(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', "Brian O'Neill", 'Nancy Morawetz', 'Ted R. Bromund', 'Charlie Magri', 'Dr. Paul Massaro', 'Jordan Street', 'Maria Kisumbi', 'Michael Schmitt', 'Siven Watt']

Date: 2026-06-24 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 2025-11-13 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. Nov. 4, 2025: 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. Nov. 13, 2025: Defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit, Case No. 25-5402.

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01365 Complaint 2025-05-05 Government Action Temporarily Blocked in Part; Temporary Block Denied in Part 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) 2026-03-19 Mark Zaid’s limited access security clearance was rescinded by the Trump Administration after a March 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. Dec. 23, 2025: Judge Ali granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and denied the government’s motion to dismiss. Judge Ali enjoined the government from giving effect to the security clearance revocations or denial of access to classified information as to Zaid. The preliminary injunction will not go into effect until Jan. 13, 2026. Jan. 6, 2026: Defendants appealed the court’s Dec. 23, 2025 order to the D.C. Circuit, 26-5009. March 19, 2026: The court scheduled oral argument for May 14, 2026.

Doe et al v. EEOC (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01124 Complaint Amended Complaint 2025-05-16 2025-04-15 Case Pending 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 March 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 March 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 March 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. May 16, 2025: Plaintiffs amended their complaint to be a class action complaint for others similarly situated. June 26, 2025: 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 Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government 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) 2025-07-17 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. April 24, 2025: Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and accompanying memorandum citing irreparable harm. May 2, 2025: 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. May 7, 2025: Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to the motion for a TRO and a reply to the motion to dismiss. May 9, 2025: Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. May 14, 2025: Judge Christopher Cooper granted a preliminary injunction on the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. July 17, 2025: Judge Cooper granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, thereby terminating the case.

American Bar Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01888 Complaint 2025-06-16 Case Pending 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) 2026-03-31 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. March 31, 2026: Judge Ali denied the government’s motion to dismiss and found that the ABA plausibly alleged standing and ripeness, finding that the complaint’s allegations of a consistent enforcement pattern, senior officials’ public statements describing a broader effort to target law firms, and evidence of a chilling effect among ABA members sufficed to establish a “real and immediate” threat of injury at the time of filing.

Bakken v. United States Military Academy (S.D.N.Y.) 7:25-cv-07826 Complaint 2025-09-22 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Actions Toward Universities (Executive Order 14188, Pause or Termination of Grants, Columbia Letter of Demands, Harvard Letter of Demands, Harvard Proclamation on Student Visas) 2026-05-26 On January 27, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14185 that reads, in part, “The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall carefully review the leadership, curriculum, and instructors of the United States Service Academies and other defense academic institutions associated with their respective Departments to ensure alignment with this order. In addition, these institutions shall be required to teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.” The United States Military Academy at West Point (USMA) subsequently issued a new policy in February 2025, the Academic Engagement Policy, stating that faculty cannot engage in external writing or speaking activities tied to their USMA role without prior approval from their department heads. USMA civilian law professor Tim Bakken filed a class action complaint against the USMA on Sept. 22, alleging that the Academic Engagement Policy has chilled both on-duty and classroom speech and thus unlawfully infringes upon faculty members’ academic freedoms, and delegates overly-broad licensing discretion to a government official, without narrow, objective and definite standards, allowing for arbitrary application, viewpoint discrimination, and the suppression of protected speech. Plaintiffs allege prior restraint and freedom of speech violations of the First Amendment and seek an order declaring the Academic Engagement Policy unconstitutional and preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Academic Engagement Policy. May 26, 2026: Judge Seibel granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s First Amendment challenge and that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court enjoined Defendants from enforcing the February 2025 Academic Engagement Policy – which required civilian West Point faculty to obtain prior approval before any external writing, speaking, or media engagement within their academic expertise that referenced their West Point affiliation – against all USMA civilian faculty, and separately barred Defendants from prohibiting Plaintiff from expressing his opinions to students on the subjects he teaches. The court found that Defendants’ stated justifications appeared to be “post-hoc rationalizations” and that the policy was likely “a pretext for an effort to channel speech to conform to the President’s liking and to prevent dissenting views from entering the marketplace of ideas.”

O'Neill v. Hartman (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-04228 Complaint 2025-12-22 Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Actions Against LGBTQ+ Government Employees 2025-12-22 On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directs federal agencies to implement policies on the basis of sex, rather than gender, and prevents policies that accommodate transitioning employees. Plaintiff is a data scientist and a transgender woman in the National Security Agency (NSA). On Dec. 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the NSA’s Acting Director, William Hartman, in his official capacity, alleging that, pursuant to the Executive Order, the NSA has created a hostile work environment and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which protects Plaintiff from sex discrimination. Plaintiff primarily requests that the court declare that the actions of Defendant violate Title VII; enjoin Defendant from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order and any other similar policy or practice; and award her compensatory damages.

Mittereder v. Noem (E.D. Va.) 1:25-cv-01991 Complaint 2025-11-07 Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Actions Against LGBTQ+ Government Employees 2026-02-09 On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directs federal agencies to implement policies on the basis of sex, rather than gender, and prevents policies that accommodate transitioning employees. Plaintiff is a transgender Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security officer (TSO). On Nov. 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in her official capacity, alleging that, pursuant to the Executive Order, TSA issued a directive prohibiting Plaintiff and all other transgender TSOs from conducting security pat-downs of airline passengers and disallowing their use of TSA-controlled restrooms that align with their gender identity. Plaintiff alleges this directive interferes with her ability to perform her regularly assigned job duties, places undue burden on her female coworkers, subjects her to unwanted stigma and disclosure of her gender identity, and will impede her career advancement. Plaintiff alleges the directive violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which protects Plaintiff from sex and gender identity discrimination. Plaintiff primarily requests that the court declare that the actions of Defendant violate Title VII; enjoin Defendant from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order and any other similar policy or practice; and award her compensatory damages. Feb. 9, 2026: On Feb. 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that refined the factual allegations and legal theories first asserted in her Nov. 7, 2025 complaint against Secretary Kristi Noem in her official capacity. The amended pleading removes references to use of TSA-controlled restrooms and focuses the claim on the prohibition against conducting security pat-downs.

PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00337 Complaint 2025-02-04 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) 2026-05-21 On Jan. 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 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. 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. Feb. 5, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Feb. 13, 2025: Judge Brendan Abell Hurson issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of the Executive Order. Feb. 18, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the Executive Order. Feb. 26, 2025: Plaintiffs moved to extend the TRO. Judge Hurson extended the TRO until March 5, 2025. March 4, 2025: 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. March 7, 2025: 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. March 10, 2025: 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.” March 21, 2025: The government filed notice that it was appealing the March 4 preliminary injunction in the case to the Fourth Circuit. March 28, 2025: 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. April 9, 2025: The Court granted the joint motion to stay pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision on the appeal of the preliminary injunction order. May 12, 2025: The Fourth Circuit placed the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477. Nov. 21, 2025: The Fourth Circuit placed the case in abeyance pending its decision in Anderson v. Crouch, No. 22-1927. April 1, 2026: District Judge Hurson denied the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. April 16, 2026: The Fourth Circuit denied the administration’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. May 21, 2026: The Fourth Circuit denied the government's petition for rehearing en banc thus leaving in place the three-judge panel's denial of a stay of the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the district court’s March 2025 preliminary injunction remains – preventing the government from conditioning, withholding, or terminating federal funding based on the fact that a healthcare entity provides gender-affirming medical care to a patient under age 19. Today, in a concurring opinion joined by Judge King, Judge Benjamin wrote that the government's more than one-year delay in seeking appellate relief, and its representation to Plaintiffs that it did not intend to seek a stay, foreclosed any credible showing of irreparable harm.

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 State A.G. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-side State Amicus 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. Feb. 7, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Feb. 11, 2025: State Attorney General of Alabama submitted an amicus brief in support of Defendants. Feb. 14, 2025: 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. Feb. 19, 2025: 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. Feb. 28, 2025: 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. March 6, 2025: 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. March 13, 2025: 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. March 14, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for contempt or expedited discovery. March 17, 2025: 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. March 21, 2025: Defendants appealed the district court’s partial grant of a preliminary injunction and grant of expedited discovery to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. April 23, 2025: The court granted the Defendants’ stay of the proceedingspending the appeal of the preliminary injunction. May 16, 2025: 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. Nov. 10, 2025: 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 State A.G. Plaintiffs Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Individuals Under the Age of 19 (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14187) 2026-06-03 The Trump administration issued Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” and two related memoranda on April 22, 2025 and June 11, 2025, which aim to eliminate the provision of healthcare to transgender individuals under the age of 19. On Aug. 1, 2025, a coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint challenging these 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. 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. June 3, 2026: Judge Kelley denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff States have standing to challenge EO 14,187 and two DOJ memoranda directing enforcement of the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act, False Claims Act (FCA), and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) against gender-affirming care providers, that the memoranda constitute final agency action under the APA, and that Plaintiffs have adequately stated a Tenth Amendment claim.

Doe v. Department of Defense (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-02947 Complaint 2025-09-08 Case Pending 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, 2025, 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 June 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, 2025, 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.

Coe v. Blanche (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-04641 Complaint 2026-06-02 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) 2026-06-24 On Jan. 28, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14187, declaring it United States policy not to fund or support gender-affirming medical care for minors and directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to identify legal avenues to limit its provision. On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas issued a grand jury subpoena to New York University (NYU) Langone Hospitals demanding, among other records, documents sufficient to identify all minor patients who received gender-affirming care at NYU between Jan. 1, 2020, and May 5, 2026, along with clinical records, informed consent documentation, and provider information. On June 2, 2026, a class of transgender minors, their parents, and transgender young adults who received gender-affirming care at NYU Langone and other New York City healthcare institutions during the relevant period filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the subpoena violates their right to informational privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; and, as against the NYU Defendants, that compliance would constitute a breach of physician-patient confidentiality under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4504(a). Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the DOJ Defendants from seeking or receiving Plaintiffs’ identifying and sensitive health information through the subpoenas, and preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the NYU Defendants from disclosing that information in response to the subpoena. June 24, 2026: Judge Failla granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and provisional class certification, blocking DOJ Defendants from seeking, receiving, using, retaining, or disseminating any identifying and sensitive health information of class members through the subpoenas at issue or substantially similar administrative or grand jury subpoenas related to the DOJ’s investigations into gender-affirming medical care. The court also blocked NYU Defendants from disclosing or producing such information to the DOJ in response to the same. The court found Plaintiffs substantially likely to prevail on their claims that the DOJ subpoenas violate constitutional protections for informational privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that compelled disclosure by NYU Defendants would breach physician-patient confidentiality under New York law.

State of California v. Department of Justice (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04863 Complaint 2025-06-09 State A.G. Plaintiffs Case Pending 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. June 9, 2025: 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 June 10. Aug. 15, 2025: 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. Aug. 22, 2025: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiffs filed responses on Sep. 26. Sept. 5, 2025: 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. Sept. 11, 2025: 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. Oct. 6, 2025: 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.

Board of Trustees of the California State University v. United States Department of Education (N.D. Cal) 5:26-cv-01970 Complaint 2026-03-06 Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14201) and Policies on Transgender Students 2026-03-06 Following Executive Orders (EOs) issued on Jan. 30 and Feb. 11, 2025 directing agencies to interpret Title IX as barring transgender women from women’s athletics, the Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights investigated San José State University (SJSU) and on Jan. 28, 2026 issued a Letter of Findings claiming it had violated Title IX by permitting a transgender woman to play on its women’s volleyball team from 2022 to 2024. The ED demanded SJSU ban transgender women from all women's athletic programs, issue public statements declaring sex to be binary and unchangeable, and send personalized apology letters to affected athletes, or face the loss of federal funding. On behalf of SJSU, the Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) filed a complaint against the ED challenging the Letter of Findings and subsequent Proposed Resolution Agreement, arguing that SJSU had followed the law as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit and the Executive Branch during the relevant period of time and alleging the ED’s actions violated the Spending Clause, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act because their actions were contrary to the law, arbitrary and capricious, and without observance of procedure required by law. CSU asks the court to declare the ED’s Letter of Findings and Proposed Resolution Agreement to violate the law and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the ED from refusing to grant federal funding to SJSU on the basis of the Letter of Findings.

State of Minnesota v. Trump (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-01608 Complaint 2025-04-22 State A.G. Plaintiffs Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14201) and Policies on Transgender Students 2025-04-22 On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, directing federal agencies to recognize only two sexes as determined by biology, barring use of federal grant funds to "promote gender ideology," and requiring agencies to enforce laws governing sex-based rights using only biological sex classifications. On Feb. 5, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14201, directing all federal agencies to rescind funding from educational programs that permit transgender girls and women to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. The Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently sent letters to the Minnesota Attorney General threatening to terminate DOJ grants to St. Paul Public Schools, Metropolitan State University, and the University of Minnesota, unless the Minnesota Attorney General reversed a formal opinion concluding that Minnesota’s Human Rights Act requires schools to allow students to participate in extracurricular activities consistent with their gender identity. On April 22, 2025, the State of Minnesota filed a complaint alleging that the EOs and DOJ letters exceed presidential authority in violation of the separation of powers; that conditioning federal grants on compliance with the orders violates the separation of powers contrary to Congress’ Spending Clause powers; that the orders violate Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), which prohibit gender-based discrimination; that the DOJ letters are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA,; and that coercing the Minnesota Attorney General into retracting his formal opinion on state law violates the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering and anti-coercion principles. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the EOs and the DOJ letters are unconstitutional and unlawful and an injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the EOs and DOJ letters against Minnesota.

Nicolas Talbott, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00240 Complaint Amended Complaint

2026-04-15 2025-01-28 Plaintiff-side State Amicus Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in the Military (Executive Order 14183) 2026-06-01 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. Feb. 3, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order. Feb. 4, 2025: Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Feb. 5, 2025: 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. Feb. 14, 2025: State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs. Feb. 26, 2025: 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.” March 18, 2025: 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 March 21, 2025, to provide Defendants time to consider filing an emergency stay with the D.C. Circuit. March 24, 2025: 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 (March 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.” March 26, 2025: Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit appealing Judge Reyes’ March 18 order renewing the preliminary injunction. March 27, 2025: The D.C. Circuit ordered that Judge Reyes’ March 18 preliminary injunction order be administratively stayed pending further review by the court. June 27, 2025: Plaintiffs Miriam Perelson and Greyson Shishkina were voluntarily dismissed as plaintiffs in the action. Dec. 9, 2025: 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. March 16, 2026: Judge Reyes denied Defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal of the March 18, 2025 preliminary injunction. April 15, 2026: Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include class allegations, and moved to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of “all transgender individuals who, on or after the date this lawsuit was filed, are or were in active duty service in the United States military or were actively pursuing accession in the United States military or wished to do so.” June 1, 2026: In an opinion and order, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court’s preliminary injunction as to the current servicemembers but vacated it as to Plaintiffs seeking to join the military. The court held that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to weigh the balance of equities separately for current servicemembers and those actively seeking admission into the military. The court further narrowed the relief from a universal injunction to the named Plaintiffs currently serving in the military and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Wilkins announced the judgment of the court; Senior Judge Rogers concurred in part and dissented in part, and Judge Walker filed a dissent.

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

Amended Complaint 2025-03-04 2025-02-06 Plaintiff-side State Amicus 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. Feb. 19, 2025: 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. Feb. 26, 2025: State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs. March 4, 2025: Plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint. March 4, 2025: 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 March 14; to which the Plaintiffs replied on March 19. March 27, 2025: 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. March 28, 2025: 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. March 31, 2025: The Ninth Circuit denied the request for a stay. April 24, 2025: Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. May 6, 2025: 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 March 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. March 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. March 20, 2025: the Government filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO. On March 21, Plaintiffs filed a further reply in support of their request for a TRO. March 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 Case Pending 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 State A.G. Plaintiffs 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 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 (APA). 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.

April 7, 2025: Immediately after filing its complaint on April 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. April 9, 2025: Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency TRO. Plaintiffs replied to Defendant’s opposition on April 10. April 11, 2025: Judge John Woodcock, Jr. granted Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency TRO through April 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. May 2, 2025: Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice.

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

1:25-cv-03742 Complaint

Re-filed Complaint 2025-04-16 Government Action Temporarily Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Conditions of Imprisonment (Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety - Executive Order 14164) (Attorney General Memorandum, Feb. 5, 2025) 2026-02-17 Plaintiffs, a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden, filed a complaint against President Donald Trump, Attorney General Bondi, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and other Department of Justice (DOJ) and BOP employees in their official capacity. Plaintiffs challenge Executive Order (EO) 14164, issued by 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. 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. Plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys' fees for the legal proceedings. May 2, 2025: Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. May 12, 2025: 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. May 27, 2025: 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. Oct. 21, 2025: 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). Feb. 11, 2026: Judge Kelly enjoined the administration from transferring any of the Plaintiffs to ADX Florence, a federal supermax prison, while their lawsuit proceeds. Judge Kelly found that the BOP’s decision to transfer Plaintiffs to the prison without individualized assessments likely violated their due process rights. Feb. 17, 2026: Plaintiffs in Taylor v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01161, voluntarily dismissed their claims after joining the related case of Taylor v. Trump, 1:25-cv-03742. Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO was subsequently denied as moot.

Baraka v. Habba (D.N.J.) 2:25-cv-06846 Complaint 2025-06-03 Case Pending 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 Case Closed Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2026-03-05 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 organizations, journalists, non-profit membership organizations 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. Oct. 9, 2025: 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). Oct. 17, 2025: Judge 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.” Oct. 28, 2025: 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. Oct. 29, 2025: The Seventh 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. Oct. 31, 2025: The Seventh 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. Nov. 6, 2025: 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. Nov. 19, 2025: The Seventh 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.” Nov. 20, 2025: District Judge Ellis issued a written opinion explaining the Court’s Nov. 6 preliminary injunction. Jan. 22, 2026: Judge Ellis decertified the class and granted Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss, terminating the case on the basis that it was closely related to another case pending before Judge Alexakis on the same court. March 5, 2026: Judges Brennan and Scudder of the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, finding that it was “overbroad” and that the end of Operation Midway Blitz had likely rendered the case moot, and dismissed the government’s appeal. In dissent, Judge Easterbrook argued that, as a procedural matter, the court could not both vacate the injunction and dismiss the appeal.

O’Hara v. Beck (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03753 Complaint 2025-10-23 Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2025-10-23 Sam O’Hara, a 35-year-old District of Columbia resident, brings this action against Sgt. Devon Beck of the Ohio National Guard, four Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers (Campbell, Brown, Reyes-Benigno, and Lopez Martinez), and the District of Columbia. The complaint arises from events on Sept. 11, 2025, when O’Hara, peacefully protesting the National Guard’s presence in D.C. by walking behind Guard members, playing “The Imperial March,” and recording the encounter, was threatened by Sgt. Beck, who called MPD. The officers detained O’Hara, handcuffed him tightly, and prevented further protest without conducting any investigation or having probable cause, allegedly causing him pain and anxiety while aggravating a prior shoulder injury. The complaint contends O’Hara’s actions were non-disruptive, posed no interference, and were clearly protected First Amendment activity, as he did not assault, harass, or block the Guard members. Key allegations include First Amendment violations (suppression of speech and retaliation) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable seizure and excessive force, D.C. common law false arrest/false imprisonment, and battery, holding the District vicariously liable for its officers’ conduct. O’Hara seeks declaratory judgments that his constitutional and common law rights were violated, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper, as well as a trial by jury. This suit aims to ensure accountability for the alleged unlawful suppression of peaceful protest and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights.

Swalwell v. Pulte (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04125 Complaint 2025-11-25 Case Closed Civil Liberties and Rights Retaliation Against Protected Speech 2026-03-23 On Nov. 13, 2025, William Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), referred Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democratic congressman from California, to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution on charges of mortgage fraud. Pulte alleged that Swalwell fraudulently claimed that his Washington, D.C. home was his primary residence in his mortgage agreement. On Nov. 25, 2025, Swalwell filed a complaint against Pulte and the FHFA, along with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which are mortgage financing entities regulated by the FHFA. Swalwell, who has been publicly critical of President Donald Trump, alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for his criticisms of Trump by unlawfully obtaining and leaking his confidential mortgage records from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in order to pursue false criminal charges. Swalwell argues Defendants’ actions violated the Privacy Act, which prohibits federal agencies from disclosing sensitive personal information unless authorized by law, and the Administrative Procedure Act based on a theory of First Amendment retaliation. Swalwell argues that Defendants’ retaliatory conduct was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the law. Swalwell seeks declaratory relief, statutory and compensatory damages, and an injunction requiring the withdrawal of the criminal referral. Feb. 13, 2026: Plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the claims against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association without prejudice. Mar. 20, 2026: The parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Mar. 23, 2026: Pursuant to the parties’ request, the court entered a minute order dismissing the case without prejudice.

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 In January 2025, the federal government issued new regulations authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect federal buildings and property. The finalized rules took effect on November 5, 2025. On December 5, individuals Christina Longworth and Anna Lardner were arrested while protesting outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Eugene, Oregon. Longworth and Lardner subsequently filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, 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. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants President Donald Trump, the Department of Defense, and Secretary Kristi Noem and their agents unlawfully threatened and arrested Plaintiffs in retaliation for vocally protesting outside of the Eugene ICE building. Plaintiffs say this will have a chilling effect on protected First Amendment activities. Plaintiffs also allege these regulations are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from continuing these actions. 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.

State of Illinois v. Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.) 1:26-cv-00321 Complaint 2026-01-12 State A.G. Plaintiffs Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2026-01-12 Beginning in September 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deployed personnel from Border Patrol to Illinois to conduct immigration enforcement as part of “Operation Midway Blitz”. On Jan. 12, 2026, the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago filed suit against DHS, alleging that the Border Patrol deployment to Chicago was an unlawful and coercive campaign that culminated in a militarized Border Patrol using “violent tactics” with “deadly results.” The complaint states that "uniformed, military-trained personnel, carrying semi-automatic firearms and military-grade weaponry, have rampaged for months through Chicago and the surrounding areas, lawlessly stopping, interrogating and arresting residents, and attacking them with chemical weapons." Plaintiffs contend that these actions are in retaliation for the failure of Illinois and Chicago to accept the administration’s immigration policies, in particular the TRUST act, which prohibits Chicago state and local employees from participating in civil immigration enforcement operations. Plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ conduct violates the Tenth Amendment since it impedes Illinois and Chicago from carrying out core sovereign functions, including providing public safety and enforcing state statutes. The complaint also asserts that the policies of the Border Patrol, including policies which allow roving patrols, biometric scanning, warrantless arrests, deployment of tear gas, enforcement at sensitive locations, concealing license plates and private trespass, violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they exceed defendants’ statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious as well as ultra vires. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the policies and declaring the government’s actions unconstitutional and enjoining defendants from engaging in conduct under the policies asserted to be illegal.

State of Minnesota v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:26-cv-00190 Complaint Amended Complaint

2026-04-20 2026-01-12 State A.G. Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-side State Amicus Temporary Block of Government Action Denied Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2026-04-21 Beginning in December 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deployed personnel from Border Patrol and ICE to Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement as part of “Operation Metro Surge”. On Jan. 12, 2026, the State of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul (the “Twin Cities”) filed suit against DHS, alleging that the mass deployment of armed immigration agents is a politically motivated, unconstitutional immigration enforcement campaign marked by racial profiling, excessive force, and widespread disruption. Plaintiffs contend that the decision to target the Twin Cities is motivated by a desire to punish Minnesota for voting against President Trump in the 2024 election and in retaliation for the failure of the Twin Cities to accept the administration’s immigration policies, and argue the administration’s statements justifying its actions in Minnesota as based on cases of fraud in the state are pretextual. In the complaint, the State of Minnesota asserts a violation of Equal Sovereignty based on disparate treatment. Plaintiffs further argue that the defendants’ conduct violates the Tenth Amendment and is ultra vires as it impedes both the State and the Twin Cities from carrying out core sovereign functions, including policing and crime control and maintaining public schools. In addition, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants’ violations of state law and city ordinances and use of excessive force, warrantless arrests, enforcement at sensitive locations, and activity taken as if near the border constitute violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. They also assert violations of the First Amendment as unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the government’s actions unconstitutional and enjoining defendants from engaging in specifically described conduct. The same day, plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order. Jan. 14, 2026: Judge Menendez declined to grant an ex parte TRO without giving the Defendants an opportunity to respond to the motion for injunctive relief and will treat the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Jan. 16, 2026: Minnesota Attorney General moved to convert Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction, citing extraordinary circumstances, including the president’s public threat on X to invoke the Insurrection Act and a Jan. 14, 2026 incident in which DHS agents allegedly shot a man in the leg during a traffic stop. Jan. 22, 2026: State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs. Jan. 31, 2026: District Judge Menendez denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Operation Metro Surge, finding Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden for their Tenth Amendment and Equal Sovereignty claims. Feb. 16, 2026: A magistrate judge denied Minnesota's motion for expedited discovery, holding that despite the “far-reaching and deeply traumatizing effects” of Operation Metro Surge, Plaintiffs had not shown good cause because they had not yet filed the contemplated preliminary injunction motion or narrowly targeted their request to support specific and necessary ends. April 20, 2026: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding as Defendants DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, DHS Senior Advisor Stephen Miller, and “Border Czar” Tom Homan. The amended complaint also includes nine additional causes of action, including challenges to DHS’s reduction in training policy, biometric scanning policy, and alleging unlawful use of military force. April 21, 2026: Judge Menendez denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot and ordered Defendants to respond to the amended complaint by May 20, 2026.

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:26-cv-00628 Complaint 2026-01-24 Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2026-03-24 On Jan. 24, 2026, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBA), and related federal officials, alleging federal agents blocked state investigators from accessing evidence after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal officers in Minneapolis during “Operation Metro Surge.” Plaintiffs contend that federal authorities unlawfully obstructed state and local investigations into the shooting, which took place on a public street in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026, by denying state law enforcement access to crime scenes and seized evidence, and failed to cooperate, thereby impeding the BCA’s ability to investigate and enforce state criminal law. The complaint contends that the defendants’ actions violate the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism, and that these actions are arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law under the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and ask that defendants be enjoined from destroying, altering or continuing to deny Plaintiffs access to relevant evidence. On the same day, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order. Jan. 24, 2026: Judge Tostrud granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Feb. 2, 2026: District Judge Tostrud dissolved the Jan. 24 temporary restraining order, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a new temporary restraining order, and granted Defendant’s motion to seal the FBI’s declaration. The court found that “Defendants are not likely to destroy or improperly alter evidence related to Mr. Pretti’s shooting during the life of this case, and other relevant considerations do not on balance favor a continuing preservation order.” The court entered a final judgment in the case. March 24, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice.

Herzberg v. United States (D. Or.) 3:26-cv-00410 Complaint 2026-03-03 Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2026-05-06 On March 3, 2026, Daryn Herzberg, an American citizen and former U.S. Marine, sued the administration claiming that federal agents used excessive force on him on two separate occasions while he was protesting outside an ICE facility in Portland. Plaintiff alleges battery and seeks damages. May 6, 2026: Judge Russo granted Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings until July 13, 2026.

State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-01007 Complaint 2026-03-24 State A.G. Plaintiffs Case Pending Civil Liberties and Rights Criminal Arrests and Prosecutions 2026-03-24 In late 2025, the Trump administration launched “Operation Metro Surge,” deploying thousands of armed and masked federal agents across Minnesota in what DHS described as the largest immigration enforcement operation in its history. During three weeks in January 2026, federal agents shot and killed two people, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and wounded a third, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. In each instance, federal authorities initially indicated they would cooperate with state investigators, then abruptly reversed course at the direction of senior federal officials, seizing exclusive control of physical evidence and refusing to share even basic information such as the identities of the agents involved. On March 24, 2026, the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans filed a complaint against the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Attorney General Bondi, and DHS Secretary Noem, seeking to compel the federal government to comply with formal evidence requests — known as Touhy demands — submitted in connection with all three shootings. Plaintiffs allege that the agencies’ categorical refusal to share evidence reflects a deliberate policy adopted at DOJ and DHS to shield federal immigration officers from state scrutiny. Plaintiffs claim that this agency action is arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and not in accordance with the law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs also allege a Tenth Amendment violation, arguing that blocking state investigators from accessing evidence of potential crimes committed within Minnesota's borders directly infringes on the State’s sovereign authority to investigate and enforce its own criminal laws. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, vacatur of Defendants’ noncooperation policy, and a court order compelling production of all requested evidence.

Gilbert Baker Foundation v. U.S. Department of Interior (S.D.N.Y) 1:26-cv-01317 Complaint 2026-02-17 Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff Civil Liberties and Rights Display and Flying of Non-Agency Flags 2026-04-13 On or about Feb. 9, 2026, the federal government, through the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), removed the official Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument in Greenwich Village in New York City. This monument is the first national monument in the United States dedicated to the LGBTQ+ rights movement, commemorating the Stonewall Uprising. The government claimed the removal was necessary to comply with NPS and DOI policies that purportedly prohibit flying flags other than the U.S. flag, DOI flags, and POW/MIA flags. Plaintiffs—the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Charles Beal, Village Preservation, and Equality New York— brought a case against Defendants DOI, NPS, and Superintendent of Manhattan Sites for NPS Amy Sebring, alleging these policies do not require the removal and explicitly permit flags providing historical context, such as the Pride flag. Plaintiffs argue the flag removal is an arbitrary and capricious action in violation of the APA, which is also contrary to the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Stonewall monument. Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants’ actions violate the procedural requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the flag removal was arbitrary and capricious, as well as to vacate the removal decision, restore the flag to the Stonewall National Monument, and permanently block Defendants from removing the flag without complying with the procedural requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. April 13, 2026: The court granted a stipulation and voluntary dismissal with prejudice after Defendants agreed to maintain a Pride flag at New York City’s Stonewall National Monument, retaining jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation terms.

Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00952 Complaint 2025-03-31 Government Action Blocked Pending Appeal Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law 2026-01-30 On March 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. April 3, 2025: This case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. 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 Blocked Pending Appeal Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law 2026-01-30 On March 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. April 3, 2025: This case was consolidated with League of Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President and Democratic National Committee v. Trump. 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 State A.G. Plaintiffs Government Action Blocked Civil Liberties and Rights Election Law 2026-06-24 On March 25, 2025, President Donald 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 Trump from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions. April 23, 2025: 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 t

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

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/