Legal Actions

Non-profit conservation organizations have sued the Trump administration to stop the construction of Alligator Alcatraz. The plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have violated both federal and state environmental laws by failing to conduct necessary environmental reviews, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by acting arbitrarily and capriciously.

A group of 16 state attorneys general have sued the Trump administration for discontinued mental health funding provided to high-need, low-income, and rural schools. The plaintiffs claim this decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the funding cut notices are arbitrary and capricious.

The City of Columbus, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the City of Chicago, Doctors for America, and Main Street Alliance have challenged the new 2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and implemented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Plaintiffs argue that this rule undermines the availability of insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctions to vacate the 2025 Rule.

A group of 20 states, led by the state of California, have sued the Trump administration for sharing Medicaid patients' private information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Trump administration has altered Medicaid rules to allow patient information to be shared with immigration enforcement in order to prevent non-citizens from receiving Medicaid benefits. The plaintiffs argue that these changes violate the Medicare and Medicaid Act as well as the Social Security Act.

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).

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the USDA's demand that the plaintiffs submit the personal information of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. The USDA has threatened to withhold administrative funding from states that refuse to turn over SNAP recipients' data. The plaintiffs argue that the USDA's demands violate multiple privacy laws and exceed the USDA's statutory authority.

A coalition of twenty-one states have filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Plaintiffs challenge a June 2025 Final Rule promulgated by HHS, which they allege imposes multiple new barriers to enrollment under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Final Rule shortens open enrollment periods, increases verification requirements for special enrollment, imposes a $5 monthly charge on certain $0-premium enrollees, and excludes gender-affirming care from coverage defined as Essential Health Benefits. Plaintiffs contend that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with the ACA, and was issued after only a 23-day comment period without adequate justification. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including vacatur of the Final Rule, to prevent its implementation.

This class action lawsuit, brought on behalf of immigrants detained at so-called “Alligator Alcatraz,” challenges the government's unconstitutional limits on attorney-client communications for people held in civil immigration custody. Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against Secretary Kristi Noem, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ICE’s Acting Director and Miami Field Office Director, the Governor of Florida, the Director of Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Florida Division of Emergency Management and its Executive Director, alleging that defendants are preventing detainees from communicating with legal counsel and from filing motions with the immigration court. Plaintiffs argue these actions violate the First Amendment, and they seek declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 20, 2025, the case was transferred from the Southern District of Florida (1:25-cv-23182) to the Middle District of Florida.