Legal Actions

Seven transgender U.S. citizens filed suit against the U.S. Department of State, the Secretary of State, and the United States, challenging a policy requiring passports to identify individuals solely by their sex assigned at birth. Under this policy, some plaintiffs received passports reflecting their birth-assigned sex even after previously having passports that aligned with their gender identity, and in some cases without having submitted a renewal application. The plaintiffs assert that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, their Fifth Amendment rights to travel and privacy, their First Amendment right to free speech, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argue that the policy represents a significant departure from longstanding State Department practice, which historically allowed individuals to update their gender markers to reflect their gender identity and, more recently, provided an option for non-binary markers. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the State Department from issuing passports using sex assigned at birth, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), joined by a coalition of labor organizations, nonprofit groups, and local governments, filed suit against President Donald Trump and multiple federal agencies and agency heads. The plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 14210, which directed sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and broad agency reorganizations without congressional authorization. They contend that the order and its implementing memoranda violate the Separation of Powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court initially entered a temporary restraining order halting RIFs at more than a dozen federal agencies and permitting limited discovery. Following briefing and argument, the court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the President exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority. The government appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction. The government then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which granted a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appellate proceedings and possible certiorari. The Court reasoned that the executive order merely directed agencies to develop reorganization plans “consistent with applicable law,” while declining to reach the legality of specific agency RIF or reorganization plans. The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded. Proceedings continue in the district court.

Plaintiffs Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noreste (PCUN) and several faith, education, and community organizations and unions sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The case challenges the “2025 Huffman Memo,” which rescinded prior DHS guidance that barred immigration enforcement at schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. The plaintiffs argue that the new policy was arbitrary and capricious, unlawfully burdened religious exercise, and ignored the reliance interests of immigrant communities and religious congregants. They allege the rescission deters people from worship, volunteering, or accessing essential services at previously protected sites, and that DHS failed to show the change was the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest under RFRA. Accordingly, plaintiffs argue the policy violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to restore the prior sensitive-locations protections.

Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued AmeriCorps, its Interim Head, the Office of Management Budget, and its Director, challenging efforts to dismantle AmeriCorps. Plaintiffs allege that the government’s actions—including releasing AmeriCorps members and volunteers, placing staff on administrative leave, and canceling contracts and grants—were unlawful. They argue that the dismantling of AmeriCorps, an independent agency created by Congress, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional separation of powers. They also argue that the defendants acted contrary to law, including by violating appropriations law and the Impoundment Control Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a stay and vacatur of the administration's actions.

Neonu Jewell, the former Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer and EEO Director at the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC), has filed suit against the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the DFC. Jewell alleges that she was unlawfully placed on administrative leave and later terminated without severance, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. Jewell alleges that her classification as a “DEIA employee” was inaccurate and stigmatizing, and that her termination violated her rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. She further claims she was denied reassignment and severance benefits provided to similarly situated employees, and that DFC’s actions were retaliatory and based on her perceived political views.

A coalition of 60 local governments filed suit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services to challenge the agencies’ practice of conditioning Congressionally-appropriated grants—including funding for services to unhoused people and critical transit programs—on compliance with executive orders concerning immigration, transgender rights, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. They argue that the conditions violate the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argue that the grant conditions exceed statutory and regulatory authorities. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

An attorney specializing in national security law sued the Trump administration to challenge the revocation of his security clearance pursuant to a presidential memorandum issued by President Trump. Plaintiff, who had spent decades representing federal employees, contractors, and whistleblowers requiring access to classified information, argues that the memorandum and its implementation violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and due process. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including a ruling that the memorandum was unconstitutional, an order preventing its continued enforcement against him, and a name-clearing hearing.

Nine nonprofit legal service providers sued the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and various officials after the government terminated grants under the National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP). The program had funded appointed immigration counsel for detained noncitizens in bond and removal proceedings who were deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves. Plaintiffs allege the grant terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs ask the court to set aside Defendants' actions to terminate the NQRP and enjoin Defendants from taking further action to undermine or terminate the program. At the request of the parties, on September 16, 2025, the court stayed the case pending the parties' voluntary remand to Defendant Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR).