Political lawsuits this week span a blocked $1.776 billion Justice Department fund, a federal hearing on President Trump’s mail-in voting executive order, three new voting rights filings in Georgia, California, and Minnesota, and a 20-state challenge to new anti-DEI contract rules — all moving as the Supreme Court approaches the end of a term with several politically charged decisions still outstanding.
The $1.776 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund Is On Hold
A federal judge has frozen the Justice Department’s Anti-Weaponization Fund, and a hearing on whether to extend that block is set for June 12, 2026.1Lawfare. Is Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Slush Fund Dead, or Is It Undead
The fund was announced May 18, 2026, the same day Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization voluntarily dismissed their $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of their tax returns. The Trumps received no monetary damages but got a formal apology, and the DOJ agreed to bar the IRS from auditing Trump’s past returns.2The Guardian. Trump Dismiss 10 Billion Dollar IRS Lawsuit3U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization FundJan 6 Prosecutor, Trump Administration Targets Sue Weaponization Fund
On May 22, Democracy Forward filed Andrew Floyd et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of a coalition including a former career federal prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases, a professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause.4Democracy Forward. Individuals, Organizations Harmed by the Trump-Vance Administration Sue to Block $1.776 Billion Slush Fund The suit argues the fund violates the Constitution, exceeds executive authority, and bypasses Congress’s exclusive control over federal spending. On May 29, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema granted emergency relief, halting money transfers, claims processing, and payments.5Democracy Forward. Federal Court Pauses Trump-Vance Administration’s $1.776 Billion Slush Fund
The DOJ has publicly said it is “not moving forward with the fund,” but the underlying settlement agreement has not been formally rescinded, which is why plaintiffs are pressing for a permanent injunction at this week’s hearing.1Lawfare. Is Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Slush Fund Dead, or Is It Undead
Mail-In Voting Executive Order: Ruling Pending
A federal judge in Massachusetts is weighing whether to block President Trump’s March 31, 2026, executive order on federal elections, after hearing argument on June 2.6League of Women Voters. Federal Court Hears Challenge to Trump Executive Order Restricting Mail
Titled “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” the order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of adult citizens and transmit them to states before federal elections, requires the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only from voters on a federally created “approved” list, and threatens states with investigation or loss of federal funds if they don’t comply.7New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Challenges Unconstitutional Executive Order Threatening Elections
Two tracks of litigation are running. A coalition of 23 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania filed suit April 3, arguing the order violates the separation of powers and seizes election authority from states and Congress.8Votebeat. Donald Trump Midterm Election Executive Order State Lawsuit Mail Ballots Separately, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and other voting rights organizations filed LWV v. Trump on April 2, represented by the ACLU and the Brennan Center. The case raises six claims, including separation of powers, Tenth Amendment, Voting Rights Act, and Privacy Act violations.9ACLU. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump Twelve Republican-led states have moved to intervene on the administration’s side and asked to transfer the case to Washington, D.C.10Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
Voting Rights Filings and Rulings
Election litigation is accelerating ahead of the 2026 midterms, with three new filings in the first two weeks of June and several decisions handed down.
New Suits This Month
DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston sued Georgia on June 3 over House Bill 369, which requires certain local elections to become nonpartisan starting in 2028. The law applies only to five metro-Atlanta counties — Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett — all of which have large Black voter populations and currently have Black female district attorneys.11DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office. District Attorney Boston Files Lawsuit Against State of Georgia Filed in Fulton County Superior Court, the suit argues the law violates Georgia’s constitutional uniformity clause, equal protection guarantees, and a procedural rule requiring a supermajority vote when a substantially similar bill was previously rejected by the Senate.12Democracy Docket. Georgia Nonpartisan Elections Law Challenge Attorney General Chris Carr has said the state will defend the law.13ABC News. District Attorney Challenges New Georgia Law That Removes Party Labels
California filed State of California v. Shasta County on June 12, seeking to block an overhaul of the county’s election system. And the Minnesota Voters Alliance sued the City of Minneapolis on June 11, demanding bipartisan election judges at early-voting sites.14Democracy Docket. Cases
Decisions Just Handed Down
- Mora v. Raffensperger, on poll watcher access to Georgia’s Election Night Reporting Center, was decided June 12 in favor of expanded access.
- 1789 Foundation v. Electronic Registration Information Center, challenging the use of Wisconsin driving records for voter registration status checks, was decided June 11.
- Kivett v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, challenging a state law extending voter eligibility to overseas residents, was decided June 9.
- NAACP Virginia State Conference v. O’Bannon, challenging the rejection of registration applications from on-campus college students, was decided June 4 in favor of the students.14Democracy Docket. Cases
DOJ Prosecutions of Political Figures
Several criminal cases against figures viewed as political opponents of the administration are in motion.
Rep. LaMonica McIver. The New Jersey Democrat was indicted in June 2025 on three counts of forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers, stemming from a May 9, 2025, incident at an ICE detention facility in Newark where prosecutors allege she physically struck two officers during a scrum as agents attempted to arrest the Mayor of Newark.15U.S. Department of Justice. Congresswoman Charged With Forcibly Impeding and Interfering With Federal Officers McIver pleaded not guilty and called the prosecution “politically motivated,” noting it was brought by interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, who previously served as Trump’s personal defense attorney.16ABC News. Rep. LaMonica McIver Pleads Not Guilty to Charges at ICE Detention Facility A federal judge declined to dismiss the case, finding that during a 68-second window McIver was “actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities.” She is appealing to the Third Circuit on speech-or-debate clause grounds.17Politico. Rep. LaMonica McIver to Appeal All the Charges Against Her, Citing Congressional Immunity Clause
James Comey. The former FBI Director was indicted twice. The first charge, making a false statement to Congress, was dismissed after a judge ruled that U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment violated federal law.18The Daily Record. Trump Ally Comey Indictment Dismissed The DOJ secured a new indictment on two counts of threatening the President, based on an Instagram post in which Comey arranged seashells to form the numbers “86 47.”19The Hill. DOJ Indicts Comey Again
Letitia James. Mortgage fraud charges against the New York Attorney General, brought under Halligan’s authority, were dropped after the ruling that voided her appointment.18The Daily Record. Trump Ally Comey Indictment Dismissed
John Bolton. The former National Security Adviser faces 18 counts of retaining and transmitting classified information and has pleaded not guilty. The case is being handled with career prosecutors in Maryland.20CNN. Why the Bolton Indictment Is Different From Comey, James
The “Broadview Six.” Kat Abughazaleh, a former Democratic congressional candidate, was indicted in October 2025 alongside five others for allegedly blocking a federal vehicle outside an ICE processing facility in Broadview, Illinois.21NBC News. DOJ Indicts Democratic Congressional Candidate Kat Abughazaleh All charges were dismissed with prejudice on May 21, 2026, after U.S. District Judge April Perry pulled the trial from the docket, reportedly expressing shock at “prosecutorial behavior” revealed in grand jury transcripts. Defense attorneys alleged the government had gone to a second grand jury after the first refused to indict.22WTTW News. Broadview Six No Longer Set for Trial Following Closed-Door Meeting Over Grand Jury Transcripts
States vs. the Administration
Lawfare’s litigation tracker counts 227 active cases challenging Trump administration actions as of June 2026, plus 22 suits filed by the administration against state or local laws.23Lawfare. Tracking Trump Administration Litigation
The newest multi-state action came on June 10, when 20 attorneys general co-led by Maryland and California sued in the District of Maryland to block the implementation of Executive Order 14398, which directs federal agencies to add anti-DEI contract terms to roughly 640,000 federal contracts and subcontracts. The coalition argues the requirements were imposed without public notice or comment, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and federal procurement law.24California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Confusing New Federal Contract Requirements
California has also sued over the termination of $1.2 billion in federal energy and infrastructure funding25State of California. California Files Lawsuit Against Trump for Illegally Terminating $1.2 Billion in Energy and Infrastructure Programs and over the president’s use of emergency economic powers to impose tariffs.26BBC News. California Sues Trump Over Tariffs
Supreme Court Decisions Still to Come
The Court’s term is expected to wrap up by early July, with several politically charged cases outstanding.
Birthright citizenship. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court is weighing whether the president can end birthright citizenship by executive order for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. Every lower court has struck the order down. At April 1 oral arguments, a majority of justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s position, with several pointing to the 14th Amendment and the 1898 precedent in Wong Kim Ark.27SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship
Asylum. In Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the Court is considering whether asylum seekers turned away at ports of entry before physically crossing the border have a legal right to apply. After arguments on March 24, the justices appeared likely to side with the administration.28SCOTUSblog. Court Appears Likely to Side With Trump Administration on Rights of Asylum Seekers
Tariffs. The Court already ruled 6-3 in February that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, calling it an overreach into Congress’s taxing authority.29News From the States. US Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariffs in 6-3 Opinion Dealing Blow to Trade Agenda The administration has since pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose new global tariffs, likely setting up a fresh round of litigation.
Firing agency officials. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court cleared the way for the administration to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter while litigation continues. The Court separately refused to let the administration fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who remains in her position.30SCOTUSblog. The Most Important Cases Yet to Be Decided
Two More Cases Worth Watching
The citizenship data bank. League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security, filed September 30, 2025, in the District of Columbia, challenges the transformation of the SAVE system — originally a tool for verifying non-citizen eligibility for government benefits — into what plaintiffs call a “national citizenship data bank.” The suit alleges the administration connected SAVE to Social Security Administration records and other databases to conduct bulk queries on U.S. citizens without the public notice required by the Privacy Act. A second component targets the creation of a USCIS “Data Lake” combining IRS, SSA, HHS, Department of Labor, and state voter records.31League of Women Voters. Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Trump-Vance Administration’s Unlawful Interagency Databases The court denied a preliminary injunction in November 2025 but expressed “doubt on the lawfulness of the government’s actions” and ordered an expedited merits schedule. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment.32League of Women Voters. League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security
Armed agents at polling places. The Democratic National Committee has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ, DHS, and Department of Defense over their refusal to turn over documents on the potential deployment of armed federal officers at polling places, drop boxes, and election offices. The DNC submitted 11 FOIA requests starting October 2025; the DOD estimated a six-month completion timeline that would push release to just before the November midterms.33Democracy Docket. Trump Won’t Say if He’ll Send Armed Agents to the Polls, So Dems Are Suing to Find Out The suit gained urgency after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declined to rule out such deployments in congressional testimony this month.