Legal Actions

A coalition of Head Start associations and parent groups challenged the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle Head Start, a program Congress created in 1965 to provide free, high-quality early education and childcare to low-income families. The administration’s budget proposes eliminating Head Start by the end of fiscal year 2025, and federal agencies have already withheld nearly $1 billion in funding compared to the previous year. Plaintiffs argue that the administration has taken unlawful steps to eliminate the program, including by freezing funds nationwide, issuing guidance that penalizes grantees for diversity and inclusion initiatives, and amending grant terms to require certifications that agencies will not promote DEI programming. The Trump administration also shuttered half of the Office of Head Start’s regional offices, leaving agencies in 23 states without essential oversight or funding support. These disruptions have already forced providers to suspend services and displace children and staff. Plaintiffs argue these actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Spending Clause, the separation of powers, Congressional Appropriations, the Head Start Act, and the Rehabilitation Act by attempting to eliminate a congressionally mandated program without authorization. They also contend that the DEI restrictions are unconstitutionally vague and unlawfully suppress speech.

Nineteen states filed suit challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s April 3 Agency Action, which directed State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to complete a new certification related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under longstanding practice, SEAs and LEAs provide written assurances that they comply with Title VI as a condition of receiving federal education funds that support programs for low-income students, special education, English language learners, teacher recruitment and training, and other critical services. The plaintiffs allege that the April 3 Agency Action departs from this established process and imposes new, vague, and unlawful requirements that effectively condition billions of dollars in federal funding on agreement with an unsupported interpretation of Title VI. The States argue that the action exceeds statutory authority, fails to comply with required procedural safeguards, and threatens the immediate withdrawal of essential federal funds, creating severe harm to students, including those with disabilities and other vulnerable populations. The States reaffirmed their existing Title VI certifications but declined to comply with the April 3 Agency Action, asserting that it is unlawful, unconstitutional, and unauthorized.

Three nonprofit organizations filed suit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), challenging the elimination of three statutory offices within DHS: the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Office (CIS-Omb), and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO). CRCL is responsible for receiving and adjudicating civil rights complaints, CIS-Omb assists individuals and employers with immigration-related issues, and OIDO monitors and reports on legal compliance and professional standards at detention facilities. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants exceeded their authority by shuttering these offices and that the actions violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs ask the court to set aside Defendants' actions.

A group of municipalities and a municipal employees’ union filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), challenging the abrupt termination of over $11 billion in federal grants designated for outbreak prevention and COVID-19 response programs. The plaintiffs contend that the agencies failed to follow statutory requirements that mandate evaluating each grant recipient individually for any alleged violations of federal law or the Constitution before rescinding funding. Instead, the agencies canceled the grants collectively without identifying any specific legal violations by recipients. The plaintiffs assert that the agencies’ actions violated the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory relief, reinstatement of the terminated grants, resumption of normal program operations, and attorneys’ fees.

Opportunity Finance Network (OFN) filed this action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA Administrator, and Citibank, N.A., after its federal grant funding under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator program was frozen. OFN, a nonprofit that channels funding to Community Development Financial Institutions and related partners, had been awarded funds through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for projects promoting low- and zero-emission technologies. Under the grant agreement, Citibank held and released the funds at OFN’s request. Beginning in March 2025, however, Citibank stopped releasing money, and shortly thereafter OFN received a grant termination notice from the EPA. OFN alleged that the EPA’s termination of its grant was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, inconsistent with the Inflation Reduction Act’s funding mandate, and in violation of constitutional principles including the Appropriations Clause, separation of powers, and due process. Against Citibank, OFN raised breach of contract and related claims for refusing to release the funds. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement of the grant and an order requiring Citibank to release the funds. On May 9, 2025, the parties jointly requested consolidation with Climate United Fund v. Citibank (25-cv-00698), noting that both cases concerned the same statutory and regulatory framework. They also agreed that the preliminary injunction already issued in Climate United Fund, which barred the EPA from terminating grants and prevented the withdrawal of funds from Citibank, would apply equally to OFN’s grant. The court consolidated the actions, designating Climate United Fund as the lead case. All further filings and proceedings in OFN’s matter are now incorporated into that litigation.

The Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC), a nonprofit serving the legal needs of sex-based harassment victims, along with multiple minor students and their parents, filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education. The plaintiffs challenge a reduction-in-force (RIF) at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that terminated nearly half of OCR's workforce and closed seven of OCR’s twelve regional offices. The complaint alleges that these actions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and that the RIF was ultra vires because it left OCR unable to fulfill its statutory obligations to investigate civil rights complaints. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief to vacate the RIF and prevent the Department from enforcing it.

The plaintiff in this case, A.S.R., a Venezuelan national, filed suit against President Trump and various federal officials challenging the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and deport noncitizens without due process. A.S.R. brought the action as a class petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of himself and other Venezuelan nationals allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. The suit followed the Supreme Court’s reversal of a temporary restraining order in a related case, J.G.G. v. Trump, which had initially blocked similar removals. A.S.R. challenged Proclamation No. 10903, which directed the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of TdA. At the time the petition was filed, A.S.R. was held in Pennsylvania, although the government transferred him to Texas later the same day. The court confirmed jurisdiction, finding that custody at the time of filing established standing. A.S.R. sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent removal and ensure due process under the AEA.

The plaintiffs in this case are two Venezuelan nationals, representing themselves and a putative class of similarly situated detainees, who challenged the federal government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove noncitizens allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The plaintiffs argued that their detention and potential removal violated due process because they were not given proper notice or an opportunity to pursue habeas relief in the districts where they were held. This case followed a Supreme Court ruling in a related class action, which clarified that AEA detainees must receive timely notice and the ability to file habeas petitions in the appropriate district rather than proceeding through a nationwide class action. The plaintiffs filed this action in Texas to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, with a third detainee subsequently joining the case.