Legal Actions

Civil rights and anti-hate organizations have sued the Trump administration for terminating the congressionally established Anti-Hate Crimes Grant Program. The Trump administration discontinued the Program in April 2025 through mass-mailed notices lacking the individualized explanations required by law. The plaintiffs argue that the abrupt and unexplained termination of the Program violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the separation of powers, and constitutes ultra vires action. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as vacatur of final agency action. On September 23, 2025, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1:25-cv-03676) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:25-cv-03248) because the factual circumstances and claims at issue closely relate to those raise in Vera Institute of Justice v. DOJ (1:25-cv-01643).

The California High-Speed Rail Authority filed this action against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to challenge the FRA’s decision to terminate more than $4 billion in federal grant funding for the California high-speed rail program. The program is a key component of California’s long-term strategic planning to address critical transportation needs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, combat climate change, and promote economic growth in the Central Valley and across the state. President Trump purported to cancel the program’s funding in 2019 during his first term; that decision was later reversed under President Biden following a settlement between the federal government and California. Plaintiff alleges the new termination violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and asks the court to set aside the termination.

A group of education non-profits have sued the Department of Education challenging the termination of over 100 educator preparation grants pursuant to Trump's Executive Order 14151, which ordered the termination of funding for all government programs and grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Federal grants to the plaintiffs, who create programs for teacher preparation and development around the country, were cut because the plaintiffs' programs were deemed to contain DEI content. The plaintiffs argue that the funding cuts violate their Fifth Amendment right to due process, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

Watchdog group American Oversight sued the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Archives, and Marco Rubio (as acting USAID administrator and acting archivist) for allegedly directing USAID staff to shred and burn classified and personnel documents. American Oversight brings claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and alleges that Defendants violated the Federal Records Act by failing to preserve agency records and destroyed key records from the agency's website.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought this lawsuit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The dispute arose after the ACLU submitted FOIA requests to over 40 federal agencies seeking information about the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to sensitive personal data. While many agencies complied or granted expedited processing, SSA denied expedited processing and did not respond to an appeal, and the VA failed to respond altogether. Neither agency released records in response to the ACLU’s requests. The lawsuit claims that both agencies unlawfully withheld records, failed to conduct proper searches, and ignored statutory obligations under FOIA. The ACLU asks the court to compel expedited processing, require the release of responsive documents, prohibit the agencies from charging fees, and award attorneys’ fees. On June 26, 2026, the ACLU withdrew its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

The Building Materials Re-Use Association has sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge its cancellation of the Reducing Embodied GHG Emissions for Construction Materials and Products Program. The plaintiff is a non-profit dedicated to supporting the U.S. building materials reuse industry, and had received a grant through the program. The plaintiff argues that the cancellation of this program violates the separation of powers, the Presentment clause of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Impoundment Control Act. The plaintiff requests that the court declare the cancellation unlawful and order the EPA to reinstate the program.

The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation and two student journalists have sued Secretary Rubio and Secretary Noem over the Trump administration's actions targeting students and university organizations that criticize Israel or express support for Palestinian rights. The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation is a non-profit corporation that operates _The Stanford Daily_, the Stanford University student newspaper. The two individual plaintiffs in this case are student journalists who are present in the U.S. legally and have published pro-Palestinian articles. These students fear deportation based on their pro-Palestinian views. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to deport university students who protest the genocide of Palestinians or express criticism of Israel, and has acted on these threats upon returning to office. The plaintiffs argued that the targeting and deportation of students based on their ideology or political expression violates their First Amendment right to freedom of expression as well as their Fifth Amendment right to due process. The plaintiffs requested that the court declare the deportation of students based on their political beliefs unlawful and issue an injunction preventing further targeting of students for engaging in protected speech.

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.