Legal Actions

Neonu Jewell, the former Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer and EEO Director at the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC), has filed suit against the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the DFC. Jewell alleges that she was unlawfully placed on administrative leave and later terminated without severance, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. Jewell alleges that her classification as a “DEIA employee” was inaccurate and stigmatizing, and that her termination violated her rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. She further claims she was denied reassignment and severance benefits provided to similarly situated employees, and that DFC’s actions were retaliatory and based on her perceived political views.

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.

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.

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.

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) has sued the Department of the Interior over the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)'s decision to approve a potash mining project, the Sevier Playa Potash Project (SPP), located in Utah's West Desert. SUWA alleged that the BLM failed to meet the standards of environmental impact review before approving the project. SUWA further argued that by approving the project, BLM violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act.