Tracking the Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration: Immigration, Tariffs and More

Access to federal property

The White House has used its power over access to federal property to single out certain organizations for punishment, prompting legal action. For instance, the Trump administration barred The Associated Press from certain press events because it uses the name Gulf of Mexico in its articles, rather than “Gulf of America.”

Associated Press v. Budowich

In February 2025, the Trump administration barred The Associated Press from certain events for its use of the term “Gulf of Mexico.” A federal judge said the administration’s move amounted to a violation of the First Amendment. An appeals court later ruled that the president could, for now, block the news outlet from small places such as the Oval Office or Air Force One. Read more ›

Perkins Coie v. D.O.J.

Perkins Coie was among a small number of law firms that refused to strike a deal to do free legal work for the Trump administration’s favored causes. Instead, it chose to face an executive order that seeks to strip lawyers of their security clearances and bar them from working for the federal government. District court judges have ruled against the legality of Mr. Trump’s order, and the administration has filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit. Read more ›

+ Show all 10 cases Alien Enemies Act

In March, Mr. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, in an effort to round up and deport scores of immigrants who he claimed were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Federal courts around the country have been divided on whether he has properly used the law.

W.M.M. v. Trump

This case is expected to be the decisive legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime law used by Mr. Trump to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang. The Supreme Court has already made a preliminary ruling that the immigrants did not receive sufficient notice of their deportations, but has not ruled on the overall legality of Mr. Trump’s proclamation. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has rejected the administration’s claim that Venezuelans in the U.S. amounted to an “invasion,” and the case will now be considered by the full court in an “en banc” rehearing.

+ Show all 14 cases Birthright citizenship

On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to stop treating as U.S. citizens any children born in the United States after a certain date whose parents are undocumented or who are in the country legally but temporarily.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the adminstration’s directive, but it did decide in June that several district court judges had exceeded their authority in blocking the policy across the country. A new lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U. is now challenging the policy.

CASA v. Trump

With an executive order, Mr. Trump tried to reframe the long-settled historical understanding of birthright citizenship to exclude babies born to undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the order’s constitutionality, but it did limit the authority of lower-court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide. The district-court judge then certified this case as a class-action suit and again blocked the new policy. The case is now on hold as it awaits a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s order from another case, Barbara v. Trump. Read more ›

Barbara v. Trump

This class-action lawsuit will most likely yield a decisive ruling from the Supreme Court on whether Mr. Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship for the babies of undocumented immigrants violates the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In a preliminary ruling, a district-court judge found that Mr. Trump’s executive order was most likely unconstitutional, rejecting the administration’s argument that U.S. citizenship flows from a person’s “lawful domicile” as opposed to their birthplace.

+ Show all 10 cases Climate and environment

Upon returning to office, Mr. Trump said he was revoking several Biden-era environmental policies, including protections against drilling in certain areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic.

New York v. Trump

On the first day of his second term, Mr. Trump issued a memorandum that would halt all leasing of federal lands and waters for new wind farms pending a government review, and would direct federal agencies to stop issuing permits for all wind farms. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the order was outside the president’s authority and contrary to existing laws such as the Clean Air Act. In December 2025, a district judge ruled that the wind order was contrary to the law. Read more ›

+ Show all 39 cases DOGE

In the first few months of Mr. Trump’s second term, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency moved to enact a series of sweeping cuts across the government including eliminating government agencies like the U.S. Institute of Peace and firing broad swaths of federal workers.

U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson

The Trump administration took over and gutted the U.S. Institute of Peace, an independent nonprofit created by Congress to seek diplomatic solutions to global conflicts. The administration’s action resulted in a series of events that included a dramatic confrontation among agency staff, DOGE representatives, private security and law enforcement authorities. A federal judge ordered the reinstatement of officials ejected by the White House, but an appeals court stayed the order, yielding control of the institute back to Mr. Trump while the case proceeded. Read more ›

+ Show all 32 cases Firings

In his second term, Mr. Trump has tried to fire a number of government officials, including agency watchdogs and a governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Several federal judges have said that Mr. Trump did not have the power to fire the officials in question. The Supreme Court has sided with the president in some cases, but has not yet ruled on a lawsuit brought by Lisa Cook, who has continued to sit on the Fed’s Board of Governors.

Boyle v. Trump

In May, President Trump fired three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a five-member group that monitors the safety of products like toys, cribs and electronics. A federal law allows them to be terminated for only “neglect of duty or malfeasance,” but the president gave no reasons for the firings. A federal judge initially reinstated the commission members, but in July 2025 the Supreme Court released an order allowing Mr. Trump to enforce the firing. An appeals court put the case on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Slaughter v. Trump. Read more ›

Slaughter v. Trump

In March 2025, Mr. Trump fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Federal Trade commissioner, and her colleague Alvaro Bedoya as he asserted control over agencies that regulate companies and workplaces. The move challenged longstanding legal precedent that members of the F.T.C. could be fired for only a narrow set of reasons. A federal court ruled that Mr. Trump’s firing of Slaughter was illegal. Bedoya’s claim was dismissed in July after he resigned from the commission in June. That September, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s ruling, removing Slaughter from her role temporarily until the case could be argued in front of the Supreme Court before the end of 2025. Read more ›

Cook v. Trump

The Supreme Court is now considering the legality of Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because of the administration’s claim that she engaged in mortgage fraud, despite never having been charged or convicted of a crime. Both a district court judge and an appellate panel have issued temporary rulings that block the firing, and Ms. Cook remains active in her role at the Fed, for now. Read more ›

Dellinger v. Bessent

President Trump moved to fire Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger sued, saying his removal was unlawful. In a subsequent appeal, judges sided with the Trump administration, effectively removing Dellinger from his position. He later dropped his case.

+ Show all 67 cases Funding cuts

Mr. Trump has moved to freeze or terminate billions of dollars in federal funding for scientific research, mental health services, art programs, educational programs, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, school lunches, disaster preparedness, foreign assistance and transportation infrastructure.

Illinois v. FEMA

The Department of Homeland Security issued new rules requiring states and cities that receive grants for disaster preparation and recovery to adhere to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda or face the possibility of losing billions of dollars. A coalition of 20 state attorneys general sued the department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, saying the requirements were illegal and would cause irreparable harm. In September 2025, a district judge ruled in favor of the state attorneys, ordering the distribution of disaster relief funds despite individual state immigration policies.

New York v. Trump

After the Trump administration sought to enact a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states, more than 20 sued the Office of Management and Budget, saying the freeze was unlawful. A judge later found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unfreeze the funds. Read more ›

California v. U.S. Department of Transportation

The Department of Transportation announced that it would require states that receive its grants to adhere to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Twenty states sued, saying that the administration’s requirements were unconstitutional and that “more people will die” if billions in federal transportation funding were withheld. In June 2025, a federal judge blocked the administration’s move, concluding that the requirement was unconstitutional.

+ Show all 144 cases Immigration

A number of lawsuits challenge the administration’s immigration policies, including its efforts to authorize immigration agents to enter houses of worship, speed up and broaden the scope of deportations, withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities and make it harder for refugees to claim asylum in the United States.

One of the most closely watched cases concerns a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who in March was deported to a prison in El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration has accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of having ties to the MS-13 gang.

Doe v. Noem

On May 30, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration, for now, to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian program intended to give temporary residency to more than 500,000 immigrants from countries facing war and political turmoil. The ruling exposes some migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti to possible deportation. Earlier in the month, the justices allowed the administration, for now, to remove deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to remain in the United States under a program known as Temporary Protected Status.

Abrego Garcia v. Noem

The administration detained Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the immigrant who was wrongfully expelled to El Salvador, for a second time in August 2025. The administration has indicated that it plans to re-deport him to Uganda. Read more ›

Ozturk v. Hyde

In March, a Turkish graduate student who co-wrote an essay criticizing Israel in a student newspaper was arrested outside her Massachusetts home by masked federal agents. The student, Rumeysa Ozturk, sued, saying the government had detained her in unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. After Ms. Ozturk spent six weeks in detention, a judge ordered her to be released while her case continues.

Khalil v. Joyce

The administration has been fighting in court to again detain and then deport Mahmoud Khalil — a legal permanent resident, Columbia University graduate, and prominent figure in the pro-Palestinian movement — after jailing him for months last year. The administration has claimed that Mr. Khalil’s presence in the U.S. contributed to the spread of antisemitism, and later claimed he omitted key facts from his permanent residency application. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers have denied the allegations of antisemitism and protested his detention as unconstitutional retaliation for free speech. He was released on bail in June 2025. In January, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit opened the possibility that he could be rearrested, but he remains free while that ruling is appealed. Read more ›

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security

In May 2025, the Trump administration said it would halt Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, taking aim at a crucial funding source for the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college. The move was a major escalation of the administration’s efforts to pressure the school to fall in line with the president’s agenda. Less than 24 hours later, the university sued the administration, accusing it of a “campaign of retribution.” That June, a federal judge in Boston sided with Harvard and blocked a Trump administration effort to rescind the school’s right to host international students. The administration has appealed the decision. Read more ›

+ Show all 111 cases Tariffs

State officials, small businesses and political groups have sued the Trump administration over its tariff policy, contending that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval.

V.O.S. Selections v. Trump

A majority of Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical during November oral arguments over the legality of tariffs that Mr. Trump has sought to impose on more than 100 countries using a 1977 emergency law. The administration’s tariff capability remains in place for now. If the justices agree with the lower courts and strike it down, that would release billions of dollars in refunds as well as the likelihood of further litigation, should the administration use a new statute, or statutes, to claim unilateral tariff powers. Read more ›

+ Show all 68 cases Trans rights

Several lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s moves to prohibit recognizing transgender people according to their gender identity. Cases have included placing transgender women who are federal prisoners in men’s housing and witholding federal funding from hospitals that offer gender-related treatment to patients younger than 19.

Doe v. Bondi

Mr. Trump issued an executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to house transgender women with male inmates and stop medical treatment related to gender transitions. Three transgender women in prison sued, saying they had a right to essential medical care and to be kept safe while incarcerated. A judge temporarily blocked the order, and the Trump administration has appealed the case. Read more ›

PFLAG v. Trump

With their parents and advocacy groups, six transgender people between the ages of 12 and 18 sued to block Mr. Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict medical treatments for trans youths, arguing that it violated the Constitution. A judge temporarily ordered the administration to continue federal funding for hospitals that offer transition care for people under the age of 19, a decision the Trump administration has appealed. Read more ›

+ Show all 26 cases Other suits

Dozens of other suits have been filed against the Trump administration. They are about issues like the government’s attempt to block New York City’s congestion pricing program, a law that would have prevented some Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Medicaid reimbursements and the removal of books about race and gender from Department of Defense schools.

Illinois v. Trump

A block on Mr. Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard in Illinois over the objections of state and local officials remains in place after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s arguments that the deployment was legal. The Supreme Court’s ruling was on the emergency docket, so the issue could be considered again on the court’s merits docket. Mr. Trump has said he might invoke the Insurrection Act, which would potentially offer a separate legal basis for Guard deployments, and touch off more lawsuits.

Newsom v. Trump

After the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops in Los Angeles to respond to protests, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration had illegally taken control of the state’s troops. He ordered them to return to taking orders from Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. An appeals court subsequently stayed that decision, which means the National Guard forces will stay subject to Mr. Trump’s control for now. Read more ›

+ Show all 96 cases