Political Lawsuits in 2025: Tariffs, Immigration, and DOGE

Since President Donald Trump began his second term on January 20, 2025, Trump administration lawsuits in 2025 and into 2026 have piled up faster than in any presidency in living memory. More than 750 suits have been filed challenging executive orders, agency actions, firings, funding decisions, and prosecutions. Of the 172 cases that had reached a final decision by June 2026, plaintiffs had won 67, the administration had won 7, and 96 had been dismissed. The Supreme Court had taken action in 31 cases, with 6 still pending.¹ A separate count by Just Security put the total at 803, with 262 plaintiff wins, 126 government wins, and 360 cases awaiting rulings.²

The cases fall into recognizable clusters. What follows is the shape of each one, and where the biggest fights stand.

Tariffs Struck Down by the Supreme Court

The single largest legal defeat for the administration came on February 20, 2026, when the Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The administration had argued that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate” the “importation” of property was broad enough to cover tariffs, but during oral argument on November 5, 2025, it conceded that the president has no inherent peacetime tariff authority.³

The Court leaned on the major questions doctrine, finding IEEPA lacked the clear congressional authorization needed for such a sweeping expansion of executive power. In IEEPA’s 50-year history, no president had used it to impose tariffs. The Federal Circuit, ruling before the high court weighed in, had described the claimed authority as “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.”³

Immigration: The Largest Cluster of Cases

Immigration produced more litigation than any other subject area.

The Alien Enemies Act

On March 14, 2025, President Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deporting Venezuelan nationals accused of ties to the gang Tren de Aragua. Two hundred fifty-one Venezuelans were detained and sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador without court proceedings.⁴

In W.M.M. v. Trump, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled in September 2025 that the administration had “unlawfully invoked the Act,” granting a preliminary injunction. The panel concluded that Tren de Aragua’s activities did not constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” under a statute historically used only during declared wars against sovereign nations. The full court granted rehearing en banc, scheduled for January 22, 2026.⁵ In a parallel case, J.G.G. v. Trump, a district court ruled on June 4, 2025, that class members sent to CECOT must be allowed to seek habeas relief. That case is pending in the D.C. Circuit.⁶

Birthright Citizenship

An executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents prompted three district courts to issue nationwide injunctions on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.¹ On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Casa, Inc. that federal courts lack authority to issue “universal injunctions” protecting everyone in the country rather than just the named plaintiffs. Justice Barrett’s opinion noted that district courts had issued roughly 25 such injunctions in the administration’s first 100 days. The Court did not rule on whether the underlying executive order is constitutional.⁷

Mandatory Detention and Student Visas

A new mandatory immigration detention policy, which also barred individuals from seeking release through immigration courts, produced a wave of habeas suits. By November 2025, at least 225 judges had ruled in more than 700 cases that the policy likely violated due process. The administration also revoked F-1 foreign student visa registrations, drawing more than 100 lawsuits and 50 restraining orders before the government reversed course around April 25, 2025.²

The Khalil Case

Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident arrested by ICE in connection with his pro-Palestinian activism, filed a habeas petition arguing his detention violated the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. A New Jersey federal court blocked his detention, and he was released on June 20, 2025.⁸⁹

Federal Funding Freezes and Immigration Conditions

States have had considerable success blocking the administration’s attempts to freeze federal funds or condition them on immigration cooperation. In New York v. Trump, more than 20 states sued to halt a sweeping Office of Management and Budget freeze on federal funding. Courts stopped it.¹⁰

Twenty state attorneys general then challenged DHS rules that made disaster grants conditional on immigration cooperation. In September 2025, a district judge ruled for the states in Illinois v. FEMA; that policy is on appeal. Twenty states also sued over similar conditions on Transportation Department grants in California v. U.S. Department of Transportation, and a federal judge blocked the requirement in June 2025 as unconstitutional.¹ Additional coalition suits targeted the withholding of billions in health funding, education grants, electric vehicle charger funds, SNAP benefits, and Victims of Crime Act money tied to immigration enforcement.¹⁰

DOGE, Mass Firings, and Agency Cuts

The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, drew its own body of litigation. Nineteen Democratic attorneys general sued to block DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury data in State of New York v. Trump, and 14 attorneys general challenged Musk’s authority in New Mexico v. Musk.¹⁰

On April 28, 2025, a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments including Chicago, Baltimore, and Harris County, Texas filed suit arguing the administration’s mass layoffs and downsizing were unconstitutional because Congress had not authorized them. The suit contended DOGE had no statutory power to direct agency staffing cuts. In a related case over the firing of probationary federal employees, District Judge William Alsup ordered the reinstatement of more than 16,000 workers. The Supreme Court later vacated that order without ruling on the underlying legality.¹¹

Twenty-four states and D.C. sued over DOGE’s dismantling of AmeriCorps.¹² Twenty states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, challenged the restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The complaint alleged roughly 20,000 employees were cut, 28 agencies were consolidated into 15, and 10,000 termination notices went out on a single day in April 2025.¹³

Firing Independent Agency Officials

Two pending Supreme Court cases will decide how much control the president has over officials at independent agencies.

Trump v. Cook

President Trump fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on August 25, 2025. A district court ruled she was entitled to due process before termination and temporarily reinstated her on September 9, 2025. The D.C. Circuit declined to disturb that ruling.¹⁴ At oral argument on January 21, 2026, Justice Kavanaugh warned that the administration’s position (no judicial review, no required process, and a low bar for “cause”) would “weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.” A decision is expected by summer 2026.¹⁵

Trump v. Slaughter

The administration fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. On July 17, 2025, a district court granted summary judgment for Slaughter, ruling the firing unlawful.¹⁶ The Supreme Court stayed that order, allowing the firing to stand pending appeal, and heard argument on December 8, 2025. A majority of the justices appeared open to overruling the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld restrictions on the president’s power to fire commissioners of independent agencies. If overturned, protections at roughly two dozen independent agencies could fall. A ruling is expected by mid-2026.¹⁷

The Elections Executive Order

President Trump’s March 25, 2025 executive order, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” directed the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form, withhold funding from states accepting mail ballots after Election Day, and cross-check voter rolls against immigration databases.¹⁸

A coalition including the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and the Hispanic Federation challenged the order in Washington, D.C. A judge issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025, finding the proof-of-citizenship rule likely violated the National Voter Registration Act. On October 31, 2025, the same court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and permanently barred the EAC from enforcing the requirement, ruling the president lacked authority to set election rules.¹⁹²⁰ The DOJ appealed, and the case is pending before the D.C. Circuit.¹⁸

Starting in May 2025, the Justice Department demanded full, unredacted voter rolls from at least 44 states. When states refused, the DOJ sued 24 jurisdictions to compel compliance. Courts in California and Oregon rejected the DOJ’s claim that it was legally entitled to unredacted records including driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.²¹ In March 2026, the president signed a new elections executive order directing the creation of citizenship verification lists and setting new mail-ballot rules. A federal judge declined to block it in May 2026.²²

DEI, Transgender Rights, and School Funding

Three executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion and transgender recognition drew a joint challenge from the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation Chicago. In National Urban League v. Trump, they argued the orders violated the First and Fifth Amendments and amounted to intentional discrimination.²³ On May 2, 2025, the court denied a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed at that stage, though the case is still active with a government motion to dismiss filed in August 2025.²⁴

The administration also pulled school funding tied to transgender student policies. New York City sued in October 2025 after the Education Department revoked $47 million in magnet school grants over the city’s policy allowing transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Similar funding was pulled from Chicago and Fairfax, Virginia.²⁵ In February 2026, California sued the Education Department after it threatened to withhold $4.9 billion in federal education funding unless the state required schools to notify parents when children identify with a gender other than their sex assigned at birth.²⁶

Executive Orders Against Law Firms

The administration issued executive orders imposing sanctions on four law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. The orders terminated government contracts, suspended security clearances, and restricted access to federal buildings. All four firms sued, and all four won at the district court. Judge Beryl Howell declared the order against Perkins Coie unconstitutional on May 2, 2025 and issued a permanent injunction. Judge John Bates declared the order against Jenner & Block “null and void” on May 23, 2025.²

The DOJ appealed all four cases, which the D.C. Circuit consolidated. At argument on May 14, 2026, the three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the government’s claim that courts cannot review presidential decisions about security clearances. Judges asked whether the administration’s theory would allow revoking clearances based on a lawyer’s race or the demographics of their clients. The government called the matter a non-reviewable “political question.”²⁷²⁸ No ruling has issued.

The IRS Settlement and $1.776 Billion Fund

President Trump filed a personal $10 billion suit against the IRS in January 2026 over the leak of his tax returns by a former contractor. He voluntarily dismissed the case on May 18, 2026, two days before a court deadline to address whether a sitting president could sue an agency under his own authority. The next day, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a settlement addendum “forever” barring the IRS from auditing the past tax returns of Trump, his family, and their companies.²⁹

The settlement also created a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund to compensate individuals the administration described as victims of political “weaponization” during prior administrations.³⁰ Democracy Forward sued in Andrew Floyd et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of a former career prosecutor, a professor, the City of New Haven, and others, arguing the fund violated the First Amendment, equal protection, separation of powers, and the Appropriations Clause. Capitol Police officers who guarded the building on January 6 filed a separate challenge.³¹

On May 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily barred the DOJ from setting up or distributing the fund.³² On June 12, 2026, she issued a preliminary injunction halting the fund entirely and ordered the government to file a declaration under penalty of perjury that it would not create or operate it under any name.³³ A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges filed a motion to reopen the underlying settlement case, alleging it was “a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court.”³⁴ Blanche said on June 2, 2026 that the DOJ was “not moving forward with the fund, period,” though he declined to put that commitment in writing. The addendum barring IRS audits of the Trump family remains in force.³⁰

Press Access, D.C. Police, and the National Guard

The Associated Press sued in Associated Press v. Budowich after being barred from press pool access, reportedly for refusing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” Judge Trevor McFadden said the ban “seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination” and granted a preliminary injunction in April 2025. A D.C. Circuit panel stayed the injunction on June 6, 2025, and the full court upheld the stay on July 22, 2025, letting the ban remain in place during the appeal.³⁵³⁶

In August 2025, the administration attempted to federalize the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, appointing DEA head Terry Cole as “emergency police commissioner.” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued, calling it a “brazen usurpation” of the District’s authority under the Home Rule Act. At an emergency hearing, Judge Ana C. Reyes said the actions appeared “flagrantly illegal.” Under judicial pressure, the DOJ rescinded the emergency commissioner designation, though federal agents and National Guard troops continued patrols.³⁷³⁸

California Governor Gavin Newsom sued in Newsom v. Trump over the federalization of 4,000 National Guard troops. A district judge ordered the troops returned to state control; the Ninth Circuit initially stayed that order. In December 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in a related Illinois case in favor of the state, and the Ninth Circuit allowed Judge Charles Breyer’s order ending the California takeover to take effect. The troops returned to state command.³⁹

Prosecutions of Letitia James and James Comey

The DOJ pursued criminal charges against several figures viewed as political opponents. New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted in Virginia in October 2025 on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in September 2025. Both cases were brought by Lindsay Halligan, whom President Trump appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan was a junior lawyer from his personal legal team with no prior prosecutorial experience. A federal judge dismissed both indictments after ruling her appointment was unlawful.⁴⁰ The DOJ tried to re-file charges against James, but two separate federal grand juries rejected the indictment. As of March 2026, the DOJ was reportedly pursuing a new investigation, and House Judiciary Committee Democrats had opened their own inquiry into what they called “retaliatory prosecutorial abuse.”⁴¹

Other Notable Cases

Seventeen states and D.C. challenged a January 2025 memorandum halting federal land and water leasing for wind farms and stopping permit issuance. A district judge ruled in December 2025 that the order was contrary to law, and the administration appealed. Harvard University sued in May 2025 after the administration tried to rescind its ability to enroll international students; a federal judge in Boston blocked the move, and the appeal is pending.¹ The National Association of the Deaf won a preliminary injunction in November 2025 requiring the White House to provide American Sign Language interpretation at press briefings, after the administration stopped providing interpreters in January 2025. The government appealed.²

Hundreds of cases remain unresolved. The Supreme Court still has pending decisions on presidential removal power at independent agencies and on immigration enforcement, and the D.C. Circuit has yet to rule on the law firm executive orders. Between them, these rulings will set the shape of executive power for years.

1
The New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits Tracker
2
Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration
3
Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287
4
The US Constitution. W.M.M. v. Trump
5
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. W.M.M. v. Trump
6
ACLU. J.G.G. v. Trump
7
Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Casa, Inc., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886
8
ACLU. Khalil v. Trump
9
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Khalil v. Joyce, Nos. 25-2162 and 25-2357
10
AP News. Trump Executive Order Lawsuit Tracker
11
NPR. Trump DOGE Lawsuit Federal Workers Cities
12
The Washington Post. AmeriCorps Cuts Trump Lawsuit DOGE
13
Courthouse News Service. States Sue RFK Jr., Trump for Sabotaging HHS With DOGE Cuts
14
The Conversation. How the Supreme Court Might Protect the Fed’s Independence by Using Employment Law in Trump v. Cook
15
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Inclined to Prevent Trump From Firing Fed Governor
16
Constitutional Accountability Center. Slaughter v. Trump
17
SCOTUSblog. Court Seems Likely to Side With Trump on President’s Power to Fire FTC Commissioner
18
League of Women Voters. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (Now LULAC v. Executive Office of the President)
19
Brennan Center for Justice. League of Women Voters v. Trump (March 2025 Elections Executive Order)
20
ACLU. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
21
Brennan Center for Justice. Trump Administration Has Sued More Than 20 States Refusing to Turn Over Voter Registration Data
22
The Washington Post. Trump Executive Order on Mail Voting Stands for Now, Federal Court Rules
23
NAACP Legal Defense Fund. National Urban League v. Trump: Anti-DEI Executive Orders Lawsuit
24
Advancing DEI Meltzer Center. National Urban League et al. v. Trump et al.
25
Chalkbeat. NYC Sues Trump Administration Over Magnet School Grant Transgender Policies
26
Courthouse News Service. California Sues Trump Administration Over Demand to Let Schools Disclose Students’ Gender Identity
27
Roll Call. Appeals Court Questions Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms
28
Courthouse News Service. DC Circuit Signals Trump’s Law Firm Sanctions Likely Unlawful
29
Thomson Reuters Tax. DOJ Settlement Forever Bars IRS Trump Audits, Sparks Backlash
30
Jurist. Federal Courts Consider Challenge to Trump IRS Settlement as DOJ Abandons Anti-Weaponization Fund
31
Democracy Forward. State of Play: The Trump-Vance Administration’s $1.776 Billion Slush Fund
32
Democracy Docket. Judge Halts Trump Justice Department Weaponization Slush Fund
33
Democracy Forward. Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration’s $1.776 Billion Slush Fund While the Case Continues
34
Time. Trump DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund
35
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Associated Press v. Budowich
36
Knight First Amendment Institute. The Associated Press v. Budowich
37
The New York Times. Trump Administration DC News
38
The Hill. DC Attorney General Sues Trump
39
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Federal Court Finally Ends Illegal Federalization of National Guard
40
19th News. Letitia James, James Comey, Trump
41
House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Judiciary Democrats Launch Investigation Into DOJ’s Retaliatory Prosecution