Legal Actions

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have sued the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (ED), and Labor (DOL), challenging recent changes to the interpretation and implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) that require verification of individuals' lawful status before accessing certain services and programs. Plaintiffs contend that the changes improperly expand PRWORA’s reach to dozens of programs that have historically not required verification. Plaintiffs argue that the defendants' actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the PRWORA, and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the actions are unlawful, vacatur of the challenged interpretations, and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting enforcement. 

A coalition of nonprofit organizations that provide services to survivors of domestic violence, victims of sexual assault, and homeless individuals filed suit against the Trump administration to challenge a number of federal grant conditions, including anti-diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI/DEIA) requirements, “Gender Ideology” conditions under Executive Order 14168, and a “Housing and Urban Development Abortion Condition” under Executive Order 14182. Plaintiffs assert that these conditions are ideologically motivated and arbitrary, lack statutory authorization, and do not advance the purposes of the grant programs. Plaintiffs further assert that the conditions expose grantees to civil and criminal liability under the False Claims Act. Plaintiffs argue that the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, and the First and Fifth Amendments, and argue that the rules are otherwise ultra vires. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged conditions are unlawful, vacatur of the conditions and related grant decisions, and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting enforcement.

The State of Washington filed this action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to challenge the termination of the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), a congressional grant program supporting non-federal entities providing services to noncitizen migrants released by DHS. The plaintiff alleges that the Administration’s actions—pausing, withholding, and ultimately terminating the grant—were unlawful and exceeded federal authority, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and were otherwise ultra vires. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to restore the SSP funding and ensure compliance with federal law.

FreeState Justice, a nonprofit providing free legal services to Maryland's LGBTQ+ community, has filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over the EEOC's new policy of refusing to enforce nondiscrimination protections for transgender workers. The plaintiff argues that the EEOC’s non-enforcement policy violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the precedent set by Bostock v. Clayton County. FreeState Justice requested that the court declare the EEOC's non-enforcement policy unlawful and require the EEOC to fulfill its statutory duty to protect transgender workers from discrimination.

A coalition of faith groups have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prevent deportation raids from occurring in their places of worship. On January 21, 2025, DHS announced they would rescind the policy prohibiting deportation raids in "sensitive locations," particularly places of worship. The plaintiffs argue that the new rule allowing raids in sensitive locations violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Three Planned Parenthood affiliates filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging new conditions imposed on funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program. The plaintiffs allege that HHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by acting arbitrarily and capriciously and acting contrary to law. The plaintiffs also argue that HHS violated their due process and First Amendment rights by conditioning grant funding on compliance with Executive Orders 14151, 14173, and 14187.

The City of Seattle has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for threatening to withhold federal grants from recipients that recognize the rights of transgender people and refuse to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Specifically, Executive Order 14168 removes legal recognition of transgender people by the government, and Executive Order 14173 orders the removal of DEI programs in all institutions that receive federal funding. The City of Seattle argues that threatening to withhold federal funding for a city due to the city's policies recognizing transgender rights and operating DEI programs violates the separation of powers, the Fifth and Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause of the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The City seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

A coalition of states has filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's Executive Order 14187, which attempts to criminalize gender affirming care for people under the age of 19. The plaintiffs are states in which gender-affirming care for transgender minors is legally permitted and protected. The plaintiffs claim that the federal government has made threats of civil and criminal prosecution against providers of gender-affirming care and demanded that providers hand over sensitive personal information about their patients. The plaintiffs argue that Executive Order 14187 violates the Administrative Procedure Act as well as their Tenth Amendment Rights. The plaintiffs requested that the court declare Executive Order 14187 unlawful as well as issue a statement clarifying that gender-affirming care does not violate anti-genital mutilation laws.