Obama lawsuit history spans nearly every corner of federal law: challenges to the Affordable Care Act, executive immigration programs, recess appointments to the NLRB, EPA climate regulations, NSA bulk surveillance, and dozens of personal eligibility suits filed by so-called “birther” plaintiffs. Several reached the Supreme Court and produced landmark rulings on executive power, religious liberty, and the limits of federal regulatory authority. Others were tossed on standing. A handful are still being fought out today, including a 2026 employment case against the Obama Foundation.
Affordable Care Act Cases
No Obama-era law drew more courtroom fire than the ACA. Four fights stand out.
King v. Burwell
Challengers argued the ACA authorized premium tax credits only on exchanges “established by the State,” which would have cut off subsidies for residents of the roughly three dozen states using the federal exchange. On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the subsidies were available nationwide. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that reading the four words in isolation would “destabilize the individual insurance market” and produce a “death spiral” Congress never intended. The decision preserved tax credits for an estimated five to six million people across 34 states.1Justia. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 Justice Scalia, joined by Thomas and Alito, dissented, accusing the majority of rewriting the statute.2Oyez. King v. Burwell
House v. Burwell
In November 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives sued the Obama administration over billions in “cost-sharing reduction” payments to insurers, arguing Congress had never appropriated the money. On May 12, 2016, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled for the House, finding that spending without an appropriation “violates the Constitution” and calling the administration’s workaround “most curious and convoluted.”3SCOTUSblog. Judge: Billions Spent Illegally on ACA Benefits She stayed the ruling pending appeal. The case never reached a final appellate decision; the Trump administration stopped the payments in October 2017 and the injunction was vacated.4Tax Notes. Federal Circuit Affirms Judgments for ACA Cost-Sharing Payments
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
The ACA required employer plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives at no cost. The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, objected to four methods they equated with abortion and argued the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 for Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito wrote that closely held for-profit corporations qualify as “persons” under RFRA and that the mandate imposed a “substantial burden” on the owners’ religious exercise, with less restrictive alternatives available.5Justia. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 The Court stressed the ruling was limited to the contraception mandate and did not create a blanket religious exemption from other laws.6Law.Cornell.edu. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Zubik v. Burwell
Religious nonprofits, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, challenged the opt-out mechanism itself, arguing that even filing a notice form made them complicit. The Supreme Court consolidated seven cases and, on May 16, 2016, declined to rule on the merits. In an unsigned opinion, it vacated the lower court decisions and sent the cases back, directing the parties to work out an arrangement that respected the challengers’ religious exercise while ensuring contraceptive coverage.7SCOTUSblog. Zubik v. Burwell The dispute was ultimately resolved under the Trump administration through executive orders and new HHS rules granting broader religious exemptions.8Becket Fund. Little Sisters of the Poor
Immigration Executive Actions
United States v. Texas
In November 2014, President Obama announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, which would have shielded roughly four million undocumented parents from deportation. Texas led a coalition of states in suing, and a federal district court enjoined DAPA before it took effect. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. On June 23, 2016, with Justice Scalia’s seat still vacant, the Supreme Court split 4–4 and affirmed the injunction in a one-line unsigned opinion. DAPA never went into effect.9Oyez. United States v. Texas
Crane v. Johnson
ICE officers and the state of Mississippi brought an earlier challenge to the 2012 DACA program. On April 7, 2015, the Fifth Circuit unanimously dismissed the case, holding that neither the agents nor the state had standing. The court found no evidence any officer had been sanctioned under DACA and concluded Mississippi failed to show the program itself, as opposed to unauthorized immigration generally, imposed specific costs on the state.10American Immigration Council. The Court Decision on Deferred Action Everyone Should Be Talking About
Arpaio v. Obama
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed his own suit on November 20, 2014, alleging that executive immigration actions produced increased crime in his county. On December 23, 2014, Judge Beryl Howell dismissed the case, ruling that Arpaio’s injuries were “largely speculative” and amounted to “generalized grievances which are not proper for the judiciary to address.”11PBS. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Obama Immigration The D.C. Circuit affirmed on August 14, 2015.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Arpaio v. Obama
NLRB v. Noel Canning
On January 4, 2012, President Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days. A business that lost an NLRB proceeding, Noel Canning, argued the Board lacked a quorum. On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the appointments were unconstitutional. Justice Breyer wrote that the Senate “is in session when it says that it is” and set a presumptive minimum of ten days for a recess long enough to trigger the President’s appointment power.13Justia. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 Justice Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, would have gone further and limited the Recess Appointments Clause to recesses between formal sessions of Congress.14Oyez. NLRB v. Noel Canning
Clean Power Plan Litigation
The EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan aimed to cut power-plant carbon emissions by encouraging a shift from coal to natural gas and renewables, a strategy the agency called “generation shifting.” Twenty-seven states and industry groups challenged the rule, and in 2016 the Supreme Court took the unusual step of staying the regulation before the D.C. Circuit had ruled on it.15Supreme Court of the United States. West Virginia v. EPA, No. 20-1530
The Trump administration repealed the plan in 2019 and replaced it with the narrower Affordable Clean Energy rule. After the Biden administration took office, the D.C. Circuit vacated both. On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed in West Virginia v. EPA, invoking the “major questions doctrine” and holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA authority to restructure the nation’s energy grid without clear congressional authorization.16Law.Cornell.edu. West Virginia v. EPA
Birther Eligibility Lawsuits
Starting in 2008, a wave of suits alleged Obama was not a “natural-born citizen” and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Every one failed.
The earliest and most prominent was Berg v. Obama, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in August 2008 by attorney Philip J. Berg. On October 24, 2008, Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the suit for lack of Article III standing, ruling that the alleged injury was a generalized grievance shared by all citizens. The Third Circuit affirmed on November 12, 2009, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.17United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234
Attorney Orly Taitz filed a series of challenges on behalf of military personnel and political candidates, including Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot. On December 22, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Drake v. Obama, holding that all 40 plaintiffs lacked standing. Similar suits were dismissed in North Carolina, Ohio, Hawaii, Connecticut, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington.18Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Birther Challenge Dismissed by Ninth Circuit The Supreme Court rejected three separate post-election challenges, and the California Supreme Court denied review of a state-court effort.19NPR. Birthers Dealt Another Blow as Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Courts consistently refused to reach the merits, dismissing on standing, timeliness, or jurisdictional grounds. No court ever ordered the production of birth documents or ruled on their authenticity.
Unanimous Supreme Court Losses
The administration’s legal positions drew an unusually high number of 9–0 Supreme Court defeats, counted at 44 by one tally. Beyond Noel Canning, several stand out:
- Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012): The Court unanimously held that the First Amendment’s religion clauses bar employment discrimination suits brought by ministers against their churches, recognizing a “ministerial exception” the EEOC had resisted.20Law.Cornell.edu. Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171
- United States v. Jones (2012): The Court rejected the Justice Department’s position that police could attach a GPS tracker to a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant.21Cato Institute. Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President
- Sackett v. EPA (2012): The Court ruled that property owners can challenge EPA compliance orders in court, rejecting the agency’s claim that its orders were unreviewable.
- Riley v. California (2014): The Court held police need a warrant to search digital information on a cell phone.
- Bond v. United States (2014): The Court rejected a federal prosecution under the Chemical Weapons Convention for what amounted to a simple assault.
- McDonnell v. United States (2016): The Court reversed former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s corruption conviction, narrowing the definition of “official act” under federal bribery law.22Senator Chuck Grassley. Court Decisions Rejecting Obama Administration Legal Positions
Smith v. Obama: NSA Surveillance
Verizon customer Anna Smith sued over the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, arguing it violated her First and Fourth Amendment rights. In June 2014, Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Idaho dismissed the case, citing the 1979 precedent Smith v. Maryland, though he noted “grave concerns about the privacy implications” of the surveillance.23Electronic Frontier Foundation. Smith v. Obama After the USA FREEDOM Act ended bulk collection in 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled in March 2016 that the request to stop collection was moot but sent the case back to decide whether the government must destroy records it had already gathered. As of the last reported update, the case remained on hold because preservation orders in other litigation prevented deletion.24Electronic Frontier Foundation. Appeals Court Sends Smith v. Obama NSA Lawsuit Back to Trial Court
Post-Presidency: McClinton v. The Barack Obama Foundation
Litigation involving Obama did not end in 2017. The Obama Foundation is a separate legal entity from the former president, but one active case is worth noting. On April 30, 2026, former employee Tifphany McClinton filed a disability discrimination suit against the Obama Foundation in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:26-cv-05051). McClinton alleges she had health conditions requiring scheduling adjustments, that requested accommodations were never put in writing, and that she was pressured to increase her in-office presence before being fired in 2025.25ABC7 Chicago. Obama Foundation Sued by Former Employee The foundation retained Crowell & Moring LLP and said it “take[s] all employee matters seriously and [is] addressing this through the appropriate legal channels.” The case, assigned to Judge Steven C. Seeger, is in its earliest stages.26PACER Monitor. McClinton v. The Barack Obama Foundation