Legal Actions

A group of trade organizations and unions have sued the Trump administration for intending to shut down the Job Corps program. These actions included halting background checks for new students, canceling pending or outstanding Job Corps procurements, terminating internet services, drastically reducing the Department of Labor's (DOL) budget for Job Corps, and canceling contracts with Job Corps center operators. Notices of contract cancellation directed centers to send students home and begin shutdown procedures. The plaintiffs contended that the DOL's actions exceeded its statutory authority, were contrary to law, and were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argued that the actions were ultra vires and violated the Constitution's separation of powers. The plaintiffs sought a court declaration that the defendants' actions were unlawful, an injunction preventing the defendants from eliminating the Job Corps program, and an award of court costs.

The cities of Chicago, Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle brought this action against the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security to enjoin the Trump administration's freeze on funding under the Securing the Cities counterterrorism program. Congress created the program to prevent nuclear and other terrorist attacks in high-risk urban areas, requiring DHS to provide resources to local governments through cooperative agreements. Until early 2025, DHS routinely reimbursed Plaintiffs within days for approved expenditures. Beginning in February 2025, however, DHS stopped processing reimbursements despite acknowledging that Plaintiffs’ requests were approved. DHS employees told Plaintiffs that “all” payments were “on pause,” and on May 14, 2025, DHS directed Securing the Cities regions to halt purchases of nuclear and radiological detection equipment due to supposed “funding constraints.” DHS has also failed to issue new awards for 2025, creating the risk that Plaintiffs’ programs will collapse when their current budget periods expire. Plaintiffs argue that this freeze has already impaired public safety by forcing cancellations of vendor work and critical training. Plaintiffs contend DHS’s funding freeze is unlawful and unconstitutional. They argue the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to appropriate funds and requires the executive branch to carry out those laws, not withhold them. They further argue that DHS has violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to reimburse approved requests within 30 days, as required by regulation, and by withholding funds without any finding that the requests were improper. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs, a national nonprofit membership association and a group of scholars whose grants were terminated, filed this class action against the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Plaintiffs are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s termination of over 1,400 NEH grants. The scholar plaintiffs had each received NEH grants to fund their humanities projects, which were abruptly terminated without notice. Plaintiffs allege the grant terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Impoundment Control Act, the Appropriations Act, separation of powers, and the First Amendment. The court consolidated this case with American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (1:25-cv-03657), which also challenged Trump Administration grant cancellations.

The class action lawsuit challenges an Interim Final Rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that created new barriers to releasing unaccompanied noncitizen children to relatives. The Rule required potential sponsors to present government-issued identification and proof of income. Plaintiffs argue these requirements violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and due process by undermining the right to family unity.

Two research organizations brought a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, challenging measures affecting the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and its affiliated centers. IES, under the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), is responsible for gathering, evaluating, and disseminating educational data to enhance both the scope and quality of information on U.S. education policies and practices. The plaintiffs allege that the Department’s actions—including terminating the majority of IES contracts with independent contractors and implementing a nearly 50% workforce reduction—interfere with its statutory responsibilities. These actions followed a presidential executive order directing the Department to take steps, to the extent permitted by law, toward a potential closure. The plaintiffs claim that the Department exceeded its statutory authority, acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and contravened separation of powers principles.

The American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association, have sued the Trump administration to challenge the dismantlement of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The Trump administration has eliminated nearly all of its programs and conducted mass staff layoffs. Plaintiffs argue this abrupt cancellation of grants and termination of staff not only disrupts ongoing scholarly work but also infringes on the free expression rights of grant recipients. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ actions violate several legal and constitutional provisions, including separation of powers principles, the Impoundment Control Act, appropriations law, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the First Amendment. During the litigation, the case was consolidated with The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities (1:25-cv-03657)—a related lawsuit challenging similar actions by NEH.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), its Board, and individual Board members are challenging President Trump's removal of three CPB Board members. The plaintiffs argue that the President lacked the authority to remove these board members from the congressionally-created private corporation. They claim that these actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act; the separation of powers; and the Presentment, Appropriations, and Take Care Clauses of the Constitution. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the removal of Board members Laura G. Ross, Thomas E. Rothman, and Diane Kaplan illegal and without legal effect, and they ask the court to enjoin the defendants from taking further action to this effect.

Plaintiffs Todd Harper, Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Tanya Otsuka, an NCUA board member, sued the Trump administration following their April 2025 terminations. Harper and Otsuka were nominated by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate to fixed terms. The plaintiffs argue that their removals violated 12 U.S.C. § 1752a(c), which permits dismissal of NCUA board members only “for cause.” They also claim their removals violate the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional separation-of-powers principles. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable relief, reinstatement, and attorneys’ fees.