Legal Actions

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 coalition of states has filed a lawsuit challenging the "Defund Provision" of the Trump administration's budget reconciliation law, titled "the Big Beautiful Bill." The Defund Provision blocks Medicaid reimbursements for essential healthcare services provided by Planned Parenthood. The plaintiffs argue that this measure violates the Spending Clause of the Constitution because the Defund Provision does not provide clear notice, is ambiguous, and unlawfully targets Planned Parenthood for their speech. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the Defund Provision unconstitutional and enjoin the defendants from enforcing the provision.

Plaintiffs, local government entities responsible for emergency management and public safety, bring this action against Defendants the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and their officials in their official capacities. Plaintiffs challenge DHS’s imposition of new “Standard Terms and Conditions” on federal disaster-preparedness and recovery grants, which require adherence to the Administration’s political agenda through disputed anti-discrimination, immigration cooperation, and executive order compliance requirements. Plaintiffs allege these conditions are unlawful because they exceed the Executive Branch’s statutory authority, violate the separation of powers, and impose unconstitutional conditions on federal funding in contravention of the Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the challenged conditions and bar Defendants from applying or enforcing them in connection with their DHS and FEMA grants.

The plaintiff, a labor organization representing thousands of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees, challenges President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14343 and NASA’s implementation of it. Plaintiff alleges that the Executive Order unlawfully strips collective bargaining rights from federal employees, including those at NASA, despite statutory protections under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), and is ultra vires and unconstitutional. The claims are brought under the First and Fifth Amendments, asserting that the EO improperly targets employees for protected activity and infringes on their rights. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating EO 14343 and prohibiting its enforcement.

Venezuelan immigrants sued the Trump administration in response to a proclamation that deemed the Nicaraguan gang, Tren de Aragua, to be a foreign nation or government engaged in an “invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States. The proclamation, which is based on the Alien Enemies Act, ordered the Department of Homeland Security to promptly remove alleged members of Tren de Aragua from the United States. The plaintiffs argue that the Alien Enemies Act had no application in this situation and violates immigration law.

Plaintiffs, a class of similarly situated federal probationary employees from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services, the Navy, and the General Services Administration, bring this action against the cabinet secretaries and leaders of administrative departments of the federal government seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs challenge their summary terminations, which they allege were unlawfully ordered by the Office of Personnel Management and falsely attributed to poor performance, as violations of their Fifth Amendment due process rights. They claim these actions were illegal under the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), constituting a de facto unlawful reduction in force without due process or factual basis. Plaintiffs request that the Court order their reinstatement to active work status and direct defendant agencies to publicly correct the record to clear their professional reputations.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sued the Trump administration for withholding access to nearly $240 million in congressionally-allotted funding. NED, a congressionally-created nonprofit, receives grants from the State Department to carry out its mission of promoting democracy and civil liberties around the world. NED alleges that since January 2025, the federal government has denied NED access to its legally-mandated funding in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A coalition of teachers' unions and school districts sued the Department of Education challenging the "Dear Colleague Letter," which threatens to withhold funding from any educational institution that engages in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts or teaches accurate histories of race and slavery. The plaintiffs argue that this policy violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and free association, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.