Legal Actions

Thirteen universities and three university associations filed suit against the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its Acting Director, challenging cuts to “indirect cost rates” for NSF-funded research grants. NSF implemented a policy capping indirect cost rates at 15% for all eligible universities, replacing the prior system in which rates were negotiated individually to reflect actual research costs. Plaintiffs argued that the policy unlawfully limits funding and eliminates the negotiated process. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that the implementation of the Rate Cap Policy exceeded NSF’s authority, contradicted existing regulations, and was arbitrary and capricious. They ask the court to vacate the policy, declare it unlawful, and otherwise prevent its implementation.

Three labor unions representing teachers employed by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) filed suit to challenge President Trump's Executive Order 14251, which revoked collective bargaining rights for the majority of federal workers, including DoDEA teachers, and the Office of Personnel Management's implementing guidance. Plaintiffs contend the Executive Order and its implementation unlawfully stripped employees of statutory rights by ending union recognition, cancelling collective bargaining agreements, revoking dues deductions, denying official time and grievance procedures, and barring union representation in disciplinary meetings. The plaintiffs argue that these actions violate the separation of powers, the First Amendment's protection against retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, the Fifth Amendment's protection against retroactively abrogating contracts and depriving employees of protected property interests, the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia filed suit against President Trump and several federal agencies, challenging a directive that halted federal approvals for new wind-energy projects. Plaintiffs claim the action threatens a vital source of clean energy and job creation within the United States and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by imposing a substantive policy change without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking. Alliance for Clean Energy New York intervened in support of the plaintiffs and asserted its own claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Both the states and the intervenor sought preliminary relief. On June 5, 2025, the court collapsed the preliminary injunction motions with a trial on the merits and directed that the government’s opposition be treated as a motion to dismiss. The court determined that both the states and the intervenor had standing to bring the case, that the pause on wind-energy leasing and permitting constituted final agency action subject to judicial review, and that the directive amounted to a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia brought suit to challenge the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ March 27, 2025 directive dismantling the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through mass layoffs and reorganization. The complaint alleges that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. unlawfully terminated 10,000 employees, shuttered dozens of agencies, collapsed twenty-eight agencies into fifteen, closed half of HHS’s regional offices, and suspended critical programs ranging from vaccine testing to Head Start, to maternal health, and to 9/11 responder care. Plaintiffs assert that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, not justified by funding needs, and designed to incapacitate HHS in violation of statutory mandates and congressional appropriations. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent further dismantling of HHS, arguing that the directive violates the separation of powers, the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and multiple federal statutes and regulations that authorize and require HHS’s programs.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed suit against the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation challenging Executive Order 14154, which seeks to eliminate an “electric vehicle mandate” and directs federal agencies to suspend funding for EV charging infrastructure. Plaintiffs argue no such mandate exists and that the Order unlawfully blocks funding Congress appropriated through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. FHWA implemented the directive by suspending the NEVI Program, rescinding program guidance, revoking approval of State Plans, and prohibiting new funding obligations. Plaintiffs allege these actions unlawfully withhold congressionally mandated funds and undermine efforts to expand EV infrastructure critical to environmental, health, and transportation goals. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution, and ultra vires principles, and it requests that the court vacate the actions and bar further enforcement of the Executive Order’s funding suspension.

The Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc. (MAEC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the NAACP Tennessee State Conference, and the Somerville-Fayette NAACP filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education and its Secretary, challenging the termination of the Equity Assistance Center (EAC) grant awarded to MAEC. The plaintiffs contend that the Department’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional, violating civil rights law, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the First Amendment, the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and the separation of powers. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to reinstate the EAC grant and prevent future unlawful terminations.

Fifteen states filed suit against President Trump, the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 14156 which declared a national energy emergency and directed federal agencies to expedite permits and approvals for energy-related projects. The plaintiffs argue that the Executive Order unlawfully bypasses critical ecological, historical, and cultural resource reviews, violating the National Emergencies Act and undermining state authority under environmental protection statutes such as the Clean Water Act. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of the Executive Order.

A 33-year-old Venezuelan national with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) filed this class-action against the Trump administration and wardens of several detention centers. The plaintiff challenged Proclamation 10903 and the federal government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove Venezuelan noncitizens, including those with lawful TPS, without due process. She argues that these actions exceed the government’s authority under the AEA and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Related to Sanchez Puentes v. Garite, the case seeks class-wide protection from detention and removal, including a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and writ of habeas corpus.