “gender ideology,” reinstate a ban on military service by transgender individuals, prohibit funding for gender-affirming care, and withdraw support from educational institutions that permitted transgender girls to compete in women’s sports. Minnesota argues that these directives unlawfully interfered with the state’s ability to enforce its own laws, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against transgender residents. The complaint also contends that these orders unlawfully coerce Minnesota into compliance by threatening to terminate law enforcement grants awarded to Minnesota public schools and universities, despite those grants being unrelated to athletics. Minnesota further asserts that the President not only lacked authority to condition already-appropriated federal funds on compliance with the executive orders, but also that the actions violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeering the state to implement federal policy. Finally, Minnesota argues that the President's reinterpretation of Title IX to mandate discrimination based on gender identity exceeded statutory limits, and that the Department of Justice’s grant termination threats were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The American Bar Association (ABA) filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), challenging the termination of $3.2 million in grants that supported training for attorneys assisting victims of domestic and sexual violence. The Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum restricting DOJ attorneys from participating in ABA-sponsored events and accusing the ABA of promoting “activist causes." The ABA argues that this action violates its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. The ABA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including interim and permanent orders preventing the DOJ from rescinding the grants, reinstating funding, and prohibiting similar retaliatory actions in the future. Based on updates from the parties, the case was administratively closed on July 17, 2025, and the parties were directed to file a further status report by October 1, 2027, unless new developments required earlier updates. 

Twelve U.S. states filed this lawsuit against President Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, challenging the President’s imposition of tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and 57 other countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The plaintiffs argue that the statute authorizes the President to act only in response to “an unusual or extraordinary threat,” which they contend did not exist when the tariffs were issued. They also argue that the tariffs violate the Constitution by infringing on Congress’s exclusive power to levy taxes and duties, raising claims under the Separation of Powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).