(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions [1]

['Just Security', 'Megan Corrarino', 'Donald K. Sherman', 'Jennifer Ahearn', 'Jeremy Chin', 'Margaret Lin', 'Danae Askar', 'Rebecca Hamilton', 'Michael Schmitt', 'Rob Mclaughlin']

Date: 2025-12-19 12:00:19+00:00

National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01683 Complaint 2025-05-28 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Accessibility 2025-11-04 In January 2025, the Trump administration stopped providing ASL interpreters at public press briefings and other similar events. The federal government had provided ASL interpretation for all coronavirus press briefings following a court order in October 2020 and began voluntarily providing interpretation services at all press briefings by key administration officials in January 2021. The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), a civil rights organization, and two members of NAD are suing President Trump, Susan Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, Karoline Leavitt, the Press Secretary to the President, and a number of offices within the White House to challenge the decision to stop providing ASL interpretation. Plaintiffs argue that without such services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals are unable to meaningfully access federal government programs and services or participate in American society. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits executive agencies from discriminating against individuals with disabilities when conducting any program or activity. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants are violating the First Amendment, arguing that freedom of speech includes the right to receive information and that this deprivation impinges on their ability to petition the government. Plaintiffs further argue that the Fifth Amendment is violated because Plaintiffs are being denied equal protection under the law by being treated differently and because the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights under the First Amendment are being impinged upon. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide ASL interpreters at press briefings and other similar events. They also seek a court declaration that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act and the First and Fifth Amendments. Update 1: On November 4, Judge Ali granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part, ordering the administration to provide a simultaneous and publicly accessible feed with American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpretation for “all publicly announced White House press briefings conducted by the President or White House Press Secretary that are captured by White House communication channels.” The court found that the administration’s decision to end ASL interpretation likely violated the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits excluding people with disabilities from participation in, denying them benefits of, or discriminating against them in Executive agency programming. The court did not grant the plaintiffs’ request to require ASL interpretation for Vice President, First Lady, or Second Lady press briefings or events and that interpretation be provided for all videos on the White House website and social media pages.

Jenner & Block v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00916 Complaint 2025-03-28 Government Action Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-10-08 On Mar. 25, President Trump issued an executive order accusing Jenner & Block LLP of engaging in partisan representation, “support[ing] attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and back[ing] the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.” The executive order directs various agencies to impose sanctions against the firm, including: terminating the firm’s government contracts; requiring government contracting agencies to disclose any business they do with Jenner; suspending employees’ security clearances pending a national-security review; ordering a review of the firm’s hiring practices by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; limiting employees’ access to federal buildings; and directing agencies not to hire Jenner & Block employees. The Plaintiff sued on Mar. 28, alleging that the executive action is unconstitutional, violating separation of powers, the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech, petition, and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They seek a declaratory judgment that the order is unconstitutional and an immediate injunction stopping implementation of the order pending court review, followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions. Jenner & Block also submitted a motion for a temporary restraining order with proposed text, that enjoined only Sections 1 (Purpose), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel including access to Federal Government buildings) of the executive order. On the same day, the court held a hearing, and Judge John Bates granted the TRO. Update 1: On Apr. 8, Jenner filed its motion for summary judgment on all claims, requesting a permanent injunction against the implementation of the EO. On the same day, the Department of Justice filed its motion to dismiss.

Update 2: On Apr. 17, Jenner filed its memorandum in opposition to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss. On the same day, the Department of Justice filed its memorandum in opposition to Jenner’s motion for summary judgment. Update 3: On May 23, Judge John Bates issued an order and opinion granting Jenner & Block’s motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s motion to dismiss, declaring EO 14, 246 unlawful and “null and void” because it violates the First Amendment, and permanently enjoined the government from implementing or enforcing the order, directing agencies to rescind any steps taken under it and to resume ordinary dealings with the firm as if the order had never issued. Update 3: On Jun. 2, Judge Bates denied the government’s request to amend or limit his May 23 summary judgment as to Section 1 of Executive Order 14, 246—reaffirming that agencies must rescind all implementation or enforcement of the order, including any use, consideration, or reliance on Section 1—but granted clarification as to Section 4, explaining that the injunctive relief under Section 4 runs only in favor of Jenner & Block LLP (and its affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns, directors, officers, partners, employees, and agents). Update 5: On Jul. 21, the Department of Justice appealed Judge Bates’ May 23 summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit. Update 6: On Sept. 23, in this appeal and the related cases—Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310—the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to file, within 30 days, motions to govern further proceedings in light of potential duplicative briefing, including whether the cases should be held in abeyance, consolidated, or argued together, proposed briefing formats, and justifications for any separate or overlength briefs. Update 7: On Oct. 8, following the government's Oct. 6 motion for a stay, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the government’s appeal—as well as in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5310–be held in abeyance pending further order of the court due to the government shutdown.

Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01107 Complaint 2025-04-11 Government Action Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-10-08 On Apr. 9, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) against Susman Godfrey, a Texas-based trial firm. The EO orders heads of executive agencies to suspend security clearances held by Susman employees. It also orders agencies to require government contractors to disclose any business with Susman and to review contracts with contractors that disclose doing so. It also requires agencies to terminate all contracts with Susman. Finally, the EO bars Susman employees from accessing federal buildings, limits the interactions of government personnel with Susman employees, and prohibits agencies from hiring Susman employees. Susman sued over 50 federal defendants to challenge the Order. Susman argues that it faces irreparable reputational and economic harm. Susman claims that the EO violates the First Amendment because it constitutes both government retaliation for the Firm’s engagement in protected speech and viewpoint discrimination. The Firm also alleges the EO violates its First Amendment right to petition the government and freedom of association. Susman additionally claims that the conditions placed on government contracts are in violation of the Spending Clause. Susman also argues that the EO violates the Fifth Amendment in multiple ways. It violates the Due Process Clause because of the absence of procedural due process and because the EO is unconstitutionally vague; it violates the right to counsel; and it violates equal protection rights. Finally, Susman argues that the EO is an ultra vires action that exceeds the President’s scope of authority as it violates the separation of powers. Susman requests the Court block the Defendants from implementing the EO and order them to cancel any guidance implementing the EO that has already been issued. Update 1: On Apr. 14, Susman filed a motion for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block the enforcement of EO Sections 1 (Background), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel, including access to Federal Buildings). On Apr. 16, the court granted the temporary restraining order (TRO). On Apr. 16, this TRO was extended until final judgment is entered in the matter.

Update 2: On Apr. 23, Susman filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum in which it requested the court to permanently enjoin the Defendants’ implementation of the EO and declare the Defendants’ actions unlawful.

Update 3: On Apr. 30, Susman filed its opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, emphasizing their actions constitute a “brazen defiance of the separation of powers and rule of law.” On that same day, Defendants filed their opposition to Susman’s motion for summary judgment, asserting the EO merely directs agencies to do their jobs and that Susman’s claims regarding access to agency buildings are unripe because the related EO section asks agency heads to provide guidance on Susman employee access instead of outright limiting said access.

Update 4: On May 5, Susman filed its reply memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, and Defendants filed their reply to Susman’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Update 5: On May 12, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Susman’s amended complaint, for the same reasons contained in their previous motion to dismiss. On that same day, Susman filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the court declare the EO unlawful and enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the EO, for the same reasons contained in their previous motion for summary judgment. Update 6: On June 27, Judge Loren Alikan granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for 8 of the 10 Counts (the two exceptions were a Spending Clause Count and a separation-of-powers Count), and issued a permanent injunction. Update 7: On August 22, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding Judge Alikan’s June 27 decision to grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Update 8: On Sept. 23, in this appeal and the related cases—Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277—the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to file, within 30 days, motions to govern further proceedings in light of potential duplicative briefing, including whether the cases should be held in abeyance, consolidated, or argued together, proposed briefing formats, and justifications for any separate or overlength briefs. Update 9: On Oct. 8, following the government's Oct. 6 motion for a stay, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the government’s appeal—as well as in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, No. 25-5241, Jenner & Block LLP v DOJ, No. 25-5265, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. EOP, No. 25-5277–be held in abeyance pending further order of the court due to the government shutdown.

Doe et al v. EEOC (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01124 Complaint Amended Complaint 2025-05-16 2025-04-15 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-06-26 On Mar. 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) No. 14230 titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.” This EO directed the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review the hiring practices of law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On Mar. 17, 2025, Acting Chair of the EEOC Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms asking about DEI-related employment practices, including requests for personally identifiable information of lawyers employed by these firms and law students who had applied for positions. Plaintiffs are three current law school students who applied to work at some of the law firm recipients of these letters. They allege that much of the information requested is sensitive or confidential, and that their privacy will be harmed if law firms provide that information to the EEOC. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ sending these letters constitutes an ultra vires action that is outside of the EEOC’s authority because 1) the EEOC has started this investigation without a charge being filed, 2) the investigation is being conducted publicly, and 3) the EEOC lacked relevant quorum when issuing these letters. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants acted in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that sending the letters was an ultra vires action, order Defendants to withdraw the Mar. 17 letters, enjoin them from conducting investigations of law firms that do not meet Title VII requirements, and order them to return any information already collected pursuant to the letters and delete that information from their databases. Update 1: On May 16, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to be a class action complaint for others similarly situated. Update 2: On June 26, Judge Reggie Walton permitted extensions of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment. Additionally, Judge Walton denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and did not otherwise stay the proceedings.

American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01263 Complaint 2025-04-23 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-05-14 The ABA has been receiving grants since 1995 through the DOJ Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to support programs designed to increase access to justice for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. On April 9, 2025 Defendant Blanche issued a memorandum entitled “Engagement with the American Bar Association” (Blanche Memo) imposing limits on DOJ employees’ engagement with the ABA and asserting that the DOJ can withhold funds from the ABA due to disagreements with ABA actions, including litigation against the Administration on issues “contrary to the federal government’s policies.” On April 10, DOJ terminated all of ABA’s OVW grants, citing a change in “agency priorities.” On April 23, the ABA filed suit, contending that this action was taken in retaliation against the ABA for taking positions that the current Administration disfavors. Plaintiffs allege that these actions violate the First Amendment as they are retaliation for protected activity and viewpoint discrimination, as well as constituting unconstitutional conditions on federal funding in violation of the First Amendment and the Spending Clause, and also violate Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process protections. They also argue that the grant terminations violate the APA as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the termination of the ABA’s CDSV grants is unlawful as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcing the terminations and requiring the disbursement of the grants. Update 1: On Apr. 24, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and accompanying memorandum citing irreparable harm. Update 2: On May 2, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support of this motion and in opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that the funding decision was within the legal discretion of the DOJ. Update 3: On May 7, the Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to the motion for a TRO and a reply to the motion to dismiss. Update 4: On May 9, Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. Update 5: On May 14, Judge Christopher Cooper granted a preliminary injunction on the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01365 Complaint 2025-05-05 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-05-05 Mark Zaid’s limited access security clearance was rescinded by the Trump Administration after a Mar. 22, 2025 Memorandum ordering the revocation of several individuals’ limited access security clearances. Zaid alleges that the revocation of his limited security access was politically motivated and lacked any of the procedural due process afforded to security clearance holders or applicants whose security clearance is denied or revoked. Zaid, who is an attorney, asserts that the revocation of his security clearance prevents him from accessing classified material needed to represent current and prospective clients, hampering his ability to represent these clients before government agencies.

American Bar Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01888 Complaint 2025-06-16 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-06-16 In March and April of 2025, President Trump signed a series of Executive Orders (EO’s) specifically directed at five law firms that he stated had taken actions that he viewed as against the “national interest”, including practices related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), employment of lawyers who were involved in or associated with investigations or prosecution of President Trump, and conduct or advocacy otherwise disfavoured by the Administration. The EO’s (collectively, the “Law Firm Orders”) imposed sanctions that included termination of security clearances for employees of those firms, a requirement that all government contractors disclose any business done with those law firms, termination of government contracts, limiting federal building and employee access, and the refusal to offer federal employment to employees of targeted law firms. The EO’s also direct the EEOC and the Attorney General to investigate these firms for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On March 17, 2025 the EEOC also sent letters to twenty other law firms requesting information about their DEI practices. On March 22, 2025, the White House issued a memorandum entitled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court” directing the Attorney General to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States”. On May 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum prohibiting the government, subject to limited exceptions, from hiring as private counsel any attorneys from any law firm that represents clients in “active litigation against Administration policies.” The American Bar Association (ABA), a non-partisan non-profit organisation and the nation’s largest voluntary association of legal professionals, filed suit against the United States as well as federal departments and agencies that have been directed to implement these EO’s, the heads of those departments and agencies, and federal agencies likely to implement these orders. The complaint alleges that the EO’s, along with the various memoranda and public statements issued by the Administration constitute an unconstitutional policy (the “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” or “Policy”) that is designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like. The complaint asserts that the unlawful coercive effects of the Policy are evident in the fact that although four federal judges have ruled that the Law Firm Orders are unconstitutional, numerous firms made pre-emptive commitments to support Administration policies out of concern that they would be targeted (or in the case of Paul Weiss, to effect the revocation of the order against it).They claim that the Policy has successfully coerced much of the profession to forego constitutionally protected activity, including litigation against the Administration, and notes that none of the top 25 firms and less than ten of top 100 firms have been willing to file amicus briefs in support of the firms targeted by the Law Firm Orders. The Plaintiff allege that both the ABA itself and its member attorneys have suffered harm because of the Policy, including not bringing various cases, finding it difficult to find co-counsel in cases (or in the case of the ABA, to find law firms to represent it in litigation adverse to the government), changes to case acceptance procedures at their firms, and the need to devote substantial resources to mitigate the impact of the orders or to prepare for the possibility of retaliation. They also assert that so long as there is a reasonable likelihood that the Administration will target any law firm which represents causes and clients the Administration dislikes with retaliatory sanctions, “wide swaths of the legal profession—including many members of the ABA—will continue to be chilled in the exercise of their constitutional rights.” The ABA alleges that the Policy is a violation of the First Amendment due to 1) suppression of and threatened retaliation for protected activity (the provision of advocacy and advice); 2) viewpoint discrimination; 3) a violation of the constitutionally protected right to petition the government, since it causes members to refrain from bringing litigation in matters adverse to the federal government; 4) a violation of the right to free association and compelled disclosure, insofar as it requires government contractors to disclose any business they do with targeted law firms and threatens to unlawfully impose punishment based on protected association with others; and 5) overbreadth as unduly vague, since it has caused ABA members and their law firms to divert resources away from their ordinary business of representing clients in order to scrutinize and decline representations that may be perceived as falling afoul of vaguely and ambiguously described categories. They also assert that it is ultra vires as a violation of the Separation of Powers, as no act of Congress authorized the Policy or the Law Firm Orders or the negotiation for commitments of free legal work to avoid sanctions and suggest that these actions might actually be specifically prohibited by various Congressional statutes including anti-corruption statutes, the Merit System Protection Act, and others. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that the various sanctions in the Law Firm Orders unconstitutional and enjoining the enforcement of any of them against any ABA member or ABA member’s law firm or initiating attorney conduct and disciplinary proceedings, of any ABA member or ABA member’s law firm based on the individual’s law firm or organizational affiliation or based on the identity of their client representations.

PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00337 Complaint 2025-02-04 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum) 2025-03-28 On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order prohibiting the federal government from expending federal funds to promote “gender ideology,” the idea that gender identity can differ from biological sex. On January 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. Finally, the order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against female genital mutilation and develop legislation for a private right of action against medical professionals performing gender-affirming procedures, pursuant to an older statute against female genital mutilation. PFLAG and other plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the orders constitute unconstitutional presidential action in excess of Article II authority; discriminate on the basis of sex and disability in violation of statutes; violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and substantive due process guarantees; and abridge the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Plaintiffs seek to have the orders declared unconstitutional and unlawful, and asking for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief. Update 1: On Feb. 5, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 2: On Feb 13, Judge Brendan Abell Hurson issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of the Executive Order. Update 3: On Feb. 18, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the Executive Order. Update 4: On Feb. 26, Plaintiffs moved to extend the TRO. Judge Hurson extended the TRO until March 5, 2025. Update 5: On Mar. 4, Judge Brendan Hurson granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined Defendants from conditioning, withholding, or terminating federal funding based on the fact that a healthcare entity or professional provides gender-affirming medical care to a patient under age 19. Update 6: On Mar. 7, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for enforcement of the preliminary injunction, asserting that the government violated the injunction by issuing notices renewing threats to withhold federal funds from organizations providing gender-affirming care. Update 7: On Mar. 10, the government filed a memorandum opposing plaintiffs’ emergency motion, asserting that the government’s actions “do not violate this Court’s preliminary injunction” because they do not directly “condition, withhold, or terminate” aid under the enjoined provisions. In response, plaintiffs filed a memorandum asserting that the government’s notices “are overt threats by Defendants that federal funding recipients risk losing their federal funding if they provide gender affirming medical care to a patient under the age of nineteen.” Update 8: On Mar. 21, the government filed notice that it was appealing the Mar. 4 preliminary injunction in the case to the Fourth Circuit. Update 9: On Mar. 28, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ emergency motion for enforcement of the preliminary injunction. The Court explained that the government’s notices presently do not violate the preliminary injunction order because they merely advise the agencies that grant funding could change in the future.

State of Washington et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00244 Complaint Amended Complaint 2025-02-19 2025-02-07 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Individuals Under the Age of 19 (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14187) 2025-11-10 On Jan. 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. Finally, the order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against female genital mutilation and develop legislation for a private right of action against medical professionals performing gender-affirming procedures, pursuant to an older statute against female genital mutilation. Three states and three physicians filed suit, arguing that Executive Order 14187 violates Fifth Amendment equal protection by creating classifications and facially discriminating on the basis of transgender status and sex without sufficient government interest. Plaintiffs also allege that the order violates separation of powers by imposing conditions on the receipt of funding by the plaintiff states’ medical institutions, whereas Congress never authorized such a provision and explicitly barred medical institutions from denying individuals access to federally funded services based on gender dysphoria under 29 U.S.C. § 794. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the order violates the Tenth Amendment by regulating and threatening criminal prosecution against certain consensual medical practices, thus unlawfully intruding on the states’ traditional police powers over local public health. Update 1: On Feb. 7, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 2: On Feb. 14, Judge Lauren King issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of Section 4 and Section 8(a) of Executive Order 14187 within Plaintiff States; on Feb. 16, the court issued an Opinion in the matter. Update 3: On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the State of Colorado as a plaintiff and a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim for vagueness. Plaintiffs moved separately for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order, to which the government responded in opposition on Feb. 28. Update 4: On Feb. 28, Judge Lauren King issued an order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, with one exception. The one exception involved Section 8(a) of the EO directing the Attorney General to prioritize “enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation”; but the court found “no credible threat of prosecution” for the plaintiffs. Update 5: On Mar. 6, plaintiffs filed a motion for the court to hold defendants in contempt of court on shortened time, alleging that defendants tried to circumvent the preliminary injunction by falsely claiming actions taken to withhold funding under the enjoined EOs were actually taken pursuant to other policies. In the alternative, plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery as to whether defendants violated the preliminary injunction. Update 6: On Mar. 13, defendants filed a memorandum opposing the motion for contempt, asserting that the relevant decisions to withhold funding were based on preexisting authority and not the enjoined EOs. Update 7: On Mar. 14, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for contempt or expedited discovery. Update 8: On Mar. 17, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for contempt, but granted expedited discovery on the question of whether the actions were taken pursuant to the enjoined EOs. Update 9: On Mar. 21, defendants appealed the district court’s partial grant of a preliminary injunction and grant of expedited discovery to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Defendants’ stay of the proceedings pending the appeal of the preliminary injunction on April 23. Update 10: The court granted the Defendants’ stay of the proceedings pending the appeal of the preliminary injunction on April 23. Update 11: On May 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the joint motion to stay the appellate proceedings until the resolution of United States v. Skrmetti or until further order from the court. SCOTUS issued its decision in Skrmetti on June 18, holding that the Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Update 12: On November 10, the district court denied the defendants’ second motion to stay the preliminary injunction.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12162 Complaint 2025-08-01 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Individuals Under the Age of 19 (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14187) 2025-08-01 The Trump administration issued Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” and two related memoranda on April 22 and June 11 , which aim to eliminate the provision of healthcare to transgender individuals under the age of 19. On Aug. 1, a coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint challengingthese actions. Plaintiffs allege the EO and related memoranda intimidate providers into ceasing care for medically necessary healthcare to transgender individuals under age 19 through threats of unconnected civil and criminal prosecution. The Plaintiffs argue the actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tenth Amendment (Anti-Commandering Doctrine), and seek to declare the EO unconstitutional and vacate the administration's actions.

Doe v. Department of Defense (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-02947 Complaint 2025-09-08 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Individuals Under the Age of 19 (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14187) 2025-09-08 Prior to June 11, 2025 the policy manual of “TRICARE”, the Department of Defense (DoD) healthcare program that provides insurance coverage to millions of military servicemembers and their families, indicated that coverage was available under TRICARE for medically necessary gender transition medications and therapy. On Jan. 28, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14187, titled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” which eliminated federal funding for healthcare for transgender people under the age of 19 and on Jun. 11 the TRICARE Policy Manual was revised to exclude coverage to both children and adults for “puberty blockers . . . to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex,” and for the “use of sex-hormones . . . to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.” On Sept. 8, two minor children and a young adult filed suit alleging that this change to the TRICARE policy was made without proper observance of the rulemaking procedures and notice requirements set in place by Congressional statutes. Plaintiffs claim that the DOD’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law and in excess of statutory authority, and also violates Separation of Powers. They seek a declaratory judgment that the new policy is unlawful and a permanent injunction against enforcing the change in policy.

Tirrell v. Edelblut (D.N.H.) 1:24-cv-00251 Complaint

First Amended Complaint 2024-11-08 Second Amended Complaint 2025-02-12 2024-08-16 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14201) and policies on transgender students 2025-09-10 On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued Executive Order 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in Executive Order 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. Plaintiffs, two transgender teenage athletes in New Hampshire, previously filed suit against the state, arguing a state law banning transgender women from competing in school sports was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and a violation of Title IX. On Sept. 10, 2024, the court ordered a preliminary injunction against the state law. On Feb. 12, following the Trump administration’s executive order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add federal defendants to the suit. The amended complaint argues the executive order (1) unconstitutionally violates Fifth Amendment equal protection rights; (2) is an ultra vires action in conflict with Title IX; and (3) is an ultra vires action to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds. They seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order is unconstitutional and unlawful; and a permanent injunction enjoining its enforcement. 2025-08-22: The court granted a temporary restraining order. 2025-09-10: The court granted a preliminary injunction.

State of California v. Department of Justice (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04863 Complaint 2025-06-09 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14201) and policies on transgender students 2025-10-06 In 2013, California enacted California Education Code Section 221.5(f) which requires that “[a] pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions . . . irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the statewide governing body for secondary school athletics, adopted this same requirement through CIF Bylaw 300.D. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order (EO) 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued EO 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in EO 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. EO 14201 further directs that “[a]ll executive departments and agencies . . . shall review grants to educational programs and, where appropriate, rescind funding to programs that fail to comply with the policy established in this order.”On June 2, 2025, Defendant U.S. DOJ issued a letter (the “Certification Demand Letter”) to every Local Education Agency (LEA) in California, which asserts that CIF Bylaw 300.D is “facially unconstitutional” as it would violate the Equal Protection rights of cisgender girls and demanding that all LEA’s certify in writing by June 9, 2025 that they will not implement CIF Bylaw 300.D. Plaintiff sued, asserting that the Certification Demand Letter would require California to violate the Equal Protection Clause by preventing the state from protecting the rights of transgender students. The State further argues that Defendants have no statutory or regulatory authority to demand certification and threaten to withhold funding as this was not specifically authorized by Congress. California also asserts that the Certification Demand Letter violates the Spending Clause due to a lack of clear notice of a change in conditions of receiving funds and because Congress may not impose a spending condition that would induce a State to violate the Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act as agency action contrary to constitutional right and in excess of statutory right. California seeks a declaratory judgement that CIF Bylaw 300.D does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, that the demands in the Certification Demand Letter violate the Equal Protection Clause, that Defendants acted ultra vires by issuing the Certification Demand Letter, that California LEA’s are obligated not to provide certification, and that the Certification Letter should be vacated. They also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from acting on the Certification Demand Letter. Update 1: On Jun 9, Plaintiffs filed for a declaratory and injunctive relief against all defendants and an injunction against the US government/official or APA vacatur requested. Complaints modified on Jun 10. Update 2: On Aug 15, the parties filed stipulation with proposed order (1) Extending Deadline for Defendants to Answer/Respond to Complaint, (2) Setting Briefing Schedule for Defendants Contemplated Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Granting Parties Leave to File Oversize Briefs Re. Motion to Dismiss. On Aug 19, Judge Breyer granted order of stipulation. Update 2: On Aug 22, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief. The plaintiffs filed responses on Sep. 26. Update 3: On Sep 5, Judge Breyer denied defendants’ 22 Administrative Motion for Continuance of Case Managed Dates and Stay of Discovery filed on Aug 29. The relevant plaintiff response was filed on Sept 2. Update 4: On Sep. 11, Judge Breyer granted 26 Stipulations and Order Extending Deadlines after the plaintiff and the defendant stipulated and asked the court to enter a proposed order to set (1) the deadline to make initial disclosures and file ADR certifications will be 14 days following the date that Defendants file an answer, if required following determination of their motion to dismiss, and (2) the deadline to file a joint case management statement will be 7 days before the initial case management conference, if and when a date for such conference is scheduled by the Court. Update 5: Oct. 6, Judge Breyer granted defendant's unopposed administrative motion for stay of briefing schedule due to lack of appropriations and stayed defendants’ filing deadline by the total number of days of the lapse in appropriations

Nicolas Talbott, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00240 Complaint 2025-01-28 Government Action Not Blocked Pending Appeal Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order 14183) 2025-12-09 On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. This order categorically prohibits both enlistment and continued service, deeming transgender individuals incompatible with military standards of “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” The plaintiffs are a group of active duty transgender service members and prospective or current enlistees. They argue that the categorical exclusion of this class of individuals from military service violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the policy is arbitrary and lacks a legitimate government interest. Update 1: On Feb. 3, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 2: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 3: On Feb, 5, the court ordered the Government to notify plaintiffs and the court of any Department of Defense policy or guidance implementing the Executive Order. If any such action is taken, the court will entertain Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Update 4: In response to the Court’s order to update any policies or guidance implementing Executive Order 14168 (“Defending Women from Gender Extremism…”) or Executive Order 14183 (“Prioritizing Miliary…”), the government filed a memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership Commanders of the Combatant Commands Defense Agency and DoD Field Activity Directors, released on February 26, 2025, Subject: Additional Guidance on Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. The Memorandum requires updating of military guidance as it relates to transgender service members and provides a new policy, “Service Members and Applicants for Military Service who Have a Current Diagnosis or History of, or Exhibit Symptoms Consistent with, Gender Dysphoria.” The new policy states that “Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service,” and orders that “steps to identify Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria within 30 days of this memorandum.” It also states that “history of cross-sex hormone therapy or sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria or in pursuit of a sex transition, is disqualifying,” including already-extended offers of admission to military academies, and applies restrictions on individuals post-separation benefits eligibility. While waivers are available, the applicant “must be willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with the applicant's sex.” Update 5: On Mar. 18, Judge Ana Reyes granted Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, extending to all transgender service members facing the same irreparable harm. The Court stays its Order until Mar. 21, 2025, to provide Defendants time to consider filing an emergency stay with the D.C. Circuit. Update 6: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include additional plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Jamie Hash, Vera Wolf, Hunter Marquez, Ashley Davis, and Samuel Ahearn also filed a motion requesting a TRO to block enforcement of the EO and Department of Defense memoranda and preserve the status quo, on the basis that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim and likely to face irreparable harm. The motion states: “In light of this Court’s March 18, 2025, order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction of the Military Ban, ECF No. 88, which the Court administratively stayed pending Defendants’ Motions, see Minute Order (Mar. 21, 2025), this Court should temporarily restrain enforcement of the Military Ban with respect to these specific adverse actions toward Moving Plaintiffs until it resolves Defendants’ Motions on the merits.” Update 7: On Mar. 26, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit appealing Judge Reyes’ Mar. 18 order renewing the preliminary injunction. Update 8: On Mar. 27, the D.C. Circuit ordered that Judge Reyes’ Mar. 18 preliminary injunction order be administratively stayed pending further review by the court. Update 9: On June 27, Plaintiffs Miriam Perelson and Greyson Shishkina were voluntarily dismissed as plaintiffs in the action. Update 10: On Dec. 9, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 to grant the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal of the District Court’s preliminary injunction against the administration’s policy banning transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Katsas wrote that, in granting the preliminary injunction, the district court had afforded insufficient deference to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s determination that the policy would advance key military interests.

Shilling v. Trump (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00241 Complaint

Amended Complaint 2025-03-04 2025-02-06 Government Action Not Blocked Pending Appeal Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order 14183) 2025-05-06 On Jan. 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. Plaintiffs, including active and prospective trans service members and an organization representing transgender military members, argue that the ban violates the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. They seek declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against enforcement of the executive order. Update 1: On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the executive order as to Plaintiffs and other current and aspiring transgender servicemembers. Update 2: On Mar. 4, Plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint. Update 3: On Mar. 4: Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental brief in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction; the government responded with a brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction on Mar. 14; to which the Plaintiffs replied on Mar. 19. Update 4: On Mar. 27, Judge Benjamin Settle granted a preliminary injunction. He wrote, “The government has in turn provided no evidence supporting the conclusion that military readiness, unit cohesion, lethality, or any of the other touchstone phrases long used to exclude various groups from service have in fact been adversely impacted by open transgender service under the Austin Policy. The Court can only find that there is none.” “The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,” Settle stated. Update 5: On Mar. 28, the government appealed the Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. On that same day, Trump was dismissed as a defendant in this case. Update 6: On Mar. 31, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a stay. On Apr. 24, the Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Update 7: On May 6, the Supreme Court issued a stay (with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting).

Ireland v. Hegseth (D.N.J.) 1:25-cv-01918 Complaint 2025-03-17 Case Closed Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order 14183) 2025-05-15 On Jan. 20 and 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued EOs reversing the existing policy of the United States Armed Forces by banning transgender people from military service. Plaintiffs Master Sergeant Logan Ireland and Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade are transgender men who have served as members of the United States Air Force for years. Both Plaintiffs have been placed on administrative absence and have been informed that they only can continue to serve if they do so in their birth sex (i.e., as women). It is not possible for either Plaintiff to serve as a woman because they have medically transitioned and live as men. Plaintiffs believe that involuntary administrative separation proceedings will be initiated against them because of their transgender status by Mar. 26, 2025, given the Trump administration’s EO implementation timeline. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the implementation of the EOs and related memoranda, on the basis that they have a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to not be separated from military service based on their transgender status. Mar. 18, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a request for a TRO on the grounds of irreparable harm and that Plaintiffs would win on the merits of their Equal Protection claim.Mar. 20, 2025: the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO. On Mar. 21, Plaintiffs filed a further reply in support of their request for a TRO.Mar. 24, 2025: Judge Christine O’Hearn granted Plaintiffs’ request for a 14-day TRO, finding that the EOs present a clear violation of constitutional rights and that attempting to exhaust administrative procedures would be inadequate to address irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs.May 15, 2025: Plaintiffs move to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice, which the court grants.

Ireland v. United States (Ct. Fed. Cl.) 1:25-cv-01921 Complaint 2025-11-10 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order 14183) 2025-11-12 On Jan. 27, 2025, the Trump Administration issued EO 14183 banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. On May 8, the Secretary of Defense issued a Memorandum setting deadlines for active-duty service members and reserve service members to self-identify and voluntarily retire or face involuntary separation. On November 10, a group of 17 transgender servicemembers in the Air Force and Space Force sued the administration after approvals for their retirement benefits were rescinded. The plaintiffs allege that the government violated 10 U.S.C. § 9329, which provides that retired service members are entitled to retirement benefits. The plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their retirement orders and benefits.

Maine v. US Department of Agriculture (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00131 Complaint Amended Complaint 2025-04-08 2025-04-07 Case Closed Civil Liberties and Rights Conditioning agriculture funds on state transgender athlete policy (Sec. of Agriculture letter to Maine Governor) 2025-05-02 On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued Executive Order 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in Executive Order 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. On April 2, Maine received a letter from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, stating that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was freezing funds for certain technological functions in schools in Maine, as well as reviewing all research and education-related grants and funding. The letter stated that in order to continue to receive taxpayer dollars from USDA, Maine must demonstrate compliance with “Title IX’s protection of female student athletes from having to compete with or against males.” Despite commitments from Secretary Rollins that this freeze would not affect funding to feed schoolchildren, on April 3, Maine’s Child Nutrition Program was allegedly unable to access various federal funds. Plaintiff alleges that the funding freeze is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, they argue that the freeze is “arbitrary and capricious” and taken without observance of procedure required by law, as Secretary Rollins allegedly did not follow numerous required procedures, including notification, investigation, and related hearings. Plaintiff has requested the court vacate the funding freeze and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the USDA from impeding Maine’s access to federal funds based on the alleged violation of Title IX without following all legally required procedures. Update 1: Immediately after filing its complaint on Apr. 7, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to temporarily block Defendants from terminating, freezing, or otherwise interfering with Maine’s access to federal funds allocated to Maine based on Maine’s alleged violation of Title IX. Plaintiff amended its complaint the next day, but did not add any additional claims against Defendants. Update 2: On Apr. 9, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency TRO. Plaintiffs replied to Defendant’s opposition on Apr. 10. Update 3: On Apr. 11, Judge John Woodcock, Jr. granted Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency TRO through Apr. 25, 2025. This order requires Defendants to immediately unfreeze and release federal funding to Maine that has been withheld due to the alleged violation of Title IX and was later extended through May 9, 2025. Update 4: On May 2, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice.

Baraka v. Habba (D.N.J.) 2:25-cv-06846 Complaint 2025-06-03 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2025-08-21 On June 3, Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka filed a lawsuit against Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official Ricky Patel, claiming that his arrest by DHS agents outside of an ICE detention facility in Newark on May 9 during a press conference violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The complaint alleges that his arrest was politically motivated and asserts claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and defamation. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 2025-06-04: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. 2025-08-21: In a separate case, Alina Habba was disqualified as acting as the U.S. Attorney General for the District of New Jersey.

Chicago Headline Club v. Noem (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12173 Complaint 2025-10-06 Government Action Not Blocked Pending Appeal Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2025-11-20 Following the announcement of “Operation Midway Blitz” in early September 2025, the Trump Administration has ramped up immigration enforcement operations and deployed federal officers to the greater Chicago metropolitan area, including the area at and near the Broadview, Illinois ICE facility where demonstrations against the federal government’s policies and actions have been staged daily. Local and national press have continuously covered the federal law enforcement deployment to Chicago and the Broadview ICE facility in particular. On October 6, 2025, a coalition of media organisations, journalists, non-profit membership organisations and unions representing members of the media, and protestors filed suit alleging that federal officers have been responding to their presence at these protests with a pattern of brutality designed to silence the press and civilians. The complaint alleges that Federal immigration officers at the Broadview ICE facility have repeatedly and intentionally singled out persons whom they know to be members of the Press for violence, assault, and intimidation. Plaintiffs brought the suit as a class action on behalf of all persons who are or will be peacefully present at demonstrations in the Northern District of Illinois, and who intend to non-violently participate in, observe, or record the demonstrations, or engage in news gathering, reporting, or prayer, and allege violations of: their First Amendment rights to free speech, assemble, gather news and practice religious beliefs; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 which provides that the government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion; their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of excessive force and unreasonable seizures; and the Administrative Procedure Act as contrary to constitutional right and arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Plaintiffs also allege a conspiracy by Defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights. They seek classwide declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from using force against journalists or using riot control weapons or excessive force against journalists or protestors. Update 1: On October 9, District Court Judge Ellis issued a temporary restraining order granting plaintiffs’ motion and blocking the Trump administration from using force against journalists or ordering crowd dispersal orders unless justified by exigent circumstances in the Chicago area. The order prohibits federal agents from arresting, threatening, or using force against any person they “reasonably should know is a Journalist” without probable cause, using riot control weapons unless necessary to stop an “immediate and serious threat,” and seizing or arresting any non-violent protester without probable cause. The court’s ruling enjoins federal agents from this conduct for 14 days (until Oct. 23, 2025). Update 2: On October 17, Judge Sara L. Ellis issued a modification to her previous Temporary Restraining Order, further enjoining federal agents’ use of force in immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois. The modification adds a requirement that all such federal agents wear active body cameras while engaged in enforcement activity, unless exempt under CBP, ICE, or DHS policy. The modified TRO came a day after Ellis reportedly expressed during a hearing that she was “startled” by “images in the paper” showing federal agents deploying tear gas against protestors without warning and had “serious concerns that my order is being followed.” Update 3: On Oct. 28, Judge Ellis further clarified her TRO and ordered that all federal agents place a conspicuous identifier on their uniforms and reiterated that all CPB agents should wear body cameras. She further required that CPB Commander Geregory Bovino wear a body camera and report to her each afternoon to provide updates on the operation, and that the Defendants provide her with all body camera video and use of force reports to date by Oct. 31 and all subsequent such video and reports within 24 hours of the reports being finalized. She also directed that Defendants should provide her by Oct. 31 with a chart of all individuals detained for violations not related to immigration enforcement. Update 4: On October 29, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request to temporarily block Judge Ellis’ Oct. 28 order requiring CBP Chief Patrol Agent Greg Bovino to appear in court at 5:45PM on weekdays to report on use of force activities for each day. Update 5: On October 31, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request to issue a writ of mandamus blocking the district court’s order that had required CBP Chief Patrol Agent Greg Bovino to appear in court to report on use of force activities for each day. The court found that the order “puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator” and “sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding on the personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch,” concluding that the order infringes on the separation of powers. Update 6: On November 6, Judge Ellis issued a preliminary injunction that extends an order she issued last month restraining DHS, ICE, and CBP agents from using force, chemical weapons, or arrests against journalists. The judge reportedly stated that she found the DOJ’s evidence “not credible” and expressed concern that Defendant Bovino had admitted to lying about the use of tear gas. Update 7: On Nov. 19, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court’s preliminary injunction, calling the lower court’s order “overbroad” in the range of defendants it enjoined and “too prescriptive” in its attempt to prohibit the use of certain riot control weapons. At the same time, the court cautioned that its order does not preclude “a more tailored and appropriate” preliminary injunction, warning: “[d]o not overread today’s order.” Update 8: On Nov. 20, District Judge Ellis issued a written opinion explaining the Court’s Nov. 6 preliminary injunction.

O’Hara v. Beck (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03753 Complaint 2025-10-23 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2025-10-23 [Coming soon - On October 23, Sam O’Hara sued Ohio National Guard member Devon Beck and several members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, alleging they had illegally detained O’Hara for peacefully protesting the deployment of National Guard personnel to Washington, D.C. Plaintiff alleges that Beck and the members of the MPD threatened and detained O’Hara for playing “The Imperial March” from Star Wars, violating First Amendment protections for protesting and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Plaintiff also alleges common law false arrest/false imprisonment and battery under D.C. law. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that defendants violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights and D.C. common law and punitive and compensatory damages.] Update 1: The court issued a minute order extending time for Defendants to file an answer from November 21, 2025 to January 9, 2026.

Swalwell v. Pute (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04125 Complaint 2025-11-25 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2025-11-25 [Coming soon - On Nov. 25, Representative Eric Swalwell sued Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte, alleging that the administration unlawfully leaked Swalwell’s private mortgage records to manufacture a politically motivated criminal investigation in retaliation for his criticism of the president.]

Longworth v. Trump (D. Or.) 6:25-cv-02268 Complaint 2025-12-05 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2025-12-10 [Coming soon] On Dec. 5, 2025, Christina Longworth and Anna Lardner, two individuals who were arrested while protesting outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Eugene, Oregon, filed a complaint alleging they had been arrested under regulations that unlawfully expanded federal agents’ ability to target lawful conduct and in violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.] Dec. 10, 2025: Judge Aiken granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, temporarily blocking the administration from enforcing arrests for “loud or unusual noise” under 6 CFR § 139.35(c) on the sidewalks surrounding the federal building located between 6th and 7th Avenues and Pearl and High Streets in Eugene, Oregon.

Taylor v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01161

1:25-cv-03742 Complaint

Re-filed Complaint 2025-04-16 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Conditions of Imprisonment (Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety - Executive Order 14164) (Attorney General Memorandum, Feb. 5, 2025) 2025-10-21 The plaintiffs, a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden, filed a complaint against President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and other DOJ and BOP employees in their official capacity. The plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 14164, issued by President Trump, which directed the Attorney General to ensure their imprisonment in conditions reflecting the severity of their crimes. The Bondi Memo implemented this order, mandating their indefinite incarceration at ADX Florence, the only federal supermax prison. Plaintiffs allege that the redesignation process was a sham, denying them procedural due process and equal protection. They claim the conditions at ADX Florence constitute cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to their medical and mental health needs. Additionally, they argue that the redesignation directive is a bill of attainder and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively increasing the severity of their punishment. The plaintiffs assert that these actions interfere with the clemency power of President Biden's commutation orders. They also contend that the defendants' actions exceeded statutory authority and were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn EO 14164 and the Bondi Memo, ordering appropriate redesignation based on initial BOP decisions. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys' fees for the legal proceedings. Update 1: On May 2, Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Update 2: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in further support for their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Defendants stopped the lawful process to impose an extra-judicial punishment. Plaintiffs claim that they are likely to prevail on the merits, they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not intervene, and the balance of equities and public interest weighs heavily in their favor. Update 3: On May 27, Judge Timothy Kelly denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction Judge Kelly’s opinion noted Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, because they have not exhausted all available administrative remedies. Update 4: On Oct. 21, plaintiffs refiled after moving to suspend briefing pending completion of administrative appeals and then voluntarily dismissing their original case. They re-filed “out of an abundance of caution” given the D.C. Circuit’s “strict interpretation” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00952 Complaint 2025-03-31 Government Action Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law (Executive Order 14248) 2025-04-24 On Mar. 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among its requirements, the EO directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and provides that the Department of Homeland Security and DOGE shall review each state’s voter registration lists. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the Executive Order. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries challenged the EO, alleging that the President does not have legal authority to impose these policy changes, and that the Constitution reserves such authority to the states and to Congress. They further allege that the EO will make it harder to register to vote, cast a ballot, and to administer fair elections, and that it violates individual privacy rights. Plaintiffs brought 11 counts, alleging (1) Ultra Vires presidential action; (2) Violation of the Separation of Powers with respect to various congressional and state authorities; (3) Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations with respect to various statutes; and (4) APA violations with respect to various constitutional provisions. Plaintiffs requested that the court declare the relevant sections of the EO unlawful and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the various government departments from taking any action to implement the EO. Update 1: On Apr. 3, this case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (complaint) and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (complaint). These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00955 Complaint 2025-04-01 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law (Executive Order 14248) 2025-04-24 On Mar. 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on the federal voter registration form (“Federal Form”) and conditions federal funding to states based on compliance with the EO. Plaintiffs are seven voting rights organizations, including multiple branches of the League of Women Voters (LMV), the Hispanic Federation, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). They allege that the EO violates the separation of powers and the National Voter Registration Act. Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that the EO is unlawful and enjoin the implementation of the EO to the extent that it directs the EAC to change the Federal Form. Update 1: On Apr. 3, this case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (complaint) and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (complaint). These cases will proceed under League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President.

State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10810 Complaint 2025-04-03 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law (Executive Order 14248) 2025-11-24 On Mar. 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among its requirements, the EO directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and provides that the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Government Efficiency shall review each state’s voter registration lists. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the EO. Plaintiffs are 19 States that allege the President lacks authority to make the proposed changes to election law, that the EO infringes on the authority of States and Congress to determine election law, and that the EO would impose significant burden on the States to begin immediately conforming to the proposed new policy changes. Plaintiffs challenged six provisions of the EO: (1) Section 2(a), which requires the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship in its national mail voter registration form; (2) Section 2(d), which requires Federal voter registration departments or agencies to assess citizenship prior to providing a Federal voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs; (3) Section 3(d), which requires the Secretary of Defense to require documentary proof of citizenship in the Federal Post Card Application pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Voting Absentee Voting Act; (4) Section 4(a), which requires the EAC to freeze funds to States that do not implement these documentary requirements; (5) Section 7(a), which directs the Attorney General to enforce a new statutory interpretation to disallow counting of ballots received after Election Day; and (6) Section 7(b), which directs the EAC to condition funding to States based on adherence to this interpretation of Election Day. Plaintiffs allege that the President does not have authority to implement these changes to election law. Specifically, they argue that these provisions of the EO are unconstitutional under the Bicameralism, Presentment, Elections, and Electors Clauses (depending on the provisions), ultra vires, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act, violate Separation of Powers, and violate State sovereignty. Plaintiffs have requested the court declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and void, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin all Defendants except President Trump from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions. Update 1: On Apr. 23, Defendants moved to transfer the case to the District of Columbia and consolidate the case with three other cases challenging the same provisions of the EO. The supporting memorandum of law notes these three DDC cases include: (1) League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President; (2) Democratic National Committee v. Trump; and (3) League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. In the alternative, Defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of the aforementioned cases. Update 2: On May 5, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a supporting memorandum of law. The motion seeks relief for five of the six challenged provisions of the EO, including sections 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a), and 7(b).Plaintiffs argue that these provisions violate constitutional separation of powers, unconstitutionally impose extra-statutory conditions on congressionally appropriated funding, and unlawfully invade State sovereignty. Update 3: On May 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to Defendants’ motion to transfer and consolidate or in the alternative to stay, arguing that there is a strong presumption in favor of Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, that the Plaintiff States have distinct interests and harms from the private plaintiffs in the DDC cases, and that they therefore face severe prejudice if not allowed to litigate on their own timeline. Update 4: On May 9, the Court denied the transfer, stating that “the differences between the matters counsel against consolidation”, that the interests of justice do not favor transfer, and that a stay is not warranted. Update 5: On Jun. 13, Judge Casper issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from enforcing key parts of the administration’s election Executive Order, which requires states to demand proof of citizenship for voter registration, imposes new requirements on public assistance agencies, and penalizes states for ballot receipt deadlines and ballot curing practices. The court found that the coalition of states suing the government showed a “substantial risk” that their citizens would be disenfranchised. Update 6: On Jul. 18, Judge Casper issued an amended preliminary injunction following the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The amended order continues to block federal agents from enforcing key aspects of the election Executive Order in Plaintiff States, but no longer applies to all States. The amended order also continues to block federal officials from engaging in national enforcement actions that cannot be limited to non-Plaintiff States, such as updating the federal postcard application for all uniformed and overseas voters. Update 7: On Jul. 31, Defendants appealed the amended preliminary injunction order to the First Circuit. Update 8: On Sept. 17, District Court Judge Casper denied the administration's motion to dismiss 19 states’ challenge E.O. 14248, which requires documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration programs and conditions Help America Vote Act funding on states adopting Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. The court held the states have standing, allowing a prior preliminary injunction to remain in effect and allowing plaintiff states to proceed with their other causes of action. Update 9: On Oct. 15, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to stay all deadlines due to lapse in appropriations, but limited the stay to expire on Oct. 31. On Oct. 20, in response to defendants’ motion for clarification, the district court confirmed that the stay ends on Oct. 31, and no other relief was granted. Update 10: On Nov. 24, the First Circuit lifted its Oct. 14 stay of proceedings entered during the government shutdown.

State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00602 Complaint 2025-04-04 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law (Executive Order 14248) 2025-10-01 On Mar. 25, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Among its requirements, the EO directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms and provides that the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shall review each state’s voter registration lists. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the EO. Plaintiffs are the State of Washington and the State of Oregon. They are challenging ten provisions of the EO: (1) Section 2(a), which directs the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship in its national mail voter registration form; (2) Section 2(b)(iii), which directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOGE to review each state’s public voter registration list against federal immigration databases; (3) Section 2(d), which requires Federal voter registration departments or agencies to assess citizenship prior to providing a voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs; (4) Section 2(e)(ii), which directs the U.S. Attorney General to enforce federal election laws by using state-issued identification records and driver’s license databases; (5) Section 3(d), which requires the Secretary of Defense to require documentary proof of citizenship for overseas voting; (6) Section 4(a), which directs the EAC to freeze funds to States that do not implement these documentary requirements; (7) Section 4(b), which sets guidelines for voting systems and directs the EAC to review and re-certify voting systems; (8) Section 4(d), which directs DHS and FEMA to consider withholding federal funding based on states’ compliance with the voting system guidelines; (9) Section 5(b), which directs the the U.S. Attorney General to enforce Federal election integrity laws in the states and potentially withhold federal funding to states based on compliance; and (10) Section 7, which directs the Attorney General to take enforcement actions against any states found not in compliance with the EO and the EAC to condition federal funding to states based on their compliance. Plaintiffs allege that the challenged provisions violate the Elections Clause of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment (powers reserved to the states), the constitutional right to vote, ultra vires and separation of powers principles, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and the National Voter Registration Act. Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court declare that these provisions of the EO are unlawful and that the President does not have authority to implement these changes to election law. Plaintiffs are also requesting both a preliminary and a permanent injunction to prevent Defendants from implementing or enforcing these provisions of the EO. Update 1: On May 29, Plaintiffs Washington and Oregon filed a motion for partial summary judgment and requested that the Court hold that certain sections of the EO violate the separation of powers principle and enter a declaratory judgment that the Plaintiff States’ ballot-receipt deadlines are not impacted. Update 2: On October 1, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion for a stay of deadlines based on the current lapse of appropriations. All current case deadlines are stayed pending resolution of the lapse of appropriations. If the lapse of appropriations is more than seven days, the stay shall continue for the length of the lapse plus ten days. If the lapse of appropriations is seven days or less, the stay shall continue for the length of the lapse plus five days.

National Council of Jewish Women v. Citizenship and Immigration Services (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-3675 Complaint 2025-11-07 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Changes to Voter Registration Guidance for Naturalized Citizens 2025-11-10 On Aug. 29, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued a guidance document announcing that non-governmental entities are not permitted to provide voter registration services. The plaintiff, National Council of Jewish Women, is an advocacy organization that regularly provided voter registration assistance to newly eligible voters: those who had recently turned 18 and naturalized citizens. On Nov. 7, 2025, the plaintiff sued USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security over the August USCIS decision banning private voter assistance services. The plaintiff argued that the ban was motivated by discriminatory intent, violating the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiff further argued the ban violated the First Amendment in limiting the right to free expression and association by discouraging voter participation. Finally, the plaintiff alleged the ban was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiff requested that the court find that the voter assistance ban violated the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA, and to temporarily block and permanently prevent Defendants from enforcing the ban.

National Association of Immigration Judges v. Sirce E. Owen (E.D. Va.) 1:20-cv-00731 Complaint 2020-07-01 Government Action Not Blocked Pending Appeal Civil Liberties and Rights Government Employees' Speech 2025-12-05 In July 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia to challenge an employee policy that requires immigration judges to obtain permission before speaking publicly on issues relating to immigration. The NAIJ argued that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of its members. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the policy could only be challenged through the administrative procedures established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and on June 3, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court. The Court held that although the CSRA’s administrative scheme would normally be the appropriate venue for this case, the CSRA “requires a strong and independent Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) and Special Counsel” and stated that the principle that “functioning and independent bodies would receive, review, and decide in the first instance challenges to adverse personnel actions affecting covered federal employees has recently been called into question.” In particular, the panel noted that “the Special Counsel and several members of the MSPB have been terminated by the President and the Government has questioned the constitutionality of the removal protections enshrined in the CSRA.” The Court vacated the case and remanded so that the District Court can evaluate whether the CSRA continues to function as Congress intended in order to determine whether it would be appropriate to strip jurisdiction from the district court. Dec. 5, 2025: Chief Justice John Roberts placed a hold on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in the case. The Circuit had overturned a District Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the administration’s policy requiring that immigration judges obtain permission before speaking publicly on issues relating to immigration.

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Kupor (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13305 Complaint 2025-11-06 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Government Employees' Speech 2025-11-07 In May 2025, the White House and Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) implemented the “Merit Hiring Plan,” which includes open-ended essay questions in federal civil service job applications, one of which asks prospective employees how they would help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities. In June 2025, OPM issued updated guidance that states that the essay questions are not mandatory for applicants to answer but are encouraged. On Nov. 6, the American Federation of Government Employees (“AFGE”), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”), and the National Association of Government Employees (“NAGE”) sued OPM and its Director Scott Kupor and the United States of America to challenge the inclusion of this question. Plaintiffs argue that the question violates the First Amendment because it functions as viewpoint discrimination that compels speech pertaining to President Trump’s policy priorities and chills speech critical of those policy priorities, as applicants would feel pressured to self-censor and instead give an answer that aligned with the current president’s views in order to remain competitive. Plaintiffs also argue that the question and guidance violate the Privacy Act and are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). They further argue that the question’s infringement of First Amendment rights also violates the APA. Plaintiffs request the court find the use of the question to be unlawful, and to both temporarily block and permanently prevent Defendants from using the question in civil service employment, from relying on answers to the question, and from retaining applicants’ answers to the question.

Schnitt v. Bondi (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04111 Complaint 2025-11-24 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Government Employees' Speech 2025-11-24 [Coming soon] [Coming soon - On Nov. 24, former Department of Justice attorney and manager of the Witness Protection Program Joseph Schnitt sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ alleging that his termination by the Department violated his First Amendment rights.]

Does v. Patel (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04258 Complaint 2025-12-08 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Government Employees' Speech 2025-12-08 [Coming soon - On Dec. 8, twelve anonymous former FBI agents sued the FBI and the Department of Justice, alleging they were demoted or fired in retaliation for kneeling during a 2020 protest as a de-escalation tactic, conduct that the administration has characterized as participating in the demonstration.]

Aaron v. Bondi (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04250 Complaint 2025-12-08 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Retaliation Against Protected Speech 2025-12-08 [Coming soon - On Dec. 8, the creators of ICEBlock, an app on which users can report sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, sued the administration, alleging that it illegally threatened to prosecute the app’s creators and pressured Apple to remove the app from its App Store.]

Jeanne M. Marrazzo v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-04144 Complaint 2025-12-16 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Retaliation Against Protected Speech 2025-12-16 [Coming soon] On Dec. 16, 2025, Jeanne Marrazzo, former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, filed a complaint against Robert F. Kennedy and several other Department of Health and Human Services officials for removing Marrazzo from her position following her objections to new NIH policies.

Tincher v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-04669 Complaint 2025-12-17 Awaiting Court Ruling Civil Liberties and Rights Retaliation Against Protected Speech 2025-12-17 [Coming soon] On Dec. 17, 2025, a group of Minnesota residents filed a class action complaint against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and several other DHS officials for ICE officers’ actions during recent protests, which allegedly included unlawful seizures and arrests, threats and intimidation tactics, and physical assault of observers and protestors.

Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-10195 Complaint 2025-01-26 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Housing of Transgender Inmates (Executive Order 14168) 2025-11-17 Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiff, Maria Moe, is a transgender female federal inmate who was placed in a Special Housing Unit to await transfer to a men’s facility. The suit seeks to enjoin the Executive Order on the basis that it violates the 5th Amendment by discriminating against transgender individuals on the basis of sex and gender identity; the 8th Amendment by subjecting Moe to risk to life and dignity; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate Moe’s gender dysphoria; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Update 1: On Jan. 26, the judge reportedly issued a temporary restraining order requiring prison officials to maintain Moe's medical care and not to transfer her from the general population of the women's facility. Update 2: On Feb. 7, the judge issued an order transferring the case “to the United States District Court for the district in which [Moe] is currently confined” and terminating proceedings in the District of Massachusetts. The order does not identify the District, noting that “[t]he parties are familiar with the proper district based on the sealed documents previously filed in this matter.” Update 3: On Mar. 10, the court granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction and ordered that defendants maintain and continue the plaintiff’s housing status and medical care as they existed immediately prior to January 20, 2025. Update 4: On Apr. 5, the court sealed the case due to logistical and technical difficulties. Update 5: On Apr. 10, the court unsealed the case again with both parties agreeing that this case need not remain under seal, but rather, can proceed under the same protections as in other like cases. Update 6: On May 22, the court extended the preliminary injunction until Aug. 23, 2025. Update 7: On Aug. 20, the court extended the preliminary injunction until Nov. 21, 2025. Update 8: On Nov. 17, the court extended the preliminary injunction until Feb. 19, 2026.

Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00286 Complaint 2025-01-30 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Housing of Transgender Inmates (Executive Order 14168) 2025-08-21 Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiffs are three transgender women federal inmates, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are housed in female facilities. All have been informed that they will be transferred imminently to men’s facilities. The suit seeks a declaratory judgement that the executive order violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the 5th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex; the 8th Amendment by failure to protect through exposing plaintiffs to risk of serious harm and by cruel and unusual punishment by refusing necessary medical care; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate plaintiffs’ gender dysphoria and disability discrimination; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the government from carrying out the executive order and requiring it to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing and medical treatment consistent with the status quo prior to the order. Update 1: On Feb. 4, 2025, Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order and enjoined the government blocking it from transferring the plaintiffs or from discontinuing the plaintiffs’ medical care. Update 2: On Feb. 18, Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining implementation Section 4(a) and 4(c) of the Executive Order against plaintiffs. Update 3: On Feb. 21, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum and motion for a TRO and expanded the preliminary injunction to cover all Plaintiffs in the First Amendment Complaint. Update 4: On Feb. 24, Judge Lamberth issued an Order granting the request for an expanded preliminary injunction covering the additional plaintiffs. Update 5: On Mar. 14, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add Plaintiffs Rachel and Ellen Doe, who were already transferred to male facilities. On the same day, Plaintiffs Rachel and Ellen Doe filed a motion for a further TRO. On Mar. 18, Plaintiffs filed a motion to convert their pending motion for a further TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction and TRO. Update 6: On Mar. 19, Judge Royce Lamberth granted Plaintiffs Rachel and Ellen Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Update 7: On Apr. 2, the Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the preliminary injunction. Update 8: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for a renewed preliminary injunction, which was granted by Judge Lamberth on May 15. Update 9: On June 4, Defendants appealed Judge Lamberth’s May 15 preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit. Update 10: On Aug. 20, Judge Lamberth granted Plaintiff’s motion for a renewed preliminary injunction which was filed, unopposed, on Aug.15. Update 11: On August 21, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as to Judge Lamberth’s August 20 preliminary injunction order.

Jones v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00401 Complaint (Feb. 10, 2025) Amended Complaint (Feb. 28, 2025) 2025-02-10 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Housing of Transgender Inmates (Executive Order 14168) 2025-08-21 Trump’s Executive Order 14168 mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. Plaintiff is a transgender woman who had previously been transferred from a women’s to a men’s unit of a BOP facility. She has since been transferred back, but she “now fears at any moment she will again be transferred to a men’s prison pursuant to Executive Order 14166[sic].” Plaintiff alleges that she is unsafe in any men’s prison, and she is also at imminent risk of losing access to medical care to treat her gender dysphoria. She brings claims alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Rehabilitation Act, and Administrative Procedure Act, and she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the EO. Update 1: Feb. 21, Plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction on an emergency basis to stop Defendants from enforcing two sections of Executive Order 14168: Section 4(a), which requires inmate segregation based on biological sex, and Section 4(c), which bars federal prisons from providing medical care that would align inmates' physical characteristics with their gender identity. Update 2: On Feb. 24, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction, stopping the Administratio

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-legal-challenges-trump-administration-actions/

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/