Legal Actions

Plaintiffs, the Oregon Council for the Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils, filed suit against the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the National Council on the Humanities. Plaintiffs challenge the abrupt termination and disruption of federal funding supporting state and local humanities programs nationwide. These programs, funded through the congressionally mandated Federal/State Partnership, provide grants to local communities for programs that preserve history, culture, and public humanities initiatives. Plaintiffs claim that defendants terminated or partially rescinded nearly all previously approved NEH grants without statutory authority, notice, or an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Impoundment Control Act, and the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. These actions allegedly forced councils to lay off staff, cancel programs, and place several organizations at risk of permanent closure. Plaintiffs contend that the terminations were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to statutory criteria governing NEH grants. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to preserve the Federal/State Partnership, including requiring NEH to continue funding the councils as appropriated by Congress and to follow statutory procedures when making grant determinations.

Rural Development Innovations (RDI), a Zambian consulting firm fully funded by the United States African Development Foundation (USADF), together with former USADF employees Paul Olson and Solomon Chi, have brought this lawsuit to challenge the Trump Administration’s attempt to dismantle USADF. Following President Trump’s Executive Order declaring USADF “unnecessary” and directing its functions be reduced, the administration installed Pete Marocco as “Acting Chair” of USADF, despite lacking any legal authority to do so. Marocco then convened a “Board meeting,” appointed himself President, terminated nearly all grants, dismissed most staff, and dismantled the agency’s operations. Plaintiffs allege that Marocco lacked lawful authority to take these actions, and in doing so, defendants violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the African Development Foundation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief preventing defendants from dismantling the agency.

The State of California filed suit against the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to undermine state laws affirming the rights of transgender students. Specifically, California laws require that students be allowed to participate in school activities consistent with their gender identity. The Administration sought to invalidate these protections by sending letters to all California local education agencies that directed the agencies to certify that they would not enforce Bylaw 300.D because it violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring "California public high schools to allow male participation in girls' interscholastic athletics." These letters were based on the Administration's position as outlined in Executive Order 14168 that "sex" protected in the Equal Protection Clause refers to "biological sex." California argues that these letters exceed federal authority and violate both the Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The state requests declaratory and injunctive relief, vacatur of the letters, and attorneys’ fees.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have sued the federal government over its reversal of an enforcement policy on forced-reset triggers (FRTs), which are firearm components previously classified as illegal machine guns. The plaintiffs argue that the policy change violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it lacks reasoned analysis, fails to consider safety risks, and was implemented without proper notice and comment. They also assert it undermines gun violence prevention and abdicates federal duties under the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the non-enforcement policy is unlawful, an order vacating it, and injunctive relief to compel enforcement. An initial motion for a preliminary injunction was filed but later withdrawn on July 11, 2025. This withdrawal followed declarations from the federal government and nonfederal defendants stating they would not return or sell FRTs in states where they are illegal. Rare Breed Triggers Inc. also committed not to sell or distribute FRTs in plaintiff states. The case is currently stayed through February 19, 2026.

Al Otro Lado, Inc., a nonprofit legal services organization, and Haitian Bridge Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group, along with several anonymous noncitizen asylum seekers, filed this class action lawsuit against President Trump, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. Plaintiffs challenge the issuance of President Trump's Proclamation No. 10888, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” which blocks access to asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.–Mexico border. Plaintiffs bring claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Plaintiff, a transgender woman held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), filed a pro se lawsuit against President Donald Trump, the Attorney General, the BOP Director, and two BOP Wardens. The lawsuit challenges President Trump's Executive Order 14168, which targets transgender individuals and bans gender-affirming care in federal prisons. Under this order, prison officials allegedly denied transgender prisoners clothing and underwear aligning with their gender identity, assigned guards of the opposite gender to search transgender prisoners, refused gender-affirming care, and harassed transgender inmates regarding their identity. Plaintiff argues that these actions by prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the First Amendment. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the order's enforcement—both generally and as specifically applied to the plaintiff. On June 24, 2025, the case was transferred to the Ocala Division from the Orlando Division.

A group of recipients from the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program, which was funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration in response to the program’s cancellation. The plaintiffs argue that each of them had been awarded at least one grant through the initiative, and that ending the program breached the Constitution’s Presentment Clauses, violated the principle of separation of powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Immigrants and their legal advocates filed a class action against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Attorney General. Plaintiffs challenge a coordinated set of federal immigration enforcement policies that authorize arrests in or near immigration courts, abruptly dismiss removal proceedings, and place noncitizens into expedited removal. Plaintiffs claim the policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs seek class certification for similarly situated noncitizens, an injunction halting the challenged policies, and declaratory relief.