Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration

Challenged

Executive Order 14160 (Jan. 20, 2025) said children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or only temporarily present are not citizens.

Administration argues

The Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires more than birth on U.S. soil and excludes these children.

Courts

U.S. District Court for New Hampshire; Supreme Court (certiorari before judgment)

1. Jul 10, 2025 · D.N.H.

   Certified a nationwide class of affected children and blocked the order class-wide.

2. Dec 5, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Agreed to hear the case before the court of appeals ruled.

3. Apr 1, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Heard oral argument.

4. Jun 30, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Affirmed 6–3: such children are citizens at birth. Five justices joined the constitutional holding; Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: Executive Order 14160 cannot be enforced; the case returned to the district court.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (June 30, 2026) · Supreme Court docket 25-365

Challenged

Nationwide (universal) injunctions that lower courts issued against the birthright citizenship order.

Administration argues

Federal courts lack authority to issue injunctions protecting people who are not parties to a case.

Courts

District courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington; 1st, 4th and 9th Circuits; Supreme Court

1. Jun 27, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Ruled 6–3 that universal injunctions likely exceed courts’ equitable authority and narrowed the injunctions, without deciding whether the order itself was lawful.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The limit on universal injunctions stands. The order’s lawfulness was later decided in Trump v. Barbara.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (June 27, 2025)

Challenged

Executive Order 14418 (Aug. 6, 2026) denied automatic citizenship to new categories of U.S.-born children after the Barbara ruling.

Administration argues

The new categories fall within the narrow exceptions to birthright citizenship the Supreme Court recognized in Barbara.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Maryland (Judge Deborah Boardman)

1. Sep 2, 2026 · D. Md.

   Issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order for a broad group of children whose parents are temporarily or unlawfully present.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The preliminary injunction is in effect.

Sources: SCOTUSblog (Sept. 2026) · CBS News

Challenged

Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against alleged Tren de Aragua members, including the March 15, 2025 flights to El Salvador.

Administration argues

Removals under the Act are largely unreviewable, and any challenge must be brought in habeas where the person is held.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (Chief Judge James Boasberg); D.C. Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Apr 7, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Vacated the district court’s orders 5–4: challenges belong in habeas in the district of confinement, but detainees must get notice and a chance to seek review.

2. Apr 14, 2026 · D.C. Circuit

   A 2–1 panel ordered an end to Judge Boasberg’s criminal-contempt inquiry over the flights.

3. Sep 29, 2026 · D.C. Circuit (en banc)

   The full court heard argument on whether the contempt inquiry may continue.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The full D.C. Circuit has not yet ruled on the contempt inquiry.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (Apr. 7, 2025) · CNN via KTVZ (Apr. 14, 2026) · The Daily Record (Sept. 30, 2026)

Challenged

Alien Enemies Act removals of Venezuelan detainees in northern Texas on roughly 24 hours’ notice.

Administration argues

The notice was adequate, and the President’s finding of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” is owed near-total deference.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. Texas; 5th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Apr 19, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Ordered the government not to remove members of the putative class. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented.

2. May 16, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Ruled 7–2 that about 24 hours’ notice without information on how to contest removal does not satisfy due process; kept the block in place.

3. Sep 2, 2025 · 5th Circuit panel

   Held 2–1 that the invocation was unlawful because there was no invasion or predatory incursion.

4. Sep 30, 2025 · 5th Circuit

   Granted rehearing by the full court, vacating the panel opinion.

5. Aug 13, 2026 · 5th Circuit (en banc)

   Dismissed the case as moot because the named petitioners had been removed under other laws.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: No appeals court ruling on whether the Alien Enemies Act invocation is lawful remains in force.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (May 16, 2025) · Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 13, 2026)

Challenged

The March 2025 removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite a 2019 order barring his removal there, which the government called an administrative error.

Administration argues

Courts could not order the executive to secure his return from a foreign country, and he is an MS-13 member, which he denies.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Maryland (Judge Paula Xinis); 4th Circuit; Supreme Court; U.S. District Court for M.D. Tennessee; 6th Circuit

1. Apr 4, 2025 · D. Md.

   Ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” his return.

2. Apr 10, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Required the government to “facilitate” his return, with no noted dissents, and asked the lower court to clarify the rest.

3. May 22, 2026 · M.D. Tenn.

   Dismissed the smuggling charges brought after his return as presumptively vindictive.

Status as of Oct 6, 2026: The government’s appeal of the dismissal is pending in the 6th Circuit; an order in Maryland bars his detention and removal to Liberia.

Sources: PBS NewsHour · Washington Post (Oct. 6, 2026)

Challenged

Deporting people to countries not named in their removal orders without notice or a chance to raise torture-related fears.

Administration argues

Immigration law and diplomatic assurances permit these removals, and court-imposed procedures intrude on foreign affairs.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Brian Murphy); 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Apr 18, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Issued a class-wide injunction requiring notice and an opportunity to raise fear claims.

2. Jun 23, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the injunction 6–3 pending appeal.

3. Feb 25, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Entered final judgment setting aside the DHS policy.

4. Sep 18, 2026 · 1st Circuit

   Largely affirmed the district court.

5. Sep 29, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the judgment 6–3 and agreed to hear the case; argument is set for Dec. 9, 2026.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: Third-country removals may continue until the Supreme Court decides the merits.

Sources: Supreme Court docket 26-426 · SCOTUSblog (Sept. 2026)

Challenged

Ending Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans after vacating a prior extension, affecting roughly 600,000 people.

Administration argues

The TPS statute bars court review of these decisions, and the Secretary may reconsider extensions.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. California (Judge Edward Chen); 9th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Mar 31, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Postponed the termination.

2. May 19, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed that order; Justice Jackson would have denied the stay.

3. Sep 5, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Entered final judgment setting the actions aside.

4. Oct 3, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the judgment again as to Venezuela; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson disagreed.

5. Jan 28, 2026 · 9th Circuit

   Affirmed, holding the Secretary lacked authority to vacate the extension.

6. Oct 5, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Vacated the 9th Circuit ruling and sent it back for reconsideration in light of Mullin v. Doe.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The termination remains in effect under the Supreme Court’s stays while the 9th Circuit reconsiders.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Oct. 3, 2025) · Supreme Court docket 26-48

Challenged

Ending Temporary Protected Status for Syria and Haiti.

Administration argues

The TPS statute bars judicial review, and the Haiti decision was not motivated by race.

Courts

Federal courts in New York and D.C.; Supreme Court (certiorari before judgment)

1. Apr 29, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Heard oral argument.

2. Jun 25, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Reversed 6–3: the statute bars review of non-constitutional claims, and the equal-protection claim is unlikely to succeed.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The Syria and Haiti terminations may proceed.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (June 25, 2026)

Challenged

Early termination of humanitarian parole for about 530,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Administration argues

Parole is discretionary and can be ended for a whole category by Federal Register notice.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Indira Talwani); 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Apr 14, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Paused the terminations.

2. May 30, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed that order 7–2 pending appeal.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The parole terminations are in effect. The 1st Circuit later vacated the district court’s order, holding the program can be ended categorically if the decision is not arbitrary.

Sources: 1st Circuit opinion

Challenged

Roving immigration stops in the Los Angeles area that a district court found relied on apparent ethnicity, language, location and type of work.

Administration argues

Officers may briefly detain people on reasonable suspicion, and those factors can contribute to it.

Courts

U.S. District Court for C.D. California; 9th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Jul 11, 2025 · C.D. Cal.

   Issued a temporary restraining order limiting stops based on those factors.

2. Sep 8, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the order 6–3; Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The restrictions on stops are not in force.

Sources: SCOTUSblog case file

Challenged

Executive Order 14163 suspending refugee admissions and cutting off refugee resettlement funding.

Administration argues

The President has broad power under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend entry of any class of noncitizens.

Courts

U.S. District Court for W.D. Washington; 9th Circuit

1. Mar 5, 2026 · 9th Circuit

   Upheld the suspension of admissions and reversed relief for refugees approved before it, but required continued funding of resettlement services for refugees already admitted.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: Refugee admissions remain suspended; services for admitted refugees must continue. District proceedings continue.

Sources: 9th Circuit opinion (Justia) · JURIST (Mar. 2026)

Challenged

The Jan. 20, 2025 proclamation declaring an “invasion” at the southern border and suspending access to asylum.

Administration argues

Section 212(f) and the President’s power to repel an invasion allow suspending asylum procedures at the border.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C.; D.C. Circuit

1. Jul 2, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Held the proclamation’s implementation unlawful and certified a class.

2. Aug 1, 2025 · D.C. Circuit

   Stayed the asylum part of the ruling but required withholding and torture-convention protections to stay available.

3. Apr 24, 2026 · D.C. Circuit

   A divided panel affirmed that the proclamation exceeds presidential authority.

4. Aug 24, 2026 · Supreme Court

   The government asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The asylum bar remains in effect under the stay while the petition is pending.

Sources: ACLU · Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

Challenged

A 2025 DHS policy treating everyone who entered without inspection as subject to mandatory detention with no bond hearing.

Administration argues

People present without admission are “applicants for admission” whom the law requires to be detained.

Courts

2d Circuit; Supreme Court (appeals courts are divided)

1. Apr 28, 2026 · 2d Circuit

   Held that the bond-hearing provision, not mandatory detention, applies.

2. Oct 1, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Agreed to hear the case; argument not yet scheduled.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: Awaiting Supreme Court argument.

Sources: Supreme Court docket 26-104

Challenged

Federalizing about 4,000 California Guard members and deploying Marines to Los Angeles over the governor’s objection.

Administration argues

The law lets the President federalize the Guard when unable to execute federal law with regular forces, and his judgment deserves deference.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. California (Judge Charles Breyer); 9th Circuit

1. Jun 12, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Ordered control of the Guard returned to California.

2. Jun 19, 2025 · 9th Circuit

   A unanimous panel paused that order, finding the President likely acted lawfully.

3. Sep 2, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Held the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

4. Dec 10, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Blocked orders extending federalization of about 300 troops.

Status as of Jan 23, 2026: Trump announced on Dec. 31, 2025 that the Guard would leave Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, and the government dropped its appeal of the Dec. 10 order.

Sources: District court ruling (Sept. 2, 2025) · Democracy Docket case page · PBS NewsHour

Challenged

Federalizing Illinois and Texas Guard members in October 2025 for deployment in the Chicago area.

Administration argues

“Regular forces” means civilian federal law enforcement, which the President found unable to execute federal law.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. Illinois; 7th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Oct 16, 2025 · 7th Circuit

   Declined to pause the order blocking the deployment.

2. Dec 23, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Denied the government’s request: “regular forces” likely means the regular military. Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented.

3. Apr 20, 2026 · N.D. Ill.

   Dismissed the case as moot after the deployment ended.

Status as of Apr 20, 2026: Dismissed as moot after the troops were withdrawn.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Dec. 23, 2025) · JURIST (Jan. 2026)

Challenged

Federalizing 200 Oregon Guard members for Portland in September 2025, then sending California Guard troops.

Administration argues

Protests at the Portland ICE facility justified federalization, and the President’s determination deserves deference.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Oregon (Judge Karin Immergut); 9th Circuit

1. Oct 4, 2025 · D. Or.

   Temporarily barred federalizing and deploying the Oregon Guard.

2. Oct 28, 2025 · 9th Circuit

   Agreed to rehear the case with a larger panel, vacating a 2–1 panel decision for the government.

3. Nov 7, 2025 · D. Or.

   After trial, issued a permanent injunction.

4. Feb 17, 2026 · 9th Circuit

   Granted the government’s motion to dismiss its own appeals.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The permanent injunction stands after the government dropped its appeals.

Sources: Oregon Department of Justice tracker

Challenged

Deploying D.C. and out-of-state Guard troops in Washington for crime-deterrence missions since August 2025 without the mayor’s request.

Administration argues

The President has unique command authority over the D.C. Guard, and the deployment supports civil authorities.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Jia Cobb); D.C. Circuit

1. Nov 20, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Ruled the deployment likely unlawful and blocked it.

2. Dec 17, 2025 · D.C. Circuit

   Paused that ruling pending appeal, saying the President is likely to prevail.

3. Oct 14, 2026 · D.C. Circuit

   A three-judge panel heard argument on the merits appeal.

Status as of Oct 14, 2026: About 2,900 troops remained in the city in October 2026; the Pentagon extended the mobilization to January 2029.

Sources: D.C. Circuit stay order · AP via KSAT (Oct. 14, 2026)

Challenged

Tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including the worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs.

Administration argues

IEEPA’s power to “regulate … importation” during a national emergency includes the power to impose tariffs.

Courts

U.S. Court of International Trade; Federal Circuit; Supreme Court

1. May 28, 2025 · Court of International Trade

   Held the IEEPA tariffs unlawful.

2. Aug 29, 2025 · Federal Circuit (en banc)

   Affirmed that the tariffs were unlawful; they stayed in place during appeal.

3. Nov 5, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Heard oral argument.

4. Feb 20, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Held 6–3 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

5. Oct 8, 2026 · Court of International Trade

   Certified a class of importers that paid IEEPA duties and have not sued, for refund purposes.

Status as of Oct 12, 2026: Customs is processing refunds under court supervision; class-wide refund proceedings and a related government appeal are pending.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (Feb. 20, 2026) · Troutman Pepper Locke (Oct. 2026)

Challenged

A 10% worldwide import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, in effect Feb. 24 to July 24, 2026.

Administration argues

Section 122 allows temporary surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments problems.

Courts

U.S. Court of International Trade; Federal Circuit

1. May 7, 2026 · Court of International Trade

   Ruled 2–1 that the surcharge was unlawful, with relief limited to three plaintiffs.

2. Jun 11, 2026 · Federal Circuit

   Stayed the ruling pending appeal.

Status as of Oct 12, 2026: The surcharge expired at its 150-day limit; the appeal, which affects refunds, is undecided.

Sources: Skadden (May 2026) · Troutman Pepper Locke (Oct. 2026)

Challenged

Firing Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter without cause despite the FTC Act’s for-cause protection.

Administration argues

FTC commissioners wield executive power, so removal limits violate Article II and Humphrey’s Executor (1935) should be overruled.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C.; Supreme Court (certiorari before judgment)

1. Sep 22, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Allowed the firing 6–3 and agreed to hear the case.

2. Dec 8, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Heard oral argument.

3. Jun 29, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Held 6–3 that the FTC’s removal protection is unconstitutional, overruling whatever remained of Humphrey’s Executor.

Status as of Aug 5, 2026: Slaughter’s removal stands; the case was sent back for dismissal.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (June 29, 2026)

Challenged

The attempted “for cause” removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage-fraud allegations that predate her tenure.

Administration argues

The President determined that cause existed, and courts cannot review that determination.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Jia Cobb); D.C. Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Sep 9, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Kept Cook in office with a preliminary injunction.

2. Jan 21, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Heard argument on the government’s stay request.

3. Jun 29, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Denied the stay 5–4 on narrow grounds: Cook did not receive the notice and opportunity to respond that the statute requires.

Status as of Jun 29, 2026: Cook remains a Fed governor while the case continues in the lower courts.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (June 29, 2026) · SCOTUSblog (June 2026)

Challenged

Firing members of the NLRB, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission without cause.

Administration argues

The President may remove officials who wield executive power at will.

Courts

U.S. District Courts for D.C. and Maryland; D.C. and 4th Circuits; Supreme Court

1. May 22, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Allowed the NLRB and MSPB removals 6–3 pending appeal.

2. Jul 23, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Allowed the CPSC removals 6–3, citing Wilcox.

3. Dec 5, 2025 · D.C. Circuit

   Held 2–1 that the NLRB and MSPB removal protections are unconstitutional.

Status as of Jun 29, 2026: The removals stand; Trump v. Slaughter later overruled what remained of Humphrey’s Executor.

Sources: Supreme Court orders, 605 U.S. (Wilcox) · Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Executive Order 14210 and an OMB/OPM memo directing large-scale layoffs and reorganizations across agencies.

Administration argues

The President may direct agencies to plan lawful layoffs, and the plans themselves are not yet reviewable.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. California (Judge Susan Illston); 9th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. May 22, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Blocked layoffs and reorganizations at 22 agencies.

2. Jul 8, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the injunction 8–1, saying the order and memo are likely lawful.

3. Sep 11, 2026 · N.D. Cal.

   Ruled FEMA workforce cuts unlawful on separate claims and sanctioned the government over deleted messages.

Status as of Sep 11, 2026: Government-wide layoffs are not blocked; the case continues.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Mass firings of probationary federal employees in February 2025.

Administration argues

Each agency made its own decisions, and the nonprofit plaintiffs lacked standing.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. California (Judge William Alsup); 9th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Mar 13, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Ordered reinstatement at six agencies.

2. Apr 8, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed that order because the nonprofit plaintiffs likely lacked standing.

3. Sep 12, 2025 · N.D. Cal.

   Held OPM’s directive and the firings unlawful but did not order reinstatement; ordered letters saying the firings were not for performance.

Status as of Sep 29, 2025: The government’s appeal is pending in the 9th Circuit; the employees were not reinstated.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

The March 2025 layoff of roughly half the Education Department’s staff and steps to wind the department down.

Administration argues

The Secretary may reorganize and reduce staff without abolishing the department’s legal duties.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Myong Joun); 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. May 22, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Blocked the layoffs and transfers of functions.

2. Jul 14, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the injunction 6–3.

3. Jan 9, 2026 · D. Mass.

   States amended their complaint to challenge transfers of programs to other agencies.

Status as of Jan 9, 2026: The layoffs are in effect; the amended challenge is pending.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Executive Order 14251 ending collective bargaining for many federal employees on national-security grounds.

Administration argues

Federal labor law lets the President exclude agencies with national-security work, and the order is not retaliatory.

Courts

U.S. District Court for N.D. California; 9th Circuit

1. Aug 1, 2025 · 9th Circuit

   Stayed the district court’s injunction, reinstating the order.

2. Feb 26, 2026 · 9th Circuit

   Vacated the injunction, finding a retaliation claim unlikely to succeed.

Status as of Feb 26, 2026: The order is in effect while the case continues.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Terminating teacher-training grants as DEI-related.

Administration argues

Suits seeking grant money belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts; 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Apr 4, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the order restoring the grants, 5–4.

2. Sep 17, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Vacated the department’s February 2025 DEI grant-termination directive as arbitrary and capricious.

Status as of Sep 17, 2026: The directive is vacated, but claims for terminated-grant money must go to the Court of Federal Claims.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion (Apr. 4, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

NIH terminations of research grants on DEI, gender identity and related topics, and the guidance directing them.

Administration argues

Grant claims belong in the Court of Federal Claims, and the guidance was lawful.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge William Young); 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Jun 23, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Vacated the directives and terminations as arbitrary and capricious.

2. Aug 21, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Split 5–4 each way: paused the ruling on grant terminations but left in place the vacatur of the guidance.

3. Jan 6, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Approved a stipulation requiring NIH to process a set of applications without the challenged directives.

Status as of Jan 6, 2026: Resolved by joint stipulation; terminated-grant money claims stay outside district court.

Sources: Supreme Court orders, 606 U.S. · Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

The freeze and termination of foreign-aid awards, and an August 2025 “pocket rescission” of about $4 billion in aid.

Administration argues

The Impoundment Control Act precludes private suits over withheld funds.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Amir Ali); D.C. Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Mar 5, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Denied the government’s request 5–4, leaving in place an order to pay for completed work.

2. Sep 26, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Allowed the roughly $4 billion pocket rescission 6–3.

Status as of Mar 27, 2026: The rescinded funds were not spent; other claims are pending in district court.

Sources: Supreme Court orders, 606 U.S. (Sept. 26, 2025) · Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

The January 2025 OMB memo and agency-wide freezes of federal financial assistance.

Administration argues

The memo was rescinded, and agencies may review grants for consistency with presidential priorities.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Rhode Island (Judge John McConnell); 1st Circuit

1. Mar 6, 2025 · D.R.I.

   Barred agencies from blocking appropriated funds to the plaintiff states.

2. Mar 17, 2026 · 1st Circuit

   Upheld the bar on categorical freezes but vacated the part ordering payments on awarded grants.

Status as of Mar 17, 2026: The freeze injunction remains, as narrowed by the appeals court.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Suspending November 2025 SNAP food benefits during the government shutdown.

Administration argues

Regular SNAP funding had lapsed, and contingency funds could not lawfully cover full benefits.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Rhode Island; 1st Circuit; Supreme Court (Justice Jackson)

1. Nov 6, 2025 · D.R.I.

   Ordered full November SNAP payments.

2. Nov 7, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Justice Jackson briefly paused the full-payment order.

3. Mar 3, 2026 · D.R.I.

   Dismissed the case as moot after benefits were restored when the shutdown ended.

Status as of Mar 3, 2026: Moot after full benefits resumed on Nov. 12, 2025.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Shutting down Consumer Financial Protection Bureau operations, mass layoffs and not requesting its funding.

Administration argues

The steps were not final agency action, and the agency may downsize while keeping its legal functions.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Amy Berman Jackson); D.C. Circuit

1. Mar 28, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Blocked the layoffs and dismantling.

2. Aug 15, 2025 · D.C. Circuit

   A 2–1 panel vacated the injunction.

3. Dec 17, 2025 · D.C. Circuit

   Agreed to rehear the case en banc, vacating the panel decision.

4. Jul 10, 2026 · D.D.C.

   Partly paused the case pending confirmation of a new CFPB director.

Status as of Jul 10, 2026: The preliminary injunction is in place, partly stayed; the en banc appeal is on hold.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Freezing and terminating billions of dollars in Harvard research grants after Harvard rejected the administration’s demands.

Administration argues

Agencies may end grants that no longer serve priorities such as combating antisemitism, and contract claims belong in the Court of Federal Claims.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Allison Burroughs); 1st Circuit

1. Sep 3, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Ruled for Harvard on First Amendment, Title VI and APA grounds.

2. Oct 20, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Entered final judgment vacating the freeze and terminations.

3. Oct 5, 2026 · 1st Circuit

   Heard the government’s appeal.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: The judgment for Harvard stands while the appeal is decided; no settlement has been announced.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker · WBUR (Oct. 5, 2026)

Challenged

Revoking Harvard’s certification to enroll international students and a proclamation suspending their entry.

Administration argues

DHS controls certification, and the President may suspend entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Allison Burroughs); 1st Circuit

1. Jun 20, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Blocked the revocation of certification.

2. Jun 23, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Blocked the entry-suspension proclamation.

Status as of Mar 31, 2026: The injunctions remain in effect pending appeal.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

An alleged policy of deporting noncitizen students and faculty over pro-Palestinian speech.

Administration argues

The enforcement decisions are lawful uses of immigration and foreign-policy powers, and courts lack jurisdiction.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge William Young); 1st Circuit

1. Sep 30, 2025 · D. Mass.

   After a bench trial, held that DHS and State acted to chill protected speech.

2. Jan 22, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Issued a remedy order allowing plaintiffs to challenge further deportation attempts immediately.

Status as of Mar 11, 2026: The remedial order is in effect; the government’s appeal is pending.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Executive orders suspending security clearances, reviewing contracts and limiting building access for four law firms.

Administration argues

The President controls security clearances, contracting and access to federal buildings, and the orders serve national-security interests.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (four judges); D.C. Circuit

1. May 2, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Perkins Coie order held unconstitutional and permanently blocked.

2. May 23, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Jenner & Block order held unlawful and permanently blocked.

3. May 27, 2025 · D.D.C.

   WilmerHale order held unlawful.

4. May 14, 2026 · D.C. Circuit

   Heard argument on the government’s consolidated appeals.

Status as of Oct 22, 2026: All four orders remain blocked; no appeals decision has been reported.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker · Washington Legal Foundation (May 14, 2026)

Challenged

Executive Order 14248 (March 2025), including a directive to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter-registration form.

Administration argues

The President may direct agencies, including the Election Assistance Commission, to enforce election laws.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly); D.C. Circuit

1. Apr 24, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Blocked the proof-of-citizenship directive.

2. Oct 31, 2025 · D.D.C.

   Permanently blocked the directive on separation-of-powers grounds.

3. Mar 31, 2026 · D.D.C.

   Entered final judgment; the government and RNC appealed.

Status as of Mar 31, 2026: The core proof-of-citizenship provisions are permanently blocked pending appeal.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Executive Order 14248’s proof-of-citizenship rules and conditions on election funding tied to ballot-receipt deadlines.

Administration argues

The states lack standing, and the order only directs federal agencies.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts; 1st Circuit

1. Jun 24, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Permanently blocked several sections of the order.

2. Sep 9, 2026 · 1st Circuit

   The government appealed.

Status as of Sep 9, 2026: The permanent injunction is in place pending appeal. A parallel Washington and Oregon case won a similar ruling on Jan. 9, 2026.

Sources: Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

A 2026 executive order directing DHS to compile state citizenship lists and setting new ballot-mail directives.

Administration argues

The order binds only the executive branch, so the states lack standing and their claims are premature.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Indira Talwani); 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Jun 25, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Declared key sections void and blocked them for the plaintiff states.

2. Aug 24, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Stayed that ruling 6–3, finding the states likely lack standing and their claims unripe.

Status as of Aug 24, 2026: The district ruling is paused pending the 1st Circuit appeal.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Aug. 24, 2026)

Challenged

A 2026 USPS rule requiring special ballot envelopes with voter-unique barcodes for federal elections.

Administration argues

The rule is within USPS’s legal authority, and some plaintiffs lack standing.

Courts

U.S. District Courts for Massachusetts and D.C.; 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Sep 4, 2026 · D. Mass.

   Blocked the rule’s mandatory provisions for elections through Nov. 3, 2026.

2. Sep 14, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Denied the government’s stay request; Justices Alito and Thomas dissented.

Status as of Sep 14, 2026: The rule is blocked for the 2026 midterms.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Sept. 14, 2026)

Challenged

DHS’s expanded SAVE program running bulk citizenship checks on voter rolls using Social Security data.

Administration argues

Federal law lets DHS obtain citizenship information from other agencies notwithstanding other statutes.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C.; D.C. Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Jun 22, 2026 · D.D.C.

   Vacated the expanded program under privacy and Social Security laws.

2. Sep 25, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Stayed that ruling 6–3, finding the claims likely to fail.

Status as of Sep 25, 2026: The program is operating while the D.C. Circuit appeal proceeds.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Sept. 25, 2026)

Challenged

The 2025 executive order and Defense Department policy disqualifying most transgender people from military service.

Administration argues

Military judgments about readiness, cohesion and medical standards deserve deference.

Courts

U.S. District Court for W.D. Washington; 9th Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Mar 27, 2025 · W.D. Wash.

   Blocked the policy.

2. May 6, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the injunction; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would have denied.

Status as of May 6, 2025: The policy is in effect pending the 9th Circuit appeal.

Sources: Supreme Court orders, 605 U.S. · Just Security litigation tracker

Challenged

Requiring passports to show sex at birth and ending the “X” marker.

Administration argues

Showing sex at birth records a historical fact, like place of birth, and is not discriminatory.

Courts

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts (Judge Julia Kobick); 1st Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Jun 17, 2025 · D. Mass.

   Certified a class and blocked the policy.

2. Nov 6, 2025 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the injunction 6–3.

3. Jun 5, 2026 · 1st Circuit

   At both sides’ request, dismissed the appeal and vacated the injunction so the case could continue below.

Status as of Jun 5, 2026: The passport policy is in effect; the merits are pending in district court.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Nov. 6, 2025)

Challenged

Demolishing the White House East Wing and building a new East Wing with a ballroom.

Administration argues

The Trust lacks standing, and halting construction causes irreparable harm.

Courts

U.S. District Court for D.C.; D.C. Circuit; Supreme Court

1. Mar 31, 2026 · D.D.C.

   Blocked above-ground construction.

2. Aug 7, 2026 · D.C. Circuit

   Affirmed 2–1.

3. Aug 31, 2026 · Supreme Court

   Stayed the injunction 5–4, finding the Trust likely lacks standing.

Status as of Aug 31, 2026: Construction may proceed.

Sources: Supreme Court order (Aug. 31, 2026)