Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-02928) — The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the Department of Justice, FBI, and Criminal Division violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to February 2026 FOIA requests seeking records on any planned inspection or seizure of ballots, voting machines, and voting system components ahead of federal election certification. The DNC filed the requests after President Trump's January 2026 statements regretting not seizing voting machines after the 2020 election and an FBI raid that month seizing archived ballots from a Georgia county election office. The DNC seeks an order compelling production of non-exempt responsive records, a detailed Vaughn index of withheld material, and an injunction against further withholding.

Supporting reports

• House Democrats call for JD Vance testimony on Epstein files handling — House Democrats, led by Representative Robert Garcia, plan to request that committee chair James Comer summon Vice President JD Vance to testify about the Trump administration's handling of Epstein files. The request follows a New York Times report detailing internal crisis within the administration over the files, including Situation Room meetings where Vance warned the controversy was a "huge problem" while chief of staff Susie Wiles dismissed his concerns as conspiracy theories. The White House has not yet responded to whether Vance would comply.

Supporting reports

• Trump nominates Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence — Donald Trump nominated Jay Clayton, former SEC chair and current US attorney for the Southern District of New York, to serve as Director of National Intelligence. The nomination follows widespread criticism of Trump's earlier decision to install Bill Pulte as acting DNI. Clayton has no significant operational intelligence experience but has bipartisan early support. The nomination comes amid controversy over Pulte's tenure and a lapsed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization deadline.
• Trump nominates Jay Clayton as permanent director of national intelligence — Trump announced on June 11 that he was nominating Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York, as permanent DNI. Clayton has no experience in any of the 18 intelligence agencies under DNI purview. The Senate Intelligence Committee immediately scheduled Clayton's confirmation hearing for June 17—an extraordinarily rushed timeline—with the apparent goal of confirming him before June 19, thus preventing Pulte from ever serving as acting director.
• Trump nominated Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence — Trump announced his nomination of Walter Joseph "Jay" Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to become the next director of national intelligence. Like Pulte, Clayton lacks national security experience. Clayton has been involved in the slow-walking of the release of the Epstein files.
• Trump withdrew nomination of Bill Pulte for DNI after Senate opposition — After a bipartisan group of senators indicated they would not vote to extend FISA surveillance authority if Bill Pulte remained Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence, Trump withdrew the Pulte nomination. Trump announced instead the nomination of Jay Clayton, former SEC Chairman and current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to the DNI position.
• White House sent nomination and withdrawal to Senate for Walter Clayton — The White House sent to the Senate a nomination of Walter Clayton of New York to be Director of National Intelligence, replacing Tulsi Gabbard. Simultaneously, the White House withdrew Clayton's pending nomination to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The dual action redirects Clayton's candidacy from a four-year SDNY post to the intelligence directorship.

Supporting reports

• Philadelphia files federal lawsuit to restore slavery exhibit at President's House — The City of Philadelphia filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday naming the U.S. Department of Interior, Secretary Doug Burgum, the National Park Service, and Acting Director Jessica Bowron as defendants. The suit seeks a court order requiring the restoration of slavery-related informational displays at the President's House site while litigation proceeds. City lawyers argued that the interpretive displays were "an integral part of the exhibit" and that officials were not informed in advance of the removal.

Supporting reports

• Representatives Khanna and Massie sought to bypass DOJ to release Epstein files — Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie announced they would bypass the Department of Justice to demand release of all Epstein files by asking the Southern District of New York to appoint a "special master" to ensure document release. The pair is also seeking to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt of Congress for DOJ's failure to release the files. The DOJ stated it would not finish reviewing remaining files until at least January 20.
• Congress considers inherent contempt proceedings against Attorney General Bondi — Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), who introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced they are pursuing inherent contempt charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi for non-compliance with the law. Khanna stated the measure would likely give Bondi a 30-day grace period before daily fines commence. Inherent contempt, a rarely used congressional enforcement mechanism not employed since the 1930s, requires only a House majority vote and does not require Senate approval. The measure aims to compel release of all Epstein-related records.
• House representatives filed motion to compel DOJ to release Epstein files — On January 8, 2026, Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), the leading sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, filed a motion with U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer asking him to appoint "a Special Master and an Independent Monitor to compel" the DOJ to produce the Epstein files as required by law.
• Representatives asked judge to compel DOJ to release Epstein Files — Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), the leading sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, asked U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer to appoint a Special Master and an Independent Monitor to compel the DOJ to produce the Epstein files as the law requires. They wrote that "the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act" and that they do not believe the DOJ will produce the records required by law.
• Congressmen Khanna and Massie request special master to enforce Epstein Files disclosure — Democratic congressman Ro Khanna and Republican congressman Thomas Massie filed a letter with Manhattan federal court judge Paul Engelmayer requesting appointment of a special master and independent monitor to compel DOJ compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They alleged DOJ violated the statute by missing the deadline, asserting impermissible privileges, applying excessive redactions, and failing to provide a required report on withheld records and redaction bases.
• House members request special master to compel DOJ release of Epstein files — Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) filed a letter with US District Judge Paul Engelmayer requesting appointment of a special master to force the Department of Justice to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The congressmen alleged the DOJ violated mandatory disclosure obligations by missing a December 19, 2025 deadline and releasing less than 1% of documents while claiming 2 million more remain under review. They also noted the DOJ failed to submit required reports to Congress detailing redactions and withheld records.

Supporting reports

• House oversight committee releases Epstein birthday book documents in response to subpoena — The House oversight committee released a batch of documents, including Epstein's birthday book containing the disputed letter allegedly signed by Trump, in response to a subpoena. The release reignited public controversy over Trump's connection to Epstein and prompted the White House to intensify its denial campaign. The committee's action also prompted discussion of a bipartisan resolution directing the Department of Justice to release all investigative files on Epstein, which appears headed toward gaining sufficient support to force action on the House floor.
• House Oversight Committee released Epstein estate documents including Trump letter — The House Oversight Committee, which had subpoenaed Epstein's estate for documents, publicly released materials on September 8 including a 238-page birthday book from 2003. Page 165 contained a letter from Trump to Epstein that precisely matched the description in the Wall Street Journal article Trump had sued over, directly contradicting Trump's claim that the letter was "fake and nonexistent" and undermining his assertion that Democrats had planted damaging material in DOJ files.
• House Oversight released Epstein estate records with Trump birthday note — The House Oversight Committee released records from Jeffrey Epstein's estate, including a note signed by Trump that was part of the sex trafficker's 50th birthday "book." The text read "We have certain things in common, Jeffrey" and "Happy birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." The records also included another entry from a Mar-a-Lago member featuring a photo of Epstein with a caption about selling a woman to Trump for $22,500.

Supporting reports

• House Oversight Committee Democrats Demand Epstein Files — The House Oversight Committee Democrats formally demanded that FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi release all files and evidence related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. This demand follows posts by Elon Musk suggesting former President Trump was implicated in the FBI's Epstein files. The committee noted that Bondi had promised to release these documents three months ago and questioned why no additional documents have been released since February 27, 2025.

Supporting reports

• Case update — Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kennedy (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10814 — The court found that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
• Case update — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00684 — All Defendants answered the complaint and the Department of Education and Small Business Administration filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings .
• Case update — National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education (D.N.H.) 1:25-cv-00091 — Plaintiffs amended their complaint .
• Case update — PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00337 — The Fourth Circuit placed the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti , No. 23-477.
• Case update — Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00079 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which included updates on the changes to NEA policy that took place following the commencement of the lawsuit.
• Dismissal entered — Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00164 — Plaintiffs American Health Association, American Federation of Teachers, Minority Veterans of America, Votevets Action Fund, Center for Auto Safety Inc., and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. Judge Cobb clarified that the remaining consolidated case, Lentini v. DOGE, would proceed.
• Motion granted — D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-01163 — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the appellants' motion for voluntary dismissal of their April 23 appeal.
• Motion granted — Mahdawi v. Trump (D. Vt.) 2:25-cv-00389 — Petitioner filed a motion as to the conditions of his release, which was granted on May 14. This order allows Petitioner to travel to New York State for educational purposes, to meet with his lawyers, or as otherwise ordered by the court.
• Motion granted — National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00381 — The D.C. Circuit granted Defendants' voluntary dismissal, terminating the consolidation with 25-5091 .
• Motion to dismiss decided — Make the Road New York et al v. Kristi Noem (Acting Secretary of Homeland Security) et al (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00190 — Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss , refuting the Defendants' arguments and further arguing that the allegations supporting the Plaintiffs' complaint are plausible.
• Motion to dismiss decided — State of California v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10548 — Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims.
• Motion to dismiss decided — The Intercept v. DOGE (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02404 — Plaintiff responded in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Educational Research Association v. Department of Education (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-01230 — Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and proposed an alternative order on the motion.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10787 — Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, they are not certain, imminent, and irreparable, and an injunction would be contrary to the public interest.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. Department of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01334 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of HHS's new requirements on certain TPP recipients.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11221 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the Court enjoin the defendant federal agencies from implementing or giving effect to the directive.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Taylor v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01161 1:25-cv-03742 — Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in further support for their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Defendants stopped the lawful process to impose an extra-judicial punishment. Plaintiffs claim that they are likely to prevail on the merits, they will suffer irreparable harm if the court does not intervene, and the balance of equities and public interest weighs heavily in their favor.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Department of State et al. (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00465 — Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, stressing that the court's denial of the preliminary injunction does not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking other forms of equitable relief.
• Summary judgment ruling — 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 Defendants' motion for summary judgment and a motion for preliminary injunction.
• Summary judgment ruling — Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00077 — Defendants filed a brief in response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendants requested that the court deny the motion for summary judgement arguing that the Plaintiff States nor the V.O.S. Plaintiffs can show Trump acted outside of his authority in imposing tariffs under the IEEPA. On May 13, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental response to their motion for summary judgment.
• Summary judgment ruling — Slaughter and Bedoya v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00909 — Defendants filed a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, alleging that the restrictions on the removal of FTC Commissioners are unconstitutional and that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought.
• Summary judgment ruling — Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01107 — Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Susman's amended complaint, for the same reasons contained in their previous motion to dismiss. On that same day, Susman filed a motion for summary judgment , requesting that the court declare the EO unlawful and enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the EO, for the same reasons contained in their previous motion for summary judgment.
• Case update — President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11048 — Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint adding to its filings. The amended complaint includes: additional Defendants, the US Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and additional factual allegations relating to letters received in May from the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Agriculture, the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the US Department of Education.
• Case update — Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program, et al, v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al (W.D. Was — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which included: the Office of Head Start as an additional defendant; supplemental facts related to the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Head Start members' language, disability, family support services and their impact on students and their families; supplemental facts related to the HHS-directed layoff and other subsequent layoffs in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, additional facts related to the purported termination of Head Start research projects; and additional allegations related to the delayed decisionmaking on the status renewal of Head Start programs.
• Dismissal entered — Iverson v. New York (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01353 — The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case because he had received a “specific license” that mooted the relief requested. Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the dismissal that same day.
• Motion granted — Sanchez Puentes v. Garite (W.D. Tex.) 3:25-cv-00127 — Judge Briones granted the government's request to stay the district-wide relief granted in the April 25 order pending appeal.
• Motion to dismiss decided — Zacarias Matos v. Venegas (S.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00057 — Following a joint status report and motion to dismiss request, the court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Rona v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-03114 — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03372 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that the court restrain Agency Defendants from implementing or enforcing the IEEPA Tariff EOs.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-01363 — Defendants responded in opposition to Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. In the event the preliminary injunction is granted, Defendants requested that it be limited to only the Plaintiff States.
• Ruling vacated — AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00400 — Judge Ali denied the Defendants' motion for an indicative ruling and vacated the administrative stay.
• Motion denied — Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-02847 — The Ninth Circuit denied Defendants' motion for a stay, and the government petitioned for an en banc review on May 28.
• Motion denied — CREW v. DOGE (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00511 — The D.C. Circuit dissolved the administrative stay and denied the defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Motion to dismiss decided — Chung v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02412 — Defendants replied in support of their motion to dismiss, further emphasizing their belief that the court lacks jurisdiction over Chung's claim.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00883 — Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — King County v. Turner (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00814 — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, reiterating their belief that the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Schlacter v. U.S. Department of State (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-01344 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum .
• Summary judgment ruling — Aviel v. Gor et al (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00778 — Plaintiff filed a consolidated reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
• Case update — Ireland v. Hegseth (D.N.J.) 1:25-cv-01918 — Plaintiffs move to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice, which the court grants.
• Case update — Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00077 — State Attorney General of California submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs.
• Dismissal entered — Gribbon et al. v. Musk (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00422 — Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01237 — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, arguing Plaintiffs' submissions in support of their motion rely on inadmissible evidence.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Open Technology Fund v. Kari Lake (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00840 — Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its preliminary injunction motion, claiming that the court has jurisdiction, Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, and the balance of equities and public interest favor granting the preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum . Plaintiff requested that the court order Defendants to collect, retain, and preserve their records pursuant to a FRA-compliant recordkeeping policy.
• Case update — Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00951 — Following a hearing, Judge Xinis ordered the unsealing of Secretary Rubio's Declaration asserting state secrets and for the government to supplement the Declaration by May 23.
• Case update — Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00457 — Plaintiff filed an amended complaint .
• Case update — Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts v. Bessent (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12822 — Plaintiffs amended their complaint to be a class action complaint for others similarly situated.
• Case update — Doe et al v. EEOC (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01124 — State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs.
• Case update — Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01270 — Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for a renewed preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Jones v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00401 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, on the grounds that the DEIA ban and mass layoffs are causing the suspension and degradation of services and will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program, et al, v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the joint motion to stay the appellate proceedings until the resolution of United States v. Skrmetti or until further order from the court. SCOTUS issued its decision in Skrmetti on June 18, holding that the Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
• Stay motion decided — State of Washington et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00244 — The D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted the Defendants' stay pending appeal , which was extended until Oct. 27, 2025.
• Stay pending appeal decided — National Treasury Employees Union v Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00935 — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for a summary judgment, stressing Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit.

Supporting reports

• Case update — Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01529 — USDA wrote a letter to notify the court that it would restore the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-Inauguration, including all USDA webpages and interactive tools enumerated in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
• Motion granted — Gunaydin v. Trump (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-01151 — The court granted Günaydin's motion to extend the TRO for an additional fourteen days while the merits of his underlying habeas action are determined.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00677 — The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Injunction, stating that the Plaintiffs failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claims.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00286 — Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for a renewed preliminary injunction , which was granted by Judge Lamberth on May 15.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — A.S.R. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.) 3:25-cv-00113 — Judge Stephanie Haines issued a preliminary injunction finding the presidential proclamation complies with the AEA but that the government needs to give individuals three week notice and an opportunity to be heard before removal.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — M.A.P.S. v. Garite (W.D. Tex.) 3:25-cv-00171 — Judge David Briones granted a temporary restraining order .
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01263 — Judge Christopher Cooper granted a preliminary injunction on the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01030 — Judge Friedman granted a preliminary injunction .
• Preliminary injunction ruling — G.F.F. v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02886 — The court granted Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, stating that Plaintiffs and the certified class are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Proclamation violates the AEA.
• Motion denied — New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H.) 1:25-cv-00038 — The First Circuit denied Defendants' motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the resolution of other First Circuit and Supreme Court cases.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Association of American Universities v. Department of Energy (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10912 — Günaydin filed his second amended habeas petition. On May 21, the court granted Günaydin's second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering that Günaydin be released from custody on bond.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — North America's Building Trades Unions v. Department of Defense (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01070 — Judge Burroughs granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the DOE's Rate Cap Policy likely violates the APA-by taking agency action that conflicts with existing regulation, is arbitrary and capricious, and is impermissibly retroactive-and poses a risk of irreparable harm to research institutions.
• — The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In its accompanying memorandum , the court noted that they were vacating the memoranda in question and that the ruling did not apply only to the named Plaintiffs.

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

• Judge orders CDC and FDA to restore webpages — A federal judge, John Bates, has ordered the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, and the FDA to restore webpages that were removed following an executive order by Donald Trump. The order, which targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, led to the removal of critical public health information. The judge emphasized the harm to everyday Americans, particularly underprivileged individuals seeking healthcare, and mandated the restoration of the webpages to their state as of January 30.