Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal court dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against New York City sanctuary laws — US District Judge Ramón E Reyes Jr dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration challenging New York City's sanctuary laws on Thursday. The judge affirmed that federal law does not obligate states to participate in immigration enforcement or compel them to comply with federal requests. The ruling rejected the administration's argument that local officials were illegally obstructing its immigration agenda. Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated the decision, stating the city would not force public servants into deportation roles or abandon immigrants.

Supporting reports

• Twenty-five Democratic attorneys general sue Trump administration over politicized FEMA disaster aid conditions — Twenty-five Democratic state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island challenging the Trump administration's imposition of "unlawful" conditions on over $740 million in federal disaster preparedness and counter-terrorism grants. The conditions require states to implement federal voter citizenship verification systems, conduct post-election audits, and assist ICE in deportation operations. The lawsuit also challenges FEMA's new authority to cancel grants if states are deemed misaligned with agency priorities. A Trump-appointed judge previously ruled similar conditions "unconscionable and unlawful."
• Twenty-five states and D.C. sued federal government over conditional disaster and homeland security funding — Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island challenging FEMA and DHS conditions on billions of dollars in annual disaster relief and homeland security grants. The conditions require states to convert to paper ballots, conduct manual audits, reconcile voter registration lists, verify citizenship of all registered voters, assist DHS in immigration enforcement, and accept DHS authority to withdraw all grants at will. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha characterized the conditions as "unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding" to coerce election and immigration policy changes.
• Complaint filed — State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency — On July 23, 2026, 25 states, the District of Columbia, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island challenging FEMA's new Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program conditions. The conditions require states to transition to hand-marked paper ballots, conduct post-election audits, verify voter and election worker citizenship using federal immigration databases, and comply with other election and immigration-related mandates as a prerequisite to receiving over $1 billion in federal preparedness funding. Plaintiffs allege the conditions exceed FEMA's statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Spending Clause. They seek declaratory judgment, vacatur, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency — On July 23, 2026, 25 states, the District of Columbia, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island challenging FEMA's new Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program conditions. The conditions require states to transition to hand-marked paper ballots, conduct post-election audits, verify voter and election worker citizenship using federal immigration databases, and comply with other election and immigration-related mandates as a prerequisite to receiving over $1 billion in federal preparedness funding. Plaintiffs allege the conditions exceed FEMA's statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Spending Clause. They seek declaratory judgment, vacatur, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus.

Supporting reports

• US Postal Service proposes rule requiring states to surrender voter mail-ballot lists — The US Postal Service, under Postmaster General David Steiner, issued a proposed rule requiring states to hand over lists of voters who requested mail-in ballots and associated barcodes to the postal service. Steiner stated that the postal service would refuse to deliver mailed ballots in states that declined to comply. All 47 Democratic senators sent a letter warning the rule would disenfranchise millions of voters and risked abuse and inaccuracies that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.
• Postmaster General announces USPS will not deliver election mail in states refusing to surrender voter rolls — Postmaster General David Steiner testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that under a new Trump administration rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to surrender their voting lists to the federal government. Senator Gary Peters clarified that the proposed rule coerces states to comply with federal voting requirements or lose mail-in voting access.
• USPS proposes rule to withhold election mail — The Postmaster General testified that under a new proposed rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to provide their voting lists to the federal government. This rule is seen as a coercive measure to enforce compliance with federal demands.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department announces investigation into Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney's prosecutorial decisions — The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division announced on May 6, 2026, that it has initiated a federal investigation into Fairfax County, Virginia Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Descano, examining his office's plea bargaining, charging decisions, and sentencing policies. The department alleges the investigation will determine whether the office discriminated against U.S. citizens by offering preferential treatment to noncitizen criminal defendants. The investigation will proceed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, and 34 U.S.C. § 12601. The department stated it has not reached conclusions and invited public submission of relevant information.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: State of Michigan v. United States Department of Homeland Security — The State of Michigan and City of Romulus filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan challenging DHS's purchase of a 249,090-square-foot warehouse in Romulus for $34.7 million to convert into a 500-bed immigration detention center. The plaintiffs allege seven counts under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming DHS violated federal law by failing to conduct environmental review despite the property's location in a floodplain, failing to consult state and local officials, and failing to consider existing detention facilities before constructing a new one. The complaint names DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons as defendants and seeks declaratory relief, vacatur of the purchase decision, and injunctive relief barring conversion of the warehouse into a detention facility.

Supporting reports

• State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice, complaint filed — The State of Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans filed a complaint in federal district court against the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Attorney General Bondi, and DHS Secretary Noem. The suit challenges a federal policy of refusing to share evidence with state investigators regarding three fatal or injurious shootings by federal agents during "Operation Metro Surge" in January 2026. Plaintiffs allege the categorical refusal violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tenth Amendment, and seek declaratory relief, vacatur of the noncooperation policy, and a court order compelling production of evidence.
• Minnesota sued Trump administration for federal officer shooting records — Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration seeking access to information about shootings by federal officers, including shootings that resulted in the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. The lawsuit was filed as part of state-level efforts to defend ordinary Americans and expand protections under law.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration invokes Defense Production Act to force reopening of California offshore oil pipeline — On Friday, March 15, 2026, the Trump administration ordered the reopening of the Santa Ynez offshore oil pipeline system in California, which had been closed since 2015 following a major oil spill. Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked emergency powers under the Defense Production Act, citing national security and military readiness amid the US-Israel war on Iran. Sable Offshore Corporation, the Houston-based operator, announced oil was flowing through the system by Monday, March 18. California Governor Gavin Newsom immediately threatened legal action and the state parks department ordered removal of the pipeline from Gaviota State Park.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump's $10 billion antipoverty funding freeze — A federal judge blocked President Trump's executive order to cut $10 billion in antipoverty funding to five Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. The order was issued based on unsubstantiated fraud allegations, particularly targeting Minnesota's child care system following debunked claims by a right-wing YouTuber about Somali-American day care centers.
• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's attempt to cut childcare funding to blue states — A federal judge blocked Trump's earlier efforts to cut childcare funding to multiple blue states, preventing the administration from using federal childcare programs as a tool for political retaliation.

Supporting reports

• House Judiciary Committee expands investigation into Jack Smith — CNN reported that the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee is expanding its investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith by demanding interviews with four current and former Justice Department officials involved in subpoenaing phone records for several members of Congress around the January 6 insurrection.
• Jack Smith testifies to House Judiciary Committee on federal prosecutions of Trump — Former special counsel Jack Smith testified in a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on December 17, 2025, defending his federal cases against Donald Trump for classified-documents possession and election interference. Smith stated he had "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in both cases, denied any political motivation or interference from President Biden or Attorney General Merrick Garland, and warned that unpunished election meddling would become "the new norm" with "catastrophic" consequences for democracy. The testimony transcript was released on December 31, 2025.
• Jack Smith testified before House Judiciary Committee on Trump's 2020 election overturn scheme — Former special counsel Jack Smith testified behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee regarding his investigation into Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. According to Smith's opening statement obtained by NBC News, Smith stated he and his team found "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump engaged in a "criminal scheme" to overturn the election. Smith testified that phone records of nine congressional Republicans were "lawfully subpoenaed and were relevant to complete a comprehensive" investigation, and that Trump and his associates "tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election." Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) had subpoenaed Smith and rejected his offer to testify publicly.
• Representative Ocasio-Cortez criticizes intelligence briefing as inadequate — Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called the briefing "a joke," stating that no intelligence shared rose to the level of briefings on Ukraine or China, and characterized it as "a communication of an opinion" rather than a serious intelligence briefing.
• Senator Andy Kim states Trump's blockade contradicts military briefing — Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) noted that Trump's threatened military action directly contradicts what Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth told Senate colleagues that day about the mission and goals of operations in the Caribbean. Kim called it a dangerous escalation and stated the administration must come before Congress for public hearings to explain why they are risking pulling the nation into another forever war.
• Senator Chris Murphy states administration lacks legal justification for strikes — After the briefing, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) stated that the administration had no legal justification for the strikes and no national security justification. He noted that officers admitted the drugs transiting Venezuela were primarily cocaine headed for Europe, not fentanyl as the administration had suggested.
• Senator Schumer states administration came to briefing "empty handed" — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said after the briefing that the administration came "empty handed" and questioned how senators could trust the administration's transparency on other Caribbean issues if they could not be transparent on the strikes. He stated that every senator was entitled to see the video.
• Special Counsel Jack Smith offered to testify publicly before Congress without time limits; Republicans declined and opted for closed-door deposition instead. — Special Counsel Jack Smith offered to testify publicly before Congress without time limits to answer questions about investigations into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified documents. Republicans declined the public testimony offer and instead opted for a closed-door deposition while continuing to attack Smith on partisan media outlets. Smith's opening statement established that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the election and obstruct the lawful transfer of power, and willfully retained highly classified documents in unsecured locations.
• Jack Smith tells House Judiciary Committee Trump engaged in criminal scheme — Former Special Counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers during a closed-door hearing before the House Judiciary Committee that his team "developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power." He also said he would prosecute a former president again "based on the same facts today," no matter which party the president belongs to.
• Jack Smith testified under oath about Trump's criminal conduct in 2020 election and classified documents — On December 17, 2025, former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified under oath in a closed-door hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Smith stated that his office had "developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power" and had developed "powerful evidence" that Trump "willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom," and "repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents."
• House Judiciary members announced legal action against DOJ over Epstein files — Ranking members Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin issued a joint statement announcing they are examining all legal options to compel the DOJ to comply with the federal law requiring full release of Epstein documents. They stated that survivors deserve justice, co-conspirators must be held accountable, and the American people deserve complete transparency.
• Jack Smith requested public hearing before House Judiciary Committee — Attorneys for former Special Counsel Jack Smith requested a public hearing before the House Judiciary Committee to defend his prosecutorial decisions against Republican attacks. Smith had previously testified in a closed-door deposition spanning over 8 hours. His attorneys also requested release of the full videotape of his testimony so he could speak directly to the public rather than through second-hand accounts.
• Court Filing Claims Discrimination in Federal Grant Distribution — Lawyers for the government filed a court document asserting that it is legal to distribute federal funds only to Republican-led states, withholding them from Democratic-led states. This admission suggests a discriminatory policy based on political affiliation, which the government claims is constitutionally permissible.
• Jack Smith Testifies on Trump's Criminal Scheme to Overturn Election — Special counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee, presenting evidence that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Smith's testimony included details about phone records of congressional Republicans related to the investigation.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration orders targeted infrastructure cuts and federal workforce layoffs during shutdown — During the 42-day shutdown, Russell Vought, White House Office of Management and Budget director, ordered layoffs of federal employees beyond the standard furloughs and cut infrastructure project funding in states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. These actions exploited the funding lapse to achieve partisan policy objectives without congressional authorization, targeting opposition-aligned jurisdictions for fiscal punishment.

Supporting reports

• Federal government shutdown enters fifth day amid stalled negotiations between Republicans and Democrats — The U.S. federal government entered its fifth day of shutdown on October 6, 2025, with negotiations between House Republicans led by Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer at a standstill. Johnson accused Democrats of being "not serious" in negotiations, while Democratic leaders countered that Republicans were driving the shutdown. White House economic council director Kevin Hassett threatened mass layoffs of federal workers if negotiations fail. A CBS poll showed only 28% of Democratic voters and 23% of Republicans support their party's shutdown position.
• Senate rejects rival government funding bills; shutdown enters second week — The US Senate held its fifth vote on competing government funding proposals as the shutdown entered its second week. A Republican-written bill failed 52-42, and the Democratic proposal was defeated 50-45, both falling short of the 60-vote threshold. Trump suggested possible negotiations with Democrats over healthcare subsidies, while the White House threatened federal workforce layoffs and warned that food assistance programs for low-income mothers and children would exhaust funding if the shutdown continued.
• Senate rejects competing shutdown-funding bills; deadlock persists — On Wednesday, the Senate voted down both Democratic and Republican proposals to end the federal government shutdown for the sixth time. No senators changed their positions from recent days. The shutdown, now eight days old, has forced federal office closures, furloughed employees, and created staffing shortages at airports and air traffic control centers. Democrats demand healthcare provisions including ACA premium tax credit extensions; Republicans propose funding only through November 21. Military personnel and federal workers face missed paychecks next week unless the government reopens.
• Senate deadlocked on shutdown funding as Trump threatens Democratic-led jurisdictions with retaliation cuts — The US Senate held its seventh round of votes on competing proposals to end an eight-day government shutdown, with neither Democratic nor Republican bills achieving the 60-vote threshold needed for advancement. Democrats demand extension of ACA premium tax credits and restoration of public media and Medicaid funding; Republicans insist on a clean continuing resolution through November 21. During a White House cabinet meeting, Trump threatened to make permanent cuts exclusively to "Democrat programs" in Democratic-led states and cities as retaliation. The OMB has already cancelled federal funding for projects in several Democratic jurisdictions.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice sues Minnesota over sanctuary immigration policies — The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and two named officials (Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt) alleging that sanctuary city policies violate federal immigration law and result in the release of individuals convicted of serious crimes. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the policies as endangering public safety and announced the lawsuit as part of a broader campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide.
• Justice Department sues Minnesota over sanctuary city immigration policies — The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, challenging the state's sanctuary city policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed Minnesota's policies endanger public safety by allowing "illegal aliens" to circumvent legal processes. The suit alleges Minnesota's refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcement violates federal law. Minnesota joins Los Angeles, New York, Boston, New Jersey, and Colorado in facing similar legal action as part of the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice sues Boston and Mayor Wu over sanctuary city policies — The Department of Justice, through its Civil Division, filed a lawsuit against the City of Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu, and the Boston Police Department, alleging that Boston's sanctuary city laws interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that Boston's policies result in the release of individuals convicted of serious crimes who would otherwise face removal. The lawsuit is part of a broader DOJ initiative announced on Bondi's first day in office to identify and litigate against state and local sanctuary policies nationwide.

Supporting reports

• Democratic states sue Trump DOJ over Victims of Crime Act funding restrictions — A coalition of over 20 Democratic-led states and DC sued Trump's Justice Department over efforts to block a new policy that would prevent states from accessing federal funds under the Victims of Crime Act if they don't cooperate with the president's immigration crackdown, calling the move "unprecedented."

Supporting reports

• Trump DOJ investigates DC crime statistics under US Attorney Jeanine Pirro — Trump said DC was "under serious investigation," accusing the district of providing "Fake" statistics on crime "in order to create a false illusion of safety." Reports later confirmed that the Trump DOJ is investigating whether DC police manipulated data to make crime rates appear lower, led by US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office. Violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low, and Trump's former US attorney for DC, Ed Martin, admitted in an April press release that violent crime had dropped 25% year-to-date.
• Federal prosecutors launch criminal investigation into DC police crime statistics manipulation — The US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, under Jeanine Pirro, has opened a criminal investigation into allegations that Washington DC police systematically manipulated crime statistics to understate violent crime. The probe was triggered by the May suspension of Commander Michael Pulliam for allegedly altering crime data, including misclassifying stabbings and carjackings. Federal prosecutors are now examining potential wrongdoing by multiple police and city officials. Mayor Muriel Bowser has cited declining crime figures to oppose Trump's proposed federal takeover of DC policing, while the police union chief disputes the statistics and claims a directive exists to underreport crimes.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sued Los Angeles over sanctuary city policy — The Trump administration sued the city of Los Angeles over a sanctuary city policy prohibiting city resources from being used for immigration enforcement, arguing it is hindering efforts to crack down on what the administration calls a "crisis of illegal immigration." The lawsuit challenges local authority to restrict participation in federal immigration enforcement.
• Trump administration files lawsuit against Los Angeles over sanctuary city immigration policies — The Trump administration, through the Department of Justice, filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California against the city of Los Angeles, challenging its sanctuary city ordinance that restricts local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The suit claims the city law discriminates against federal law enforcement and obstructs immigration law enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the lawsuit targets what the administration characterizes as illegal sanctuary policies that prioritize undocumented immigrants over American citizens. The filing follows weeks of aggressive immigration enforcement operations and protests in Los Angeles.
• Department of Justice files lawsuit challenging Los Angeles sanctuary city policies — The Department of Justice announced a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, and the Los Angeles City Council, alleging that sanctuary city policies enacted after President Trump's reelection interfere with federal immigration law enforcement. The complaint alleges that Los Angeles's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities contributed to recent civil unrest requiring deployment of the California National Guard and U.S. Marines. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated the lawsuit holds the city accountable for obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit is part of a series targeting sanctuary policies in multiple jurisdictions.
• Congress allocates $170.7 billion for immigration and border enforcement over four years — Legislation, referred to as Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," allocates $170.7 billion to immigration and border enforcement programs over the next four years. This represents a significant increase compared to ICE's current annual budget of approximately $8 billion, substantially expanding resources for mass deportation and immigration enforcement operations.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Allows Challenge to California's Emission Limits — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of fossil fuel companies and 17 Republican-led states, allowing them to challenge California's waiver to set stricter car emission standards than federal limits. The 7-2 decision overturns a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit due to lack of standing. This waiver, periodically granted since 1967, has enabled California to lead in reducing vehicle pollution. The ruling does not immediately end California's standards but opens the door for legal challenges against them.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA (24-7) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA. Docket number(s): 24-7.

Supporting reports

• Federal court ruling against military deployment in Los Angeles — A federal judge ruled that control of national guard troops and US marines deployed to Los Angeles should return to California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. This ruling was in response to California's lawsuit against the Trump administration's deployment of troops to the city. However, an appeals court has stayed the ruling, allowing the troops to remain under federal control for the time being. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested he might not comply with the court's decision, indicating a potential constitutional crisis.
• Appeals court rules in favor of Trump on National Guard deployment — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of President Trump, allowing him to maintain control over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. This decision overturned a temporary restraining order by US District Judge Charles Breyer, who had previously ruled that Trump acted illegally by deploying the troops without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom. The appellate court found that the Trump administration provided sufficient evidence of violent acts by protesters to justify federalizing the troops. The ruling allows the federal control of the California National Guard to continue as the lawsuit proceeds.
• Federal Appeals Court Rules on National Guard Control — A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump can temporarily maintain control over California's National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The decision affects state-federal military relations.

Supporting reports

• DHS removed controversial list of sanctuary jurisdictions — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removed a controversial list of "sanctuary jurisdictions" from its website after backlash regarding inaccuracies, including misspellings and the inclusion of non-existent county governments.
• Secretary of Homeland Security Removes Sanctuary Cities List — Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem removed a list of "sanctuary cities" that she claimed were not cooperating with federal immigration authorities after facing demands for an apology from the National Sheriffs’ Association.

Supporting reports

• Case update — City of Chelsea v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10442 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking additional declaratory relief that plaintiffs' policies are not “sanctuary policies” under the Subsidization EO and that plaintiffs are not "Sanctuary Jurisdictions” under the Designation EO.

Supporting reports

• Case update — Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01413 — Judge Liman temporarily barred the Trump administration from withholding federal funds for New York City in an effort to pressure the city to drop its congestion pricing plan.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01413 — Judge Liman granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits for their claims and that the Plaintiffs adequately showed they would be irreparably injured absent an injunction.

Supporting reports

• Appeal filed — Grundmann v. Trump et al . (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00425 — Defendants appealed Judge Sooknanan's March 12 order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the D.C. Circuit.
• Case update — State of California v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03372 — Defendants replied in support of their motion to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade.
• Case update — Svitlana Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10495 — Defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.
• Case update — V.M.L. v. Harper (W.D. La.) 1:25-cv-00550 — The parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal .
• Motion to dismiss decided — American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10276 — Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02429 — Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that they have standing, that the Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' statutory and constitutional claims, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and will suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest support granting preliminary injunctive relief.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Gober v. Collins (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00714 — Judge Rudolph Contreras denied Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01270 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that the court order Defendants not to take any further actions to to dissolve or cease the statutory functions of CRCL, OIDO, or the CIS Ombudsman's Office; reverse work stoppages that were ordered for the DHS Oversight Offices; and enjoin Defendants from effectuating reduction-in-force scheduled for May 23, 2025.
• Summary judgment ruling — Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00077 — Judge Gary Katzmann ordered that Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion be construed as a motion for summary judgment.
• Case update — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Plaintiff filed an amended complaint , which included additional facts about DOGE's March 25, 2025 records retention policy. Plaintiff added a request that this policy also be deemed arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
• Complaint filed — D.N.N. v. Liggins — A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in the case of D.N.N. v. Liggins, under docket number 1:25-cv-01613. The details of the case are not yet available, but it involves litigation related to actions taken during the Trump administration. This filing marks the initiation of a legal challenge that could impact judicial review and the enforcement of rights.
• Motion denied — State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10810 — The court denied the transfer, stating that “the differences between the matters counsel against consolidation”, that the interests of justice do not favor transfer, and that a stay is not warranted.
• Motion denied — W.M.M. v. Trump (a.k.a. A.A.R.P. v. Trump) (N.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00059 — Judge Hendrix denied class certification.
• Motion to dismiss decided — American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01263 — Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.
• Motion to dismiss decided — Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00298 — Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, refuting Defendants' claims and arguing that the court does have jurisdiction, that the Programs' termination is reviewable and that all of Plaintiffs' claims are viable.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, et al (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-01350 — Judge Orrick clarified that Defendants could not use EO 14287 or other Government action that postdates the preliminary injunction as a workaround to the preliminary injunction order. The preliminary injunction order should be read to apply to “any Executive Order or agency directive that purports to attempt to cut off federal funding from States or localities that meet the Government's definition of ‘Sanctuary' jurisdiction” in the “unconstitutional manner threatened by [EOs 14159 and 14218].”
• Preliminary injunction ruling — NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01120 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which added new factual detail about the alleged harm, including stories from specific school districts that had rescinded their diversity and equity policies before reinstating them pursuant to the court's preliminary injunction. The requested relief remained the same, and the NAACP renewed its prayer for the court to find that the TItle VI Documents are unconstitutional, in violation of the APA, and outside the scope of any existing statutory authority.
• Summary judgment ruling — Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00298 — Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and request for preliminary injunctive relief. They argue that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the APA claims fail for independent threshold reasons, and that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Further, they argue that any preliminary relief is unwarranted and if granted should be limited in scope.
• Summary judgment ruling — Harper v. Bessent (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01294 — Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Summary judgment ruling — Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.) 1:24-cv-01702 — The court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as well as granting in part and denying in part Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the Court ordered that the Biden-era Final Rule's limitation on asylum eligibility be vacated and set aside, that the Final Rule's manifestation of fear requirements be vacated and set aside, that the four-hour consultation window in the Guidance be vacated and set aside, that the provisions of the Final Rule not mentioned in the Order remain in effect and that the individual Plaintiffs' removal orders and negative credible fear determinations be vacated.

Supporting reports

• Trump Administration Agrees to Halt School Funding Freeze in Maine — The Trump administration has agreed to halt its efforts to freeze funds for a child nutrition program in Maine, following a settlement with the state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had previously suspended these funds after Maine refused to comply with demands to bar transgender girls from participating in girls' sports. Maine had sued the USDA to maintain its funding, and the lawsuit was dropped in exchange for the restoration of funds. The settlement ensures that the USDA will not interfere with Maine's access to funds without following legal procedures.
• Dismissal entered — Maine v. US Department of Agriculture (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00131 — Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice.
• Trump Administration Settles with Maine Over Child Nutrition Program — The Trump administration reached a settlement with Maine, restoring federal funds for a state child nutrition program previously frozen due to Maine's trans athlete policies. Maine agreed to drop its lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture.

Supporting reports

• Trump Administration Sues Michigan and Hawaii Over Climate Laws — The Trump administration sued Michigan and Hawaii to stop them from filing lawsuits against major oil companies for their role in the climate crisis. This legal action challenges state-level environmental accountability efforts.
• Trump Administration Sues States Over Climate Lawsuits — The Trump administration sued Michigan and Hawaii to prevent them from filing lawsuits against major oil companies for their role in the climate crisis. This legal action challenges state efforts to hold companies accountable for environmental damage.
• DoJ Sues States to Block Climate Litigation Against Oil Companies — The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against Michigan and Hawaii to prevent them from pursuing legal action against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis. The Justice Department claims that the Clean Air Act displaces states' authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond their borders. This move is part of the Trump administration's broader strategy to halt climate accountability lawsuits, which it deems unconstitutional. The legal action has been met with condemnation from officials in the targeted states.