Policies & Analysis

The plaintiffs in this case are a diverse coalition of non-profits dedicated to providing direct services for the LGBTQ+ community and those living with HIV/AIDS. The plaintiffs have filed suit against the Trump administration challenging three executive orders that terminate federal grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and forbid federally-funded organizations from operating DEI programs. In the first month of his term, President Trump issued three executive orders: EO 14151, EO 14168, and EO 14173, which eliminate DEI programs throughout the federal government, remove legal recognition for transgender people, and order the removal of DEI programs in all institutions that receive federal funding, respectively. The plaintiffs rely upon federal funding in the form of grants and contracts in order to carry out their mission-driven work, and have had their funding terminated under these executive orders. The plaintiffs argued that Executive Orders 14151, 14168, and 14173 violate their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equality under the law. The plaintiffs requested that the court declare executive orders 14151, 14168, and 14173 unconstitutional and issue a permanent injunction preventing the orders from being enforced.

A coalition of sixteen states sued the Trump administration for its attempt to disrupt and terminate grant funding issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The grants were cancelled in response to President Trump's Executive Orders limiting work on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and transgender matters. The plaintiffs allege that the administration does not have the authority to terminate congressionally-appropriated funds. The plaintiffs argue the administration has violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the Public Health Service Act, and federal regulations governing NIH grants. On May 29, 2025, the parties agreed that the case should proceed to the merits without resolution of the requests for temporary relief. They also agreed that the case should proceed on a two-track basis, with the first phase of litigation focusing on the plaintiffs' claims as related to the termination of grants, and the second phase of litigation focusing on plaintiffs' unreasonable-delay claims.

Plaintiffs, a group of parents representing their minor children, have filed suit against the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), its Director, and the Secretary of Defense for the removal or restriction of books and curricular content in federally operated schools for military families. Defendants took such action pursuant to President Trump's executive orders that prohibit materials addressing gender transition, nonbinary identities, or gender fluidity; require removal of “divisive concepts”; and direct curricula revisions to reflect “patriotic values.” The plaintiffs allege that these actions have resulted in widespread censorship and the cancellation of longstanding school events. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint-based censorship and denying students access to information, and that the removal of materials lacked any legitimate educational justification.

The State of Minnesota filed suit against the Trump Administration, challenging President Trump's executive orders that restrict recognition of transgender individuals under federal law, bar the use of federal funds for programs deemed to promote “gender ideology,” reinstate a ban on military service by transgender individuals, prohibit funding for gender-affirming care, and withdraw support from educational institutions that permitted transgender girls to compete in women’s sports. Minnesota argues that these directives unlawfully interfered with the state’s ability to enforce its own laws, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against transgender residents. The complaint also contends that these orders unlawfully coerce Minnesota into compliance by threatening to terminate law enforcement grants awarded to Minnesota public schools and universities, despite those grants being unrelated to athletics. Minnesota further asserts that the President not only lacked authority to condition already-appropriated federal funds on compliance with the executive orders, but also that the actions violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeering the state to implement federal policy. Finally, Minnesota argues that the President's reinterpretation of Title IX to mandate discrimination based on gender identity exceeded statutory limits, and that the Department of Justice’s grant termination threats were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Seven transgender U.S. citizens filed suit against the U.S. Department of State, the Secretary of State, and the United States, challenging a policy requiring passports to identify individuals solely by their sex assigned at birth. Under this policy, some plaintiffs received passports reflecting their birth-assigned sex even after previously having passports that aligned with their gender identity, and in some cases without having submitted a renewal application. The plaintiffs assert that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, their Fifth Amendment rights to travel and privacy, their First Amendment right to free speech, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argue that the policy represents a significant departure from longstanding State Department practice, which historically allowed individuals to update their gender markers to reflect their gender identity and, more recently, provided an option for non-binary markers. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the State Department from issuing passports using sex assigned at birth, as well as attorneys’ fees.

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.

Plaintiff, a transgender woman held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), filed a pro se lawsuit against President Donald Trump, the Attorney General, the BOP Director, and two BOP Wardens. The lawsuit challenges President Trump's Executive Order 14168, which targets transgender individuals and bans gender-affirming care in federal prisons. Under this order, prison officials allegedly denied transgender prisoners clothing and underwear aligning with their gender identity, assigned guards of the opposite gender to search transgender prisoners, refused gender-affirming care, and harassed transgender inmates regarding their identity. Plaintiff argues that these actions by prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the First Amendment. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the order's enforcement—both generally and as specifically applied to the plaintiff. On June 24, 2025, the case was transferred to the Ocala Division from the Orlando Division.

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.

The City of Seattle has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for threatening to withhold federal grants from recipients that recognize the rights of transgender people and refuse to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Specifically, Executive Order 14168 removes legal recognition of transgender people by the government, and Executive Order 14173 orders the removal of DEI programs in all institutions that receive federal funding. The City of Seattle argues that threatening to withhold federal funding for a city due to the city's policies recognizing transgender rights and operating DEI programs violates the separation of powers, the Fifth and Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause of the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The City seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Two high-ranking transgender Air Force service members have sued the Trump administration to prevent their discharge from military service. After President Trump issued an executive order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, these service members were pulled from their assignments and sent home. Because the plaintiffs in this case are now covered by the case Talbott v. USA, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on May 15, 2025.

Three transgender people currently incarcerated in federal custody have filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration's new Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy that prohibit their access to gender-affirming care. The plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical providers but have had their treatments suspended. The plaintiffs argue that this BOP policy violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments,” the equal protection requirement of the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.

The State of Maine and its Department of Natural Resources have sued the Trump administration for cancelling a $9 million federal grant; this grant had been awarded to support a project aimed at restoring tidal salt marshes and protecting Maine’s coastal infrastructure from flooding. The plaintiffs claim the termination was unexplained and retaliatory, targeting the state due to its protections for transgender rights. The plaintiffs argue that the administration is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Take Care Clause, the Separation of Powers, the Appropriations Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.

 A nationwide group of 17 state domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for conditioning federal funding on adherence to certain political and ideological positions related to transgender rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and immigration policy. The plaintiffs argued that these conditions violated the statutory requirements of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Administrative Procedure Act, the Spending Clause, the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the First and Fifth Amendments.

Several arts organizations have sued the Trump administration in response to Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Following this EO, these arts organizations lost federal grants as they appeared to be "promoting gender ideology." This lawsuit asserts that the NEA’s “gender ideology” prohibition is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments.

A group of five transgender women who are currently incarcerated in women's prisons have sued the Trump administration for issuing Executive Order 14168, which removed established legal recognition and protection for transgender people. The plaintiffs have sued the Trump administration To block their transfer to men's prisons and maintain access to gender affirming-care. The plaintiffs argued that Executive Order 14168 violates their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law, as well as their Eighth Amendment Right to protection and medical care while incarcerated. On June 4, 2025, the defendants in this case appealed the preliminary injunction in this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. On June 12, 2025, this case was consolidated with Doe v. McHenry and Moe v. Trump.

Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, two teenage transgender girls, were denied the right to participate in girls' sports at their public high schools in New Hampshire due to a state law, HB 1205, which banned transgender girls from all school sports. In August 2024, Tirelle and Turmelle sued their state and local school boards, challenging the New Hampshire law, and have since expanded their suit to challenge the Trump administration's two executive orders banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports.

A group of transgender individuals have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging a new passport policy that requires sex designations on passports to reflect the sex assigned "at conception". On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, which removed established legal recognition and protection for transgender people by requiring that they be identified only by their birth sex, which consequently denies transgender individuals from updating their passports and government documents to reflect their chosen gender identity. The plaintiffs in this case are citizens who have been prevented from selecting their gender identity on their U.S. passports. The plaintiffs argue that this executive order violates their Fifth Amendment right to equality under the law by discriminating against them on the basis of sex, as well as their Fifth Amendment rights to privacy and freedom of movement.

The plaintiffs in this case are transgender women who are incarcerated in a women's prisons. As a result of Executive Order 14168, which removed established legal recognition and protection for transgender people by requiring that they be identified only by their birth sex, these women are at risk of being transferred to men's prison facilities and denied access to gender-affirming medical treatment. The plaintiffs have sued the Trump administration in order to block their transfer to a men's prison facilities and maintain gender affirming-care. The plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law, as well as their Eighth Amendment right to protection and medical care while incarcerated. The plaintiffs request that the court declare Executive Order 14168 unlawful and unenforceable. On June 12, 2025, this case was consolidated with Jones v. Trump and Moe v. Trump.

Maria Moe is a transgender woman who was incarcerated in a women's prison. As a result of Executive Order 14168, which removed established legal recognition and protection for transgender people by requiring that they be identified only by their birth sex, Moe was at risk of being transferred to a men's prison facility and denied access to gender-affirming medical treatment. Moe has sued the Trump administration in order to block her transfer to a men's prison facility and maintain gender affirming-care. The case argues that the executive order denies her right to due process and equal protection under the law, as well as her right to medical care as prisoner. On June 12, 2025, this case was consolidated with Doe v. McHenry and Jones v. Trump.