Lawsuits against the Trump administration have become a defining feature of the president’s second term, with more than 800 cases filed in federal courts since January 2025 and plaintiffs winning the clear majority of decisions issued so far. Democratic state attorneys general have led the organized push, crossing their 100th filing in late March 2026, but the litigation also includes suits by unions, civil liberties groups, private businesses, and individuals affected by executive actions on tariffs, immigration, federal funding, elections, and the firing of agency officials. The Supreme Court has already intervened dozens of times, striking down the administration’s signature tariff program in February 2026 and reshaping the rules on nationwide injunctions.
How Many Cases and Who Is Winning
Two major trackers have attempted to count the litigation. The Just Security tracker at New York University counted 803 cases challenging executive actions as of May 2026.1Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration The New York Times, using its own methodology, put the number above 750 as of June 2026.2The New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits
Plaintiffs have won far more often than the government. Just Security’s data showed 262 wins for plaintiffs — 64 cases where government action was blocked outright, 137 where it was temporarily blocked, and 27 closed in the plaintiff’s favor — against 126 government wins, with 360 cases still awaiting a ruling.1Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration The Times’ narrower slice of 172 cases that had reached a final decision showed plaintiffs winning 67, the administration winning 7, and 96 dismissed.2The New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits
Immigration has drawn the heaviest volume. More than 700 individual cases involving at least 225 judges addressed the administration’s mandatory immigration detention policy, with courts repeatedly finding a likely due-process violation. Over 100 separate suits challenged the removal of F-1 foreign student visa registrations, producing more than 50 restraining orders before the government reversed course in April 2025.1Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration
The Democratic Attorneys General Campaign
On or about March 31, 2026, a coalition of state and local governments filed what the Democratic Attorneys General Association counted as its 100th lawsuit against the administration. The milestone case challenged the repeal of emission limits for coal- and oil-fired power plants, with the coalition arguing the rollback was unlawful because it failed to provide a reasoned basis or account for new technologies.3News From the States. Democratic AGs File 100th Lawsuit Against Trump By then the association said its members had won 55 of the 67 cases that had produced a ruling.4Stateline. Democratic AGs File 100th Lawsuit Against Trump
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has filed more than 50 of those suits himself, by far the most of any state AG.4Stateline. Democratic AGs File 100th Lawsuit Against Trump His recent filings include a March 2026 challenge in the U.S. Court of International Trade alleging that 15% tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 exceeded the president’s authority and violated separation of powers,5Oregon Department of Justice. AG Rayfield Leads Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Over New Illegal Tariffs a challenge to an HHS declaration that gender-affirming care for minors is unsafe,6Oregon Department of Justice. Federal Litigation Tracker and a June 2026 suit by 20 state AGs over new federal contract terms purging diversity, equity, and inclusion activities from government contracting, which the states say were imposed without the required notice and comment.7Oregon Department of Justice. AG Rayfield Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump Mandates on Federal Contractors
Signature Policy Fights
A handful of state-led cases capture the range of the disputes.
A coalition of more than 20 states sued the Office of Management and Budget in January 2025 over a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states. A district judge ordered the funds unfrozen, and the case is on appeal. Twenty state AGs sued FEMA in May 2025 after new rules conditioned disaster recovery grants on compliance with the administration’s immigration agenda. A district judge ruled for the states; that case is also on appeal. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia challenged an executive memorandum halting new wind farm leasing and permits, and in December 2025 a district judge ruled the order contrary to law.2The New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits
In April 2026, a coalition of 24 states led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell sued to block an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to voters on a federal pre-authorized list, arguing it violated separation of powers and the states’ constitutional authority to administer elections.8Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Moves to Permanently Block President Trump’s Executive Order Restricting Mail Voting
Executive Orders Against Law Firms
The administration also issued executive orders imposing sanctions on specific law firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. Courts struck them down in quick succession. Judge Beryl Howell declared the Perkins Coie order unconstitutional on May 2, 2025, calling it an “unprecedented attack” on the judicial system and issuing a permanent injunction. Judge John Bates declared the Jenner & Block order “null and void” on May 23, 2025, finding First Amendment violations. The D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals and heard oral argument on May 14, 2026.1Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration
DOGE and Access to Federal Data
The Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting operation led by Elon Musk, generated its own cluster of litigation. In February 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other state AGs sued in the Southern District of New York to block DOGE personnel from accessing sensitive taxpayer records at the Treasury Department. Judge Paul Engelmayer granted a temporary restraining order, citing the risk of “irreparable harm” from potential disclosure of confidential information and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and ordered DOGE employees to destroy any records already obtained, though two Treasury employees associated with Musk retained read-only access.9ABC News. 19 States Sue to Block Elon Musk’s DOGE Team
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Privacy Act lawsuit on behalf of federal employee unions challenging the Office of Personnel Management’s disclosure of sensitive personnel records, including Social Security numbers, health histories, and financial disclosures, to DOGE agents. A federal judge rejected the government’s motion to dismiss in April 2025, finding plausible claims that DOGE acted outside its legal authority and that its agents had administrative access enabling them to alter records.10Electronic Frontier Foundation. Our Privacy Act Lawsuit Against DOGE and OPM: Why a Judge Let It Move Forward A broader coalition of unions, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and SEIU, filed an amended complaint in February 2025 seeking to prevent DOGE access at the Department of Labor, HHS, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.11AFSCME. Unions Expand Suit to Block Elon Musk From Accessing Private Data at DOL, HHS, and CFPB
The Supreme Court’s Role
As of June 2026, the Supreme Court had taken action in at least 31 cases related to the administration, with six more pending. Much of the activity has come through the emergency docket, where the Justice Department has repeatedly asked the justices to stay lower-court injunctions.2The New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits
IEEPA Tariffs Struck Down
On February 20, 2026, the Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the power to impose tariffs is a “branch of the taxing power” reserved to Congress, and that no president in IEEPA’s half-century history had ever invoked it to impose tariffs, evidence that Congress never intended to delegate such authority through ambiguous language.12Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 Trump issued an executive order the same day terminating all IEEPA-based tariffs, and customs collection ceased on February 24. The ruling did not disturb tariffs imposed under other statutes, such as Section 301 and Section 232.13SCOTUSblog. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Nationwide Injunctions, Birthright Citizenship, Removals
In June 2025, the Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts likely cannot issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, but it explicitly declined to decide whether the administration’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment.14SCOTUSblog. Where Does the Birthright Citizenship Order Currently Stand That constitutional question remains unresolved, with appeals pending in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. The Ninth Circuit has already affirmed a preliminary injunction, calling the order “invalid and unconstitutional.”15U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, No. 25-807
The Court has also agreed to hear disputes over the president’s power to fire officials at independent agencies, including Trump v. Slaughter, concerning a Federal Trade Commission commissioner, and Trump v. Cook, involving Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook. In a separate emergency case involving removals at the National Labor Relations Board, the Court issued a stay allowing the removals to proceed. A 7–2 ruling in April 2025 enjoined the government from removing individuals under the Alien Enemy Act pending lower-court review.16SCOTUSblog. The Trump Docket
Cases Involving Trump Personally
Two legal matters involve Trump as a party rather than as a defender of administration policy.
The IRS Lawsuit and Anti-Weaponization Fund
In January 2026, Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and the Treasury Department for $10 billion, alleging the agencies failed to prevent a former IRS employee from leaking their tax returns. Legal experts noted it was unprecedented for a sitting president to seek damages from an executive agency he controls.17NBC News. Trump Voluntarily Drops $10 Billion Lawsuit Against IRS Over Leaked Tax Records
On May 18, 2026, Trump voluntarily dismissed the suit as part of a settlement brokered by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and private lawyer Boris Epshteyn, and U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams ordered the case closed.17NBC News. Trump Voluntarily Drops $10 Billion Lawsuit Against IRS Over Leaked Tax Records In exchange for dropping the IRS claim and related claims tied to the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation, the Justice Department established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” drawn from the federal judgment fund.18U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund The settlement also released Trump, his family, and his businesses from potentially costly IRS audits.19The New York Times. Trump IRS Lawsuit Deal
The fund is designed to compensate individuals who claim they were improperly targeted by the federal government on political or ideological grounds. A five-member commission appointed by the Attorney General, with members removable by the president, oversees it. Claims processing must end by December 2028, and any remaining money reverts to the federal government.18U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund As of late May 2026, no commissioners had been appointed and no claims processed.20ABC News. Trump Allies and Jan 6 Defendants Lining Up to Apply
The fund drew immediate challenges. Asked whether the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack could receive payouts, Blanche said, “Anybody in this country can apply,” and Vice President J.D. Vance declined to rule it out.21Time. Trump DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund IRS Lawsuit Settlement One Florida attorney said he expected roughly 400 of his January 6 defendant clients to file claims.20ABC News. Trump Allies and Jan 6 Defendants Lining Up to Apply House Democrats called the arrangement a “$1.7 billion slush fund” and filed a motion to block the settlement, with 93 House members submitting an amicus brief asking Judge Williams to dismiss the underlying lawsuit, citing “unconstitutional self-dealing.” Two police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 filed a separate suit to stop the fund.
The January 6 Civil Suit
Lee v. Trump (formerly Thompson v. Trump) was filed in 2021 by ten members of Congress with support from the NAACP and the law firm Cohen Milstein. The plaintiffs allege Trump, along with the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and others, conspired to prevent members of Congress from carrying out their constitutional duties on January 6, 2021, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.22Cohen Milstein. Thompson et al. v. Trump et al.
On March 31, 2026, Judge Amit Mehta largely denied Trump’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the January 6 Ellipse speech and the January 2, 2021, phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger were political acts not shielded by official-acts immunity, and rejecting Trump’s First Amendment defense. A small set of actions, including directions to Justice Department officials and social media posts during the riot, were deemed official enough that they cannot be used against Trump at trial.23Politico. Trump Setback in Civil Suits Over Capitol Riot Trump filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit on April 10, 2026.24CourtListener. Lee v. Trump, Docket
Prosecutions of Trump Critics That Collapsed
The Lawfare litigation tracker has counted six criminal prosecutions brought by the Justice Department that carry political significance.25Lawfare. Tracking Trump Administration Litigation Three of the most prominent targeted figures who have clashed publicly with Trump.
Former FBI director James Comey was indicted in late September 2025 in the Eastern District of Virginia for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing a Senate proceeding. New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on October 6, 2025, in the same district on mortgage fraud charges. Former national security adviser John Bolton was indicted on October 16, 2025, in the District of Maryland on 18 counts, including unlawful retention and transmission of classified defense information; he pleaded not guilty the following day.26FactCheck.org. What’s in the Bolton Indictment
The Comey and James indictments were secured by Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, appointed in September 2025. On November 24, 2025, a federal judge dismissed the charges against both, ruling Halligan was “illegally appointed” and had “no legal authority” to bring the cases. The dismissals were without prejudice, meaning the cases could be refiled. In the Comey case, a magistrate judge separately cited a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps,” and the Justice Department acknowledged the grand jury had not reviewed the final indictment.27Al Jazeera. US Judge Dismisses Criminal Charges Against James Comey, Letitia James The White House announced the Justice Department would appeal.