At the beginning of Donald Trump's second presidential term, he signed a series of executive orders. Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action.^[1] He issued more executive orders on his first day than any previous president.^[2] In the administration's first two months, 127 lawsuits were filed against it, according to data from New York University.^[3] In his first weeks, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars.^[4][5][6]

Many cases have been brought in response to Executive Order 14158, establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).^[7][8] Trump identified billionaire and tech CEO, Elon Musk, as leading DOGE, although he did not hold the office of DOGE Administrator.^[9] Musk began federal cost-cutting measures, including layoffs, shutting down departments and agencies, ending aid, and removing programs, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.^[10]

The Trump administration has claimed that they have wide powers to bypass Congressional oversight,^[11] while many others believe these actions to be unconstitutional.^[12] By mid-July, a Washington Post analysis found he defied judges and the courts in roughly one third of all cases against him, actions which were described by legal experts as unprecedented for any presidential administration.^[13] His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis.^[14]

Federal judges found many of the administration's actions to be illegal.^[15] By August 2025, several grant terminations and spending freezes were found by judges and the Government Accountability Office as being illegal and unconstitutional.^[16][17][18] His attempt to remove birthright citizenship was called "blatantly unconstitutional" by Reagan-appointed judge John C. Coughenour,^[19] and judges have also described other actions to be unconstitutional such as his unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers as part of his wider actions targeting political opponents and civil society.^[20][21][22]

Multiple analyses conducted by academic scholars and The New York Times found that both Republican and Democratic judicial appointees have found numerous constitutional and statutory flaws with Trump administration policies.^[23] On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions cannot be issued by a federal district court. Following this decision, preliminary injunction may only provide relief for a plaintiff and may not block the implementation of the orders nationwide.^[24]

Several organizations are tracking the cases that have been filed against the second Trump administration, including the Associated Press,^[25] the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse,^[26] Court Watch,^[27] Just Security,^[28] Lawfare,^[29] and The Washington Post.^[30] These organizations vary in the number of cases they're tracking, whether and how they group kinds of cases, how much information is provided about each case, whether and how they characterize cases' progress, and whether they link to the case docket. For example, as of January 3, 2026, the Associated Press was tracking 358 cases, grouping them in one of 14 categories (e.g., "Immigration"), describing each with a phrase or sentence, characterizing their progress in one of three ways (i.e., "Partially or fully blocked: 149", "Court left in effect: 102", and "Pending: 107"), and not linking to the case dockets, whereas Just Security was tracking 552 cases, grouping them into more and narrower categories (e.g., "Immigration enforcement against places of worship and schools", "Immigration and citizenship", "Access of lawyers to immigrants in detention"), describing each with one or more paragraphs, characterizing their progress in more and narrower categories (e.g., "Government Action Blocked Pending Appeal: 28", "Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 22"), and linking to each case's docket.^[25][28]

Color key

Case name	Date filed	Case summary	Outcome
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00716[31] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5241[32]	March 11, 2025	On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14230, barring the federal government from using the services of law firm Perkins Coie and suspending security clearances.[33] On May 2, the court granted summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP and on June 30, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.[34]	Summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP Appeal is ongoing
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00917[35] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5277[36]	March 28, 2025	On March 27, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14250, ending contracts with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr clients. The executive order cited their ties to Robert Mueller who led the Mueller special counsel investigation.[37] On May 27, the court declared the executive order unconstitutional and on June 6, the firm amended the judgement, seeking to extend it to all federal agencies, not just the ones named in the complaint. On July 28, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.[38]	Summary judgement for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Appeal is ongoing
Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00916[39] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5265[40]	March 28, 2025	On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14246, suspending security clearances for the employees of Jenner & Block, restricted their access to federal buildings, and directed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. It cited the firm's prior association with Andrew Weissmann who was involved in the Mueller special counsel investigation.[41] On May 23, the court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment. On July 22, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.	Summary judgement for Jenner & Block Appeal is ongoing
Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01107[42] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5310[43]	April 11, 2025	On April 9, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14263, suspending Susman Godfrey LLP's security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and directing agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. The court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment.[44] On August 26, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit.	Summary judgement for Susman Godfrey LLP Appeal is ongoing
Doe 1 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01124[45]	April 15, 2025	Three law students filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the government's investigation against the law firms violated their reasonable expectation of privacy.[46]	Ongoing
American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01263[47]	April 23, 2025	The American Bar Association (ABA) alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully terminating grants to the ABA Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence.[48]	Preliminary injunction granted Ongoing
Zaid v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01365[49]	May 5, 2025	On March 22, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum, rescinding security clearances and access to classified information to a number of lawyers, including Mark Zaid.[50]	Ongoing
American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01888[51]	June 16, 2025	The American Bar Association alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and separation of powers by targeting law firms such as suspending their security clearances and cutting off federal contracts.[52]	Ongoing

Case name	Date filed	Case summary	Outcome
Baraka v. Habba (D.N.J.), 2:25-cv-06846[53]	June 3, 2025	Further information: Newark immigration detention center incident On May 9, 2025, Newark mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing after protesting against the opening of a new immigration detention facility.[54] Baraka was released on bail and the charges were dropped.[55] After the charges were dropped, Baraka announced that he was suing for damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution and accused the prosecutor, Alina Habba of defamation for comments that she had made about the arrest on X (formerly known as Twitter).[56]	Ongoing
Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission (D.D.C) 1:25-cv-01959[57] Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5302[58]	June 23, 2025	Media Matters for America filed a lawsuit over an FTC investigation into the organization organizing an advertiser boycott of Twitter under Elon Musk.	Preliminary injunction granted[59] Ongoing
American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03553[60]	October 3, 2025	In the run-up to the 2025 federal government shutdown, the Department of Education demanded that furloughed workers set up an out-of-office e-mail message. That message was later changed without their knowledge to include partisan language blaming the shutdown on "Democrat Senators." The union sued on First Amendment grounds, and an expedited summary judgement went for the plaintiffs ordering for the removal of the messages.[61]	Summary judgement for union
Aaron v. Bondi (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04250[62][63]	December 8, 2025	The developer of the ICEBlock app claimed in a lawsuit that the government violated the First Amendment when it threatened him with criminal charges and pressured Apple to remove it from the app store.[64] See also: ICEBlock	Ongoing
O’Hara v. Beck (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-03753[65]	October 23, 2025	The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man who claims he was handcuffed and detained soley for following a Ohio National Guard patrol while playing "The Imperial March", Darth Vader's theme from The Empire Strikes Back, on his phone. He is suing the District of Columbia for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights.[66]	Ongoing
Longworth v. Trump (D. Or.), 6:25-cv-02268[67]	December 5, 2025	In November of 2025, federal agents arrested and threatened to arrest protesters for using bullhorns citing new regulations prohibiting loud noises near federal property instead of on the property.[68]	Preliminary injunction granted Ongoing
Swalwell v. Pulte (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04125[69]	November 25, 2025	After Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi alleging that representative Eric Swalwell may have committed mortgage fraud[70], Swalwell sued claiming Pulte "abused his authority" in retaliation for his speech, violating the First Amendment and the Privacy Act of 1974.[71]	Ongoing
UAW v. Department of State (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-08566[72]	October 16, 2026	Three labor unions (United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America and American Federation of Teachers) sued multiple agencies in the federal government on First Amendment grounds after the State Department claimed it revoked the visas of six people due to their comments on social media about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.[73]	Ongoing
Kelly v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00081[74]	January 12, 2026	After Senator Mark Kelly and five other congressional Democrats made a video reminding service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to reduce his military rank and pension as punishment. Kelly sued, arguing the comments were first amendment protected.[75]	Preliminary injunction granted Ongoing
NewsGuard Technologies v. Federal Trade Commission (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00353[76]	February 6, 2026	NewsGuard Technologies sued the Federal Trade Commission responding to what the FTC claims was a probe into illegal advertising boycotts of conservative websites. The company says the probe is retaliation and a free speech violation. "Chairman Ferguson does not like NewsGuard’s news ratings," says the lawsuit adding "The First Amendment does not allow the government to pick and choose speech based on what it likes or dislikes.”[77]	Ongoing

Case name	Date filed	Case summary	Status
Taylor v. Trump I (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01161[78]	April 16, 2025	21 former death row inmates who had their sentence commuted to life without parole by the Biden administration sued the Trump administration for bypassing statutorily-required procedures for reassignment of 37 such prisoners, by using Executive Order 14164 to move 36 of them (including plaintiffs) to ADX Florence (the only "supermax" prison in the US), despite the Federal Bureau of Prisons determining that they were not suitable for transfer to ADX Florence, they also requested a temporary restraining order (TRO).[79] The court converted the TRO request to a preliminary injunction motion, which was denied since the administrative process had not been exhausted. It noted in the Memorandum and Opinion "Still, the Court expects that the Bureau of Prisons—if, as it asserts, it is applying its normal process here—will follow what it maintains is the usual practice of not transferring Plaintiffs before their administrative appeals conclude."[80]	Preliminary injunction denied. Briefing suspended by plaintiffs October 10, 2025.
Taylor v. Trump II 1:25-cv-03742[81]	October 21, 2025	A related case to the above filed under seal, pursuant to a minute order granting motion to file under seal. A motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) was also filed.[82] On October 28, 2025, the court issued a minute order requiring the government to "48 hours written notice on the record of any transfer of Plaintiffs to ADX." while the TRO was taken under advisement.	Minute order requiring 48 hours notice issued.

The second Trump administration has faced controversy for the unauthorized use of copyrighted works such as music, television shows, and visual art in social media posts, especially posts by the Department of Homeland Security promoting its deportation agenda. Many musicians and other copyright owners have publicly condemned the government's use of their works, and some of the posts have been taken down or their audio muted. However, no copyright infringement lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration to date.^[83][84]

Case name	Date filed	Case summary	Outcome
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00313[85]	February 3, 2025	Federal employee unions sued the Treasury Department for granting DOGE access to sensitive financial data without legal justification, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act.[86]	Preliminary injunction denied
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00339[87]	February 5, 2025	The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations are suing the Department of Labor for allowing DOGE access to confidential agency records. The court denied the plaintiff's preliminary injunction and stated that they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.[88]	Preliminary injunction denied
State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01144[89] Appealed to 2nd Cir., 25-1860[90]	February 7, 2025	19 states, led by New York sued President Donald Trump and the United States Department of the Treasury claiming that they unlawfully expanded access to Treasury financial systems to DOGE, risking unauthorized data use and potential misuse of federal funds. On 21 February, a preliminary injunction was granted, barring the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE.[91] On April 11 the judge allowed one DOGE staffer access, and on May 27 allowed four more DOGE staffers and cleared the way for the entire DOGE team to get access.[92]	Preliminary injunction granted
University of California Student Association v. Carter (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00354[93]	February 7, 2025	The University of California Student Association sued over the United States Department of Education's decision to allow DOGE to access student financial records, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Internal Revenue Code and the Privacy Act. Judge Randolph D. Moss denied the plaintiff's TRO, stating that access to view data did not create irreparable injury and on April 8, the plaintiffs dropped the case.[94]	Voluntarily dismissed
National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00380[95]	February 9, 2025	The National Treasury Employees Union allege that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's sharing of personnel records with DOGE violated privacy laws.[96]	Voluntarily dismissed
American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00430[97]	February 10, 2025	The plaintiffs alleged that the United States Department of Education had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. The court issued a TRO on February 24 and a preliminary injunction on March 24. On April 7, the Fourth Circuit granted the government's motion to stay.[98]	Preliminary injunction granted, then stayed by 4th Circuit
American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01237[99]	February 11, 2025	Current and former employees allege that the Office of Personnel Management had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification. The court granted injunctive relief prohibiting any further disclosure of OPM records.[100]	Preliminary injunction granted
Morris v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00435[101]	February 11, 2025	Deborah Morris filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, declaring that the creation and actions of DOGE were in violation of the Privacy Act and the False Claims Act. The court dismissed it the following day, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing as she was not personally involved in the claims made.[102]	Dismissed by court
Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00407[103]	February 11, 2025	Five federal employees filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Office of Personnel Management, claiming that they had permitted their personal information to be accessed by DOGE-affiliated individuals without legal justification.[104]	Ongoing
Gribbon v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00422[105]	February 12, 2025	Six individual plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit stating that DOGE unlawfully accessed their personal information. On May 15, they voluntarily dropped their case.[106]	Voluntarily dismissed
Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00457[107]	February 17, 2025	The Center for Taxpayer Rights challenges DOGE's access to taxpayer information stored by the Internal Revenue Service.[108]	Ongoing
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.), 1:25-cv-00255[109]	February 17, 2025	The Electronic Privacy Information Center alleges a mass data breach of federal employee and taxpayer information, citing screenshots of confidential Treasury payments. The court stated that they had not met the burden for a TRO or preliminary injunction.[110]	Preliminary injunction denied
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00596[111]	February 21, 2025	The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alleged that the Social Security Administration's gave sensitive data to DOGE personnel. The court granted a temporary restraining order on March 7 and on April 1, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by the defendant. On April 15, the District court granted a preliminary and on April 30, the Fourth Circuit denied a motion to stay. On May 2, a request for an administrative stay was appealed to SCOTUS, which was granted on June 6.[112]	TRO granted, then stayed by SCOTUS
American Civil Liberties Union v. Social Security Administration (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01217[113]	April 21, 2025	The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Social Security Administration and United States Department of Veterans Affairs for denying their Freedom of Information Act requests to information regarding DOGE’s access to sensitive personal data.[114]	Ongoing

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00167[115] (consolidated with Public Citizen v. Trump)	January 20, 2025	The plaintiffs challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On February 18, it was consolidated into Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump.[116] On May 12, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.[117]	Voluntarily dismissed
Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00166[118] (consolidated with Public Citizen v. Trump)	January 20, 2025	The plaintiff challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On February 4, it was consolidated into Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump.[119]	Voluntarily dismissed
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00164[120] (consolidated with Lentini v. DOGE and American Public Health Association v. OMB)	January 20, 2025	The plaintiff challenged the legality of DOGE under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On March 3, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.[117]	Voluntarily dismissed
State of New Mexico v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00429[121] Petitioned to D.C. Circuit, In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072[122] (consolidated with Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk)	February 13, 2025	14 states challenges Elon Musk's role in DOGE, asserting that he is performing governmental duties without official nomination by the President or confirmation by the Senate.[123]	TRO denied Ongoing
J. Does 1–26 v. Musk (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00462-TDC[124] Appealed to 4th Cir., 25-1273[125]	February 26, 2025	26 anonymous plaintiffs, current and former employees of the United States Agency for International Development alleged that the broad scope of DOGE was in violation of the Appointments Clause and separation of powers, since Elon Musk was never confirmed by the Senate. On March 18, a preliminary injunction was granted, prohibiting the defendants from taking further action to shut down USAID, however, a stay was issued by the Fourth Circuit on March 28.	Ongoing
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00612[126]	March 3, 2025	The Center for Biological Diversity allege that the creation of DOGE violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that several federal agencies had failed to respond to FOIA requests.[127]	Ongoing
Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00643[128] (consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk)	March 5, 2025	The plaintiffs allege that DOGE overstepped its authority when cutting federal spending, terminating government employees and dismantling government agencies. On March 20, it was consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk.[129]	Consolidated with State of New Mexico v. Musk)

Case name	Date Filed	Case Summary	Outcome
Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00165[130]	January 20, 2025	The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit seeking Trump presidential transition and DOGE records regarding environmental related issues such as air and water quality, climate change, public land and imperiled plants and wildlife.[131]	Ongoing
American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00409[132]	February 11, 2025	The American Oversight organization filed a lawsuit against DOGE, requesting communication between Elon Musk and his staff after the Office of Management and Budget failed to issue a determination within the required time for FOIA requests.[133]	Ongoing
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00511[134] In re: U.S. DOGE Service (D.C. Cir.), 25-5130[135] U.S. Doge Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (U.S. Supreme Court), 24A1122[136]	February 20, 2025	The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington allege that the United States Digital Service and DOGE wrongfully withheld documents relating to DOGE and its activities. On March 10, the court partially awarded a preliminary injunction and on April 15, ordered limited discovery into DOGE's activities. After being denied a stay by the D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the discovery order had to be narrowed, but left the rest of the discovery order intact.[137]	Preliminary injunction granted
Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00527[138]	February 21, 2025	The Project on Government Oversight alleges that the Trump administration's recordkeeping practices are subject to the Federal Records Act and that they have unlawfully designated their records as presidential to avoid transparency obligations. On June 17, the court denied a preliminary injunction.[139]	Preliminary injunction denied
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00684[140]	March 7, 2025	The Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit after being denied a FOIA request regarding communication between DOGE, government agencies and the White House.	Preliminary injunction denied
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00749[141]	March 14, 2025	The Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit after several FOIA requests related to communications between the United States Marshals Service and federal judges about cases relating to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, potentially following direction from DOGE.[142]	Ongoing
The Intercept v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02404[143]	March 24, 2025	The Intercept alleges that DOGE and the United States Digital Service wrongfully withheld information regarding emails between Elon Musk and staffers that were subject to a FOIA request on the erroneous assertion that they are not subject to FOIA.	Ongoing
Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01768[144]	April 8, 2025	In December 2024, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a FOIA request related to DOGE to a number of government agencies and did not hear back from any of them.[145]	Ongoing

• American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00977^[146]
• American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01780,^[147] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-1677,^[148] and Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees (Supreme Court), 24A904^[149]
• American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-03698,^[150] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3030 and 25-3293^[151]
• Elev8 Baltimore, Inc. v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md), 1:25-cv-01458^[152]
• Jackson v. Kennedy (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01750^[153]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00420^[154] (voluntarily dismissed)
• Pueblo of Isleta v. Secretary of the Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00696^[155]
• State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.),1:25-cv-01363^[156]
• State of Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00748,^[157] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1248^[158]

• Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Vought (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00458^[159]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00381,^[160] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5091^[161]
• State of New York v. Vought (D. Ore.) 0:25-cv-02384^[162]

• Brehm v. Marocco (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00660^[163]

• Pippenger v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01090^[164]
• U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00804,^[165] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5185^[166]

• American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Goldstein (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03072^[167]
• American Library Association v. Sonderling, 1:25-cv-01050^[168]
• State of Rhode Island v. Trump (D.R.I.), 1:25-cv-00128^[169]

• Abramowitz v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00887,^[170] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5145^[171]
• Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. United States (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00966,^[172] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5150^[173]
• Open Technology Fund v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00840^[174]
• Radio Free Asia v. United States (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00907,^[175] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5151^[176]
• RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00799,^[177] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5158^[178]
• Widakuswara v. Lake (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01015^[179] (transferred from S.D.N.Y., 1:25-cv-02390^[180]), appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5144^[181]

• American Educational Research Association v. Department of Education (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01230^[182]
• Association for Education Finance and Policy, Inc. v. McMahon (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00999^[183]
• Carter v. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00744^[184]
• Morgan v. McMahon (W.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00416^[185]
• NAACP v. United States of America (D.Md.), 8:25-cv-00965^[186]
• Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10677^[187] (consolidated with State of New York v. McMahon)
• State of New York v. McMahon (D.Mass), 1:25-cv-10601,^[188] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1500^[189]
• Victim Rights Law Center v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11042^[190]

• Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program v. Kennedy (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00781^[191]

• State of New York v. Kennedy (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00196^[192]

• Cabrera v. U.S. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01909^[193]
• National Job Corps Association v. U.S. Department of Labor (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-04641^[194]

• American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03657^[195]
• The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03923^[196] (case consolidated with American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald)

• National Nurses United v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01538^[197]

• National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (D. D.C.), 1:25-cv-01683^[198]

• American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00628,^[199] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-2228^[200]
• NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01120^[201] (joint motion to dismiss with stipulation by the government^[202])
• National Education Association v. US Department of Education (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00091^[203]

• American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00702,^[204] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1281^[205]
• Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-02005,^[206] appealed to the 7th Cir., 25-2144^[207]
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-12162^[208]
• Cross v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-03702^[209] (case dismissed^[202])
• Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (E.D.Va.), 1:25-cv-00300,^[210] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1527^[211]
• Doe v. Collins (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00760^[212] (voluntary dismissal by plaintiffs^[202])
• Erie County New York v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00783^[213] (voluntary dismissal by plaintiffs^[202])
• Fell v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04206^[214]
• FreeState Justice v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-02482^[215]
• National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-00333,^[216] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1189^[217]
• National Urban League v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00471^[218]
• Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00079,^[219] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-2113^[220]
• San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump (D.D.C.), 4:25-cv-01824,^[221] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-4988^[222]
• Southern Education Foundation v. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01079,^[223] appealed to DC Cir., 25-5262^[224] (voluntary dismissal by plaintiffs)
• State of California v. U.S Department of Education (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10548,^[225] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1244,^[226] appealed to the Supreme Court as Department of Education v. California, 24A910^[227]
• Withrow v. United States (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04073^[228]

• E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity (E.D. Va.), 1:25-cv-00637,^[229] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-2497^[230] and 26-1002^[231]
• King County v. Turner (W.D. Wa.), 2:25-cv-00814,^[232] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3664^[233]

• LULAC v. Abbott (W.D. Tex.) 3:21-cv-00259^[234]
• National Council of Jewish Women v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-03675^[235]

• Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00952^[236]
• League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00946^[237]
• League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00955^[238]
• State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10810^[239]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wa.), 2:25-cv-00602^[240]

Democratic National Committee v. Trump, League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump have been consolidated and proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

• Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem (S.D. Fla.) 1:25-cv-22896^[241]

• Nuiqsut Trilateral, Inc. v. Burgum (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00239^[242]

• State of California v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (9th Cir.), 26-0508^[243]

• Conserve Southwest Utah v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00317^[244]
• Defenders of Wildlife v. Burgum (D. Alaska), 3:25-cv-00319^[245]
• Lopez v. United States of America (D. Ariz.), 2:25-cv-02758,^[246] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-5197^[247]
• Native Village of Hooper Bay v. Burgum (D. Alaska), 3:25-cv-00316^[248]
• Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah), 2:25-cv-00657^[249]

• Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01529^[250]

• Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01982^[251]

• Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir.), 26-0298^[252]
• Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00043^[253]
• Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-02125^[254]

• Center For Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service (N.D. Cal.), 4:25-cv-09109^[255]
• Center For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (N.D. Cal.), 3:26-cv-00866^[256]
• Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic v. Burgum (D. Alaska), 3:25-cv-00356^[257]

• Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska), 3:25-cv-00038^[258]

• Lighthiser v. Trump (D. Mont.), 2:25-cv-00054,^[259] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-6714^[260]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00869^[261]

• Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04285^[262]

• Gwich'in Steering Committee v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D. Alaska), 3:20-cv-00204^[263]

• Kāpaʻa v. Trump (D. Haw.), 1:25-cv-00209^[264]

• Environmental Defense Fund v. United States Department of the Interior (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00871^[265]
• Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-12249^[266]

• Oregon Environmental Council v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04400^[267]

• Maryland Clean Energy Center v. United States (Fed. Cl.) 1:25-cv-01738^[268]

• Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00004^[269]
• Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D. Md.) 1:24-cv-03111^[270]
• Protect Our Coast NJ v. United States (D.N.J.), 3:25-cv-06890^[271]
• Revolution Wind LLC v. Burgum (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02999^[272]
• State of New York v. Burgum (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00071 and 1:26-cv-00072^[273]
• State of New York v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11221^[274][275] (summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs^[202])
• State of Rhode Island v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04328^[276]
• Sunrise Wind LLC v. Burgum (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00028^[277]
• Vineyard Wind 1 LLC v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D. Mass.), 1:26-cv-10156^[278]
• Virginia Electric and Power Company v. U.S. Department of the Interior (E.D. Va.), 2:25-cv-00830^[279]

• CleanAIRE NC v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00233^[280]
• State of California v. United States of America (N.D. Ca.), 4:25-cv-04966,^[281] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-8013^[282]

• Cook v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-02903^[283]
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01305^[284]

• Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00587^[285] (dismissed)

• Aviel v. Gor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00778,^[286] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5105^[287]
• Boyle v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01628^[288]
• Brown v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01764^[289]
• Dellinger v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00385,^[290] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5025^[291] / 25-5028^[292] / 25-5052,^[293] appealed to the Supreme Court, Bessent v. Dellinger, 24A790^[294] (case closed after petitioner withdrew it)
• Grundmann v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00425,^[295] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5165^[296]
• Harris v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00412,^[297] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5055^[298] and 25-5037,^[299] appealed to the Supreme Court, Bessent v. Harris (consolidated with Trump v. Wilcox)
• LeBlanc v. U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00542,^[300] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5197^[301]
• Perlmutter v. Blanche (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01659;^[302] appealed to the D.C. Cir. 25-5285;^[303]
• Primus v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03521^[304]
• Samuels v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01069^[305]
• Slaughter v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00909^[306]
• Wilcox v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00334,^[307] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5057,^[308] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. Wilcox, 24A966^[309]

• Hussen v. Noem (D. Minnesota), 0:26-cv-00324^[310]
• State of Minnesota v. Noem (D. Minnesota), 0:26-cv-00190^[311]

• Newsom v. Trump^[312][313] (N.D.Ca.), 3:25-cv-04870,^[314] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3727^[315]

• State of Illinois v. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.), 1:26-cv-00321^[316]
• State of Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-12174,^[317] appealed to the 7th Cir., 25-2798^[318]

• State of Oregon v. Trump (D. Ore.), 3:25-cv-01756,^[319] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-6268^[320]

• Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01413^[321]

• District of Columbia v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-02678^[322] (voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs^[202])
• District of Columbia v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03005,^[323] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5418^[324]

• Harris v. Lee (Tennessee Chancery Court) 25-1461-I^[325]

• National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Trump^[326]

• DC Preservation League and Cultural Heritage Partners v. Trump^[327]

• City of Philadelphia v. Burgum (E.D. Pennsylvania), 2:26-cv-00434^[328]

• Beatty v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04480^[329]

• America First Legal Foundation v. Roberts (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01232^[330]
• American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00883^[331]
• American Oversight v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01585^[332]
• Cato Institute v. U.S. Special Operations Command (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01719^[333]
• Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01131^[334]
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01020^[335]
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01051^[336]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00586^[337]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00567^[338]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00940^[339]
• Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01535^[340]
• Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00617^[341]
• Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology v. Customs and Border Protection (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-01732^[342]
• Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01529^[343]
• Protect Democracy Project v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01111^[344]

• Case filed against ABC News, settled out of court in favor of Trump.^{[345][346][347]}
• Case filed by BBC currently still pending in Britain as of January 2026 mentioned as 2025 BBC editorial bias allegations.

The Associated Press has sued three members of the White House Office for banning them from press pool events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One, in response to the organization's continued references to the Gulf of Mexico instead of the "Gulf of America", the name promulgated in Executive Order 14172.

• Associated Press v. Budowich (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00532,^[348] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5109^[349]

• National Public Radio, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01674^[350]
• Public Broadcasting Service v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01722^[351]

• Chicago Headline Club v. Noem (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-12173^[352]
• Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem (C.D. Cal.), 2:25-cv-05563,^[353] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-5975^[354]

• The New York Times Company v. Department of Defense (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04218^[355]

• Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00286^[356] (retitled Doe v. Bondi), appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5213,^[357] 25-5304^[358] and 25-5419^[359]
• Jones v. Trump (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00401^[360] (retitled Jones v. Bondi), appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5101,^[361] 25-5210^[362] 25-5306^[363] and 25-5420^[364]
• Kingdom v. Trump (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00691^[365]
• Moe v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10195,^[366] transferred to 1:25-cv-00653 (D.D.C.),^[367] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5108^[368]

• Orr v. Trump (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10313,^[369] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1579,^[370] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. Orr, 25A319^[371]
• Schlacter v. U.S. Department of State (D.Md), 1:25-cv-01344^[372]

• Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00322^[373]
• Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10595^[374]

• Doe v. Department of Defense (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-02947^[375]

• PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00337^[376]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash), 2:25-cv-00244^[377]
• State of Oregon v. Kennedy (D. Oregon), 6:25-cv-02409^[378]

• State of California v. U.S. Department of Justice (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-04863^[379]
• State of Maine v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Me.), 1:25-cv-00131^[380] (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice)
• Tirrell v. Edelblut (D.N.H.), 1:24-cv-00251^[381]
• United States v. California Interscholastic Federation (C.D. Cal.), 8:25-cv-01485^[382]

• Ireland v. Hegseth (D. N.J.), 1:25-cv-01918^[383]
• Ireland v. United States, 1:25-cv-01921^[384]
• Shilling v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-00241,^[385] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-2039^[386] (retitled Shilling v. United States), appealed to the Supreme Court, United States v. Shilling, 24A1030^[387]
• Talbott v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00240^[388]

• State of Washington v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (D. Oregon), 6:25-cv-01748^[389]

• Mittereder v. Noem (E.D. Virginia), 1:25-cv-01991^[390]

• O'Neill v. Hartman (D. Maryland), 1:25-cv-04228^[391]

• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Rhode Island), 1:26-cv-00022^[392]

• State of California v. U.S. Department of Education (N.D. California), 3:26-cv-01259^[393][394]

• QueerDoc PLC v. United States Department of Justice (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-mc-00042^[395]

• Comans v. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00624^[396]

• Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00325^[397]
• Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00328^[398]

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00264^[399]
• Government Accountability Project v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00347^[400]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00170^[401]
• Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00260^[402]

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10276^[403]

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Kupor (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-13305^[404]
• Does v. Patel (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-04258^[405]
• Joslin v. U.S. Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00576^[406]
• Marrazzo v. Kennedy Jr. (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-04144^[407]
• National Association of Immigration Judges v. Neal (E.D. Va.), 1:20-cv-00731^[408]
• Schnitt v. Bondi (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-04111^[409]
• Wright v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:26-cv-00144^[410]

• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Noem (W.D. Wa.), 2:25-cv-00451,^[411] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5157^[412]
• American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 4:25-cv-03070^[413]
• American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01030^[414]
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00935^[415]

• Storch v. Hegseth (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00415^[416]

• Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00234^[417]

• Massachusetts v. USDA (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13165^[418]
• Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00569^[419]

• American Association of Physicians for Human Rights v. National Institutes of Health (D.Md.), 8:25-cv-01620^[420]
• American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10787,^[421] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1611,^[422] appealed to the Supreme Court as National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, 25A103^[423] (joint stipulation, plaintiffs dismissed their remaining claims^[202])
• City of New York v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01510^[424]
• Climate United Fund v. Citibank (D.D.C.), 1:24-cv-00698,^[425] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5122^[426] and 25-5123^[427]
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kennedy (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10814,^[428] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1612^[429] (consolidated with American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health, joint stipulation, plaintiffs dismissed their remaining claims^[202])
• Harris County, Texas v. Kennedy (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-01275^[430]
• Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Mass), 3:25-cv-30041,^[431] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1368^[432] (joint motion to dismiss^[202])
• National Alliance to End Homelessness v. Turner (D.R.I.), 1:25-cv-00447^[433]
• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00279^[434]
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass),1:25-cv-11116^[435] (joint motion to dismiss^[202])
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02990,^[436] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1424^[437] (joint stipulation^[202])

• Butterbee Farm v. United States Department of Agriculture (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00737^[438]
• California Infrastructure and Economic Development v. Citibank (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00820^[439] (consolidated with Climate United Fund v. Citibank)
• State of Washington v. United States Department of Transportation (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00848^[440]
• Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.), 2:25-cv-02152,^[441] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1575^[442]
• Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture (D.R.I.), 1:25-cv-00097^[443]

• American Association of University Professors v. U.S. Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02429,^[444] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1529^[445]
• American Association of University Professors - Harvard Faculty Chapter v. U.S. Department of Justice (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10910,^[446] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-2231^[447]
• President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services (D.Mass), 1:25-cv-11048^[448]

• Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10340,^[449] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1344^[450] (appeals court consolidated it with Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, affirming the district court's permanent injunction^[202])
• Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-11231^[451]
• Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Defense (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-11740,^[452] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-2184^[453]
• Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Energy (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10912,^[454] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1727^[455]
• Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10346,^[456] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1345^[457] (appeals court consolidated it with Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, affirming the district court's permanent injunction^[202])
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10338,^[458] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1343^[459] (1st Cir. affirmed the district court's permanent injunction^[202])

• American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (N.D. Cal.), 3:26-cv-00759^[460]
• Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00605^[461] (case dismissed by joint stipulation^[202])
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00740^[462]
• Inclusiv, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00948^[463]
• Michigan v. Noem (D. Ore.) 6:25-cv-02053^[464]
• National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00239,^[465] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5148^[466]
• National Endowment for Democracy v. United States of America (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00648^[467]
• National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01265^[468][469]
• Saint Paul, Minnesota v. Wright (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03899^[470]
• Shapiro v. U.S. Department of the Interior (E.D. Pa.), 2:25-cv-00763^[471] (voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs^[202])
• State of California v. McMahon (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00329^[472]
• State of California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-06310^[473][474]
• State of California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12118^{[475][476][477]}
• State of California v. U.S. Department of Transportation (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00208,^[478] appealed to the 1st Cir., 26-1026^[479] (appeal voluntarily dismissed by defendants^[202])
• State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00206^[480]
• State of Illinois v. Noem (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00495^[481]
• State of New Jersey v. Department of Justice (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00404^[482]
• State of New Jersey v. United States Department of Transportation (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-00939^[483]
• State of New York v. Administration for Children and Families (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-00172^[484]
• State of New York v. Department of Energy (D. Ore) 6:25-cv-01458^[485]
• State of New York v. National Science Foundation (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-04452^[486]
• State of New York v. Noem (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-08106^[487]
• State of New York v. Rollins (D. Ore.) 6:25-cv-02186^[488]
• State of New York v. Trump (D. R.I.), 1:25-cv-00039,^[489] appealed to the First Circuit, 25-1236^[490]
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.R.I) 1:25-cv-00345^[491]
• State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00499^[492]
• State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00626^[493]

• American Association of Physics Teachers v. National Science Foundation (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01923^[494]
• American Association of University Professors v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-07864,^[495] appealed to the 9th Cir., 26-0263^[496]
• American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01263^[497]
• Child Trends, Incorporated v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-01154^[498]
• City of Chicago v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-05462^[499]
• City of Chicago v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.), 1:25-cv-05463^[500]
• Shapiro v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (M.D.Pa.), 1:25-cv-00998^[501]
• State of Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.R.I.), 1:25-cv-00121^[502]
• State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Education (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-01228^[503]
• Thakur v. Trump (N.D.Cal.), 3:25-cv-04737,^[504] appealed to the 9th Cir., 24-4249^[505]
• VERA Institute of Justice v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01643,^[506] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5248^[507]

• Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-CV-13244^[508]
• National Council of Nonprofits v. McMahon (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13242^[509]

• State of New Jersey v. Bondi (D. Md.), 1:25-cv-01807^[510]

• American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11916^[511]
• City of Columbus v. Kennedy (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-02114,^[512] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-2012^[513]
• The Family Planning Association of Maine v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00364,^[514] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1829^[515]
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11913^[516]
• Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01334,^[517] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5238^[518] (voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and a related case―1:25-cv-02453―was filed by a subset of the plaintiffs^[202])
• Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-02453^[519]
• State of California v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-12019^[520]
• State of California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-12118,^[521] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-2165^[522]

• African Communities Together v. Lyons (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-06366^[523]
• Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02279^[524]

• Angelica S. v. Department Of Health And Human Services, 1:25-cv-01405^[525]
• Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (N.D. Ca.), 3:25-cv-02847,^[526] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-2358^[527] and 25-2808^[528]
• L.G.M.L. v. Kristi Noem (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02942^[529]

• Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem (C.D. Cal.) 2:25-cv-05605^[530][531]

• C.M. v. Noem (S.D. Fla.) 1:25-cv-23182^[532]

• Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Department of Homeland Security ( D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00943,^[533] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5152^[534]

• Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01270^[535]

• CASA, Inc. v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00525^[536]
• Haitian Americans United Inc. v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10498^[537]
• Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump (E.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01464^[538]
• National TPS Alliance v. Noem (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01766,^[539] appealed to 9th Cir., 25-2120,^[540] appealed to the Supreme Court, Noem v. National TPS Alliance, 24A1059^[541]
• National TPS Alliance v. Noem (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-05687,^[542] appealed to 9th Cir., 25-4901^[543]
• Doe v. Noem (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-08686^[544]
• African Communities Together v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13939^[545]
• Doe v. Noem (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-15483^[546]

• Dvortsin v. Noem (D. Tex.), 5:25-cv-00664^[547] (transferred from D. Colo., 1:25-cv-01741)

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01774^[548]

• D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10676,^[549] appealed to the First Circuit, 25-1311^[550] and 1393,^[551] appealed to the Supreme Court as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on application of stay) and Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on motion for clarification), 24A1153^[552]
• Quintero Chacon v. Dickerson (also known as E.D.Q.C. v. Stewart Detention Facility) (M.D. Georgia), 4:25-cv-00050^[553]

• V.M.L. v. Harper (W.D. La.), 1:25-cv-0055^[554] (voluntarily dismissed)

• Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00298^[555]

• Make the Road New York v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00190^[556]

• Solutions In Hometown Connections v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00885^[557]

• City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01350^[558]
• City of Chelsea v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10442^[559]
• Organized Communities Against Deportations v. Donald Trump (N.D.Ill.), 1:25-cv-00868 (case dismissed without prejudice)^[560]
• Pineros y Campesinos Unidos Del Noreste v. Noem (D. Ore.), 6:25-cv-00699^[561]

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The executive order argues that the children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.

On January 20, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump Administration, citing the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as affirming birthright citizenship, on behalf of New Hampshire Indonesian Community, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Make the Road Work.^[562][563]

On February 10, 2025, Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction.^[564]

In Massachusetts, a plaintiff, going by "O. Doe", along with a group of pregnant women whose children would not receive citizenship, if birthright citizenship were to be rescinded due to Executive Order 14160, sued^[565] Donald J. Trump et al.,^[566] citing the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

On February 13, 2025 Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction^[567] blocking enforcement of the Executive Order.

• Barbara v. Trump (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00244^[568]
• CASA Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00201-DLB,^[569] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1153,^[570] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. Casa Inc., 24A884^[571]
• County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal.), 5:25-cv-00981^[572]
• Doe v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10135-LTS,^[566] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1169^[573] (consolidated with State of New Jersey v. Trump, 25-1170, at the appellate level)
• Franco Aleman v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-00163-JCC^[574] (consolidated with State of Washington v. Trump in the district court)
• Le v. Trump (C.D. Cal.), 8:25-cv-00104^[575]
• New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00038,^[562] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1348^[576]
• New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-01309^[577]
• OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00287^[578]
• State of New Jersey v. Trump (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10139,^[579] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1158,^[580] 25-1170,^[581] 25-1200,^[582] and 25-1898,^[583] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. State of New Jersey, 24A886^[584]
• State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), 2:25-cv-00127-JCC,^[585] appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-674 and 25-807,^[586] appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump v. State of Washington, 24A885^[587]

Note: the Supreme Court consolidated Trump v. Casa Inc., Trump v. State of New Jersey, and Trump v. State of Washington.

• American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10685^[588]
• Chung v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02412^[589]
• Khalil v. Joyce (D.N.J.), 2:25-cv-01963 (formerly S.D.N.Y. case number 1:25-cv-01935),^[590] appealed to the 3rd Circuit, 25-2162^[591] and 25-2357^[592] (these two appeals were consolidated) and 25-8019^[593]
• Mahdawi v. Trump (D. Vt.), 2:25-cv-00389,^[594] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1113^[595]
• Ozturk v. Hyde (D. Vt.), 2:25-cv-00374 (formerly D. Mass. case number 1:25-cv-10695),^[596] appealed to the 2nd Cir., 25-1019^[597]
• President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-11472,^[598] appealed to the 1st Circuit, 25-1627^[599]
• Suri v. Trump (E.D. VA), 1:25-cv-00480,^[600] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1560^[601]
• Taal v. Trump (N.D.N.Y.), 3:25-cv-00335^[602] (case closed after petitioner self-deported)
• Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate (D. Colo.), 25-cv-00881^[603]

• Pacito v. Trump (W.D. Wash), 2:25-cv-00255,^[604] appeals to the 9th Cir., 25-1313^[605] and 25-1939^[606]
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. U.S. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00465^[607]

• Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:24-cv-01702^[608]

• Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00677,^[609] appealed to the DC Cir., 25-5181^[610]

• Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.), 1:25-cv-10495,^[611] appealed to the 1st Cir., 25-1384,^[612] appealed to the Supreme Court, Noem v. Doe, 24A1079^[613]

• Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. DHS (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03675^[614]
• Global Nurse Force v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 4:25-cv-08454^[615]
• California v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13829^[616]

• California v. HHS (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-05536^[617]

• Denver Public Schools v. Noem (D. Colo.), 1:25-cv-00474,^[618] case dismissed after plaintiffs dismissed their claims^[202]
• Fridley Public School District, Independent School District 14 v. Noem (D. Minn.), 0:26-cv-01023^[619]
• Mennonite Church USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00403,^[620] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5209^[621]
• New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.), 4:25-cv-40102^[622]
• Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00243,^[623] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1512^[624]

• Espinoza Escalona v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00604^[625] (voluntarily dismissed)
• Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00418^[626]
• Perez Parra v. Castro (D. N.M.), 1:24-cv-00912^[627] (case dismissed after the petitioners were deported)

• Tincher v. Noem (D. Minn.), 0:25-cv-04669^[628]
• Dickinson v. Trump (D. Or.), 3:25-cv-02170^[629]

• Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00306^[630]

J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) is a class action and habeas corpus lawsuit brought by five Venezuelan men in immigration custody, contesting Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in presidential proclamation 10903 and the attempt to deport Venezuelan citizens in the US who are alleged to be members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The district court judge granted temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs and then, after certifying the class, granted another temporary restraining order for the class. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which denied the appeal, and then to the Supreme Court, which vacated the temporary restraining orders, stating that any challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought as a habeas corpus petitions, which requires that the petition be filed in the district where a petitioner is detained, and since the petitioners were detained in Texas, their petition in the District of Columbia had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.^[631] The court did not reach whether the use of the AEA to deport the men was constitutional, nor whether it applied to the plaintiffs.^[631] It added that the government had to give anyone it sought to deport under the AEA enough notice that they could file habeas complaints challenging their removal.^[632] Related cases were then filed in other districts.

• Agelviz-Sanguino v. Noem (S.D. Tex.), 4:25-cv-02116,^[633] appealed to the Fifth Circuit, 25-20203^[634] (voluntary dismissal)
• A.S.R. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.), 3:25-cv-00113^[635]
• Darwin Antonio Arevalo Millan v. Trump (C.D. Ca.), 5:25-cv-01207^[636]
• D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.), 1:25-cv-01163^[637]
• G.F.F. v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02886^[638]
• J.A.V. v. Trump (S.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00072,^[639] appealed to the 5th Cir., 25-40400^[640]
• J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00766,^[641] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5067^[642] and 25-5068^[643] (cases consolidated and voluntarily dismissed after Supreme Court ruling), and Trump v. J.G.G. (Supreme Court), 24A931;^[644] second appeal to the D.C. Cir., 25-5124,^[645] third appeal to the D.C. Cir., 25-5217^[646]
• J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.), 8:19-CV-01944,^[647] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1519^[648]
• M.A.P.S. v. Garite (W.D. Tex.), 3:25-cv-00171^[649]
• Sanchez Puentes v. Garite (W.D. Tex.), 3:25-cv-00127^[650]
• W.J.C.C. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.), 3:25-cv-00153^[651]
• W.M.M. v. Trump (N.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00059,^[652] appealed to the 5th Cir., A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 25-10534,^[653] and Supreme Court, 24A1007^[654]
• Y.A.P.A. v. Trump (M.D. Ga.), 4:25-cv-00144^[655]
• Zacarias Matos v. Venegas (S.D. Tex.), 1:25-cv-00057^[656] (case dismissed without prejudice)^[202]

• Venegas v. Homan (S.D. Ala.), 1:25-cv-00397^[657]

• Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00951,^[658] first appeal to the Fourth Cir., 25-1345,^[659] and Noem v. Abrego Garcia (Supreme Court), 24A949,^[660] second appeal to the Fourth Cir.: Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1404;^[661] related district court case, Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-02780^[662]

• United Farm Workers v. Noem (E.D. Cal.), 1:25-cv-00246^[663]

• Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (N.D. Ga.), 1:25-cv-01998
• Pasula v. Department of Homeland Security, (D.N.H.), 1:25-cv-00156^{[664][665][666]}

In addition to this class action suit, there are over 100 other suits.^[202]

• Ramirez Ovando v. Noem (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-03183^[667]
• Escobar Molina v. DHS (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03417^[668]

• American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01128^[669]

• American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00352^[670]
• AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00400,^[671] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5046^[672] and 25-5098,^[673] appealed to the Supreme Court, Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, 24A831^[674]
• Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00402^[675]
• Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00469^[676]

• Iverson v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01353^[677] (voluntarily dismissed)
• Rona v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03114^[678]
• Smith v. Trump (D. Me.), 1:25-cv-00158^[679]

Case name	Date filed	Case summary	Outcome
Emily Ley Paper, Inc. v Trump (N.D. Fla.), 3:25-cv-00464[680]	April 3, 2025	A Florida business that imports goods from China filed suit challenging President Trump's 2025 tariffs on imports from China.	Ongoing
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (U.S. Court of International Trade), 1:25-cv-00066, appealed to the Federal Cir., 25-1812[681]	April 14, 2025	Five small businesses and several states filed suit challenging President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. Was consolidated into Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.	On February 20, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the IEEPA does not give the President the power to set tariffs.[562]
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01248 appealed to the Federal Cir., 24-1287[682]	April 22, 2025	Two educational toy companies filed suit challenging use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. See also: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump	On February 20, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the IEEPA does not give the President the power to set tariffs.[562]
State of California v. Trump (N.D. Ca.), 3:25-cv-03372 appealed to the 9th Cir., 25-3493[683]	April 16, 2025	California and Gavin Newsom acting his capacity as Governor filed suit against Trump's use of the IEEPA.	Ongoing
State of Oregon v. Trump (U.S. Court of International Trade), 1:25-cv-00077,[684] appealed to the Federal Cir., 25-1813[685]	April 23, 2025	Twelve states (Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont) sued contesting Trump's use of the IEEPA to levy tariffs.	consolidated with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump
Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mont.), 4:25-cv-00026[686]	April 4, 2025	Two members of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security and Kristi Noem over the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and the lack of exceptions for indigenous trade.	Ongoing
Costco v. United States (Ct. Int'l Trade) 1:25-cv-00316[687]	November 28, 2025	The warehouse chain Costco sued the government over its imposition of tariffs and requested the US refund them for all IEEPA duties collected.	Ongoing

• Legal affairs of the first Trump presidency
• List of significant shadow docket decisions made by the United States Supreme Court