Legal Actions

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.

A coalition of immigrant advocacy organizations and individual temporary protected status (TPS) recipients from Haiti and Venezuela have filed a lawsuit against the Trump-Vance administration challenging the decision to vacate TPS extensions for Haitian and Venezuelan migrants that the Biden administration had granted. The decision requires TPS for Haitians to expire in August 2025 and TPS for Venezuelans to expire on April 7, 2025. The plaintiffs argued that the decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as TPS holders' Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Haitian Bridge Alliance and a group of individuals who have either filed an application to sponsor a beneficiary of humanitarian parole or have received humanitarian parole. The plaintiffs have sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), challenging Executive Order 14165, which directed DHS to terminate all humanitarian parole programs. The plaintiffs argue that the Executive Order violates the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment right to due process, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. On April 18, the defendants appealed the stay of parole terminations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which denied the appeal. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted defendants' appeal.

Seven pseudonymous plaintiffs are challenging the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) deployment of a government-wide mass email system, without first conducting and publishing a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), which is legally required. The government-wide mass email system was conducted in coordination with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The plaintiffs argue that OPM collected and stored their sensitive personal information without necessary privacy safeguards, which was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the E-Government Act of 2002.

The National TPS Alliance and individual TPS holders sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its Secretary, and the United States, challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. Plaintiffs argue that the terminations, carried out under Executive Order 14159 "Protecting the American People Against Invasion," were preordained, based on discriminatory animus, and not grounded in an objective assessment of country conditions. They argue these terminations violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, the Administrative Procedure Act, and statutory requirements governing TPS.

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.

Planned Parenthood affiliates across the United States filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), challenging new ideological and policy-based conditions imposed on Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP) grants. Plaintiffs allege the imposition of these conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and asked the court to block enforcement of revised Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) that conditioned TPP funding on compliance with three executive orders: Executive Order 1415, Executive Order 14173, and Executive Order 14187. Plaintiffs argued that HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in imposing unauthorized conditions that departed from Congress’s requirement that TPP grants fund evidence-based programs. They also alleged that the conditions violated due process by imposing vague and retroactive requirements and exceeded HHS’s statutory authority by converting a science-based program into one driven by ideological conformity. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their APA or due process claims, nor demonstrated irreparable harm, as the restrictions did not immediately threaten existing grants. Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On July 11, however, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice and, by joint stipulation, dismissed their appeal. On July 29, 2025, the lawsuit was refiled in the District of Columbia under docket number 1:25-cv-02453. For updates on the new case, please refer to docket number 1:25-cv-02453.

American Oversight filed suit challenging the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) practice of conducting official business on ephemeral platforms such as Signal and Google Docs. The plaintiff alleged that these practices violated the Federal Records Act (FRA) by failing to properly preserve government records and that defendants withheld non-exempt information in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The complaint also invoked the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that defendants did not conduct reasonable searches for responsive records in response to FOIA requests. American Oversight seeks a declaration that DOGE’s communications are subject to federal record-keeping requirements, an order requiring compliance with FOIA requests, an injunction preventing continued noncompliance, and attorneys’ fees.