Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

In the days since taking office, the Trump administration has issued a flurry of executive orders seeking to enact his campaign pledges on energy and the environment, immigration, transgender rights, dissolving government agencies, as well as pressuring federal employees to resign.

As of February 4, there were 28 cases filed against the executive branch. The following list spotlights just a few of the executive orders being challenged.

On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On January 21, 2025, the administration issued another executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs.

Plaintiffs argue the first order is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and the 5th Amendment’s due process guarantee for vagueness. They argue the second order unconstitutionally violates 5th Amendment due process for vagueness; the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause; and the separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgments that both orders are unlawful and unconstitutional, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against both.

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.

On January 20, 2025, the Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas, which designated churches and other “structure[s] dedicated to activities of faith,” among other places such as schools and hospitals, as protected areas from which ICE and CBP enforcement is restricted. Under the new policy guidance, immigration enforcement in such areas would only be subject to the enforcement officers’ “common sense.”

The plaintiffs, a coalition of Quaker congregations, seek to enjoin enforcement of this policy change and request a court declaration that any government policy permitting immigration enforcement based solely on subjective common sense is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment. Their complaint also claims that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.”

The plaintiff organizations, represented by Democracy Forward, are small businesses and nonprofits that receive federal funds. The suit sought a temporary restraining order to allow the Court “an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions,” alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.

Update 1: On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government.

Update 2: On Jan. 29, 2025, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”

Update 3: On January 30, 2025, responding to New York v. Donald Trump, Judge Jack McConnell of the District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy. Judge McConnell’s order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.”

Update 4: On Feb. 3, 2025, Judge Alikhan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the OMB from implementing its funding freeze, finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the directive was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and that the post-complaint rescission of the memorandum was “disingenuous” and still causing irreparable injury. The order directed the OMB to release the frozen funds, notify agencies of this TRO, and file a status report on compliance by Feb. 7, 2025.

The Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs sued on behalf of members whose records may have been transmitted from the Treasury Department to DOGE employees, thus allegedly depriving the members of privacy. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and declaratory relief for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Office of Personnel Management announced it was testing a new system to email all civilian federal employees from a single email address, [email protected]. Individuals claiming to be OPM employees subsequently posted online that the emails were being stored on an unsecure server at OPM.

Plaintiffs, employees of executive-branch agencies who received “test” emails from [email protected] requesting information, sued. The lawsuit alleges that the new procedure violates the E-Government Act of 2002 and asks the court to require the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting any data.

Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will.

The AFGE and AFSCME – labor organizations representing federal, state and local employees – assert that the Trump administration failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedural Act in issuing the order, which renders “inoperative or without effect” existing regulations, 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(3), 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(4), and 5 C.F.R. § 302.601-603. The plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect, as well as an injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the order without first complying with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.

In 2024, Congress appropriated funds for two immigration programs, the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH). On Jan. 22, 2025, the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a stop-work order that halted funding for four programs providing legal resources to unrepresented people facing deportation. The EOIR action was taken purportedly to “audit” the programs pursuant to the Trump administration executive order.

Nine advocacy and immigrant legal services organizations sued, arguing that terminating funding for the programs is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); violates the Appropriations Clause in the case of the LOP and ICH; and violates the First Amendment by denying the plaintiffs access to courthouses and immigration detention centers. The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and to enjoin the government from stopping the programs, refusing to spend appropriated funds, preventing the plaintiffs from accessing immigration courts houses and detention centers, and removing materials and posters the plaintiffs have posted in those locations.

Trump’s executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand the use of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include noncitizens located anywhere in the United States who cannot prove they have been continuously present for more than two years​.

The plaintiffs, three nonprofit organizations in Texas and Arizona providing legal services and assistance to undocumented individuals or asylum seekers, argue that the order violates a number of statutory and constitutional provisions. The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order is unlawful and an injunction stopping its implementation.

View the full list at www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-legal-challenges-trump-administration-actions.

The Litigation Tracker is part of Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration Executive Actions. Read more and stay up-to-date by going to www.justsecurity.org/106653/collection-trump-administration-executive-actions. The Litigation Tracker was first published on Jan. 29, 2025 and is continually updated.