Trump Administration Lawsuit Tracker: Tariffs, Immigration, DOGE

If you’re looking for a Trump administration lawsuit tracker, several organizations now maintain public, regularly updated databases of the cases filed since Inauguration Day 2025, and together they catalog more than 750 challenges covering tariffs, immigration, the federal workforce, education, LGBTQ+ rights, and the firing of independent officials.¹ No single tracker captures everything, so which one to use depends on what you want to follow.

Where to Follow the Cases

Just Security

The Just Security tracker at New York University is the broadest of the general-purpose trackers. As of May 2026 it listed 803 cases, counting only challenges to administration actions (not suits the government itself has filed) and treating appeals and consolidated matters as a single case rather than counting them separately. Of those 803, plaintiffs had won 262 times, including 64 permanent blocks and 137 temporary blocks of government action; the government had prevailed in 126; and 360 were still awaiting a ruling.² It updates every weekday and feeds a daily digest newsletter.³

Lawfare

The Lawfare Institute’s tracker is narrower, focused on executive actions tied to national security and enforcement. As of June 2026 it listed 227 active challenges to administration actions and 22 suits the administration had filed against state or local laws. Lawfare tracks Supreme Court activity in a separate tally — 17 stays or orders vacating lower court rulings, two affirmances of rulings against the administration, nine trial-court wins for the government, and ten trial-court losses — and also catalogs six criminal prosecutions brought by the Department of Justice against specific individuals.⁴

Associated Press

The AP tracker organizes cases by policy theme: agency cuts, birthright citizenship, DEI, DOGE, education, environment, federal funding, federal workers, immigration, tariffs, transgender rights, and more. As of January 2026 it reported 150 executive actions partially or fully blocked, 102 left in effect, and 107 still pending. Each entry also notes which president appointed the presiding judge, which is useful context given the sharp partisan split in rulings.⁵

The New York Times

The Times maintains an interactive tracker that reported more than 750 lawsuits filed against the administration as of June 12, 2026.¹

Issue-Specific Trackers

If you care about a particular subject area, specialized trackers go deeper than the generalists. The National LGBTQ+ Bar Association tracks litigation against eight anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders across 15 topic areas, from bathroom bans to transgender military service to gender-affirming care.⁶ The Brookings Institution tracks K-12 education cases.⁷ Public Citizen posts the cases in which it serves as counsel, covering topics from the “Gold Card” visa program to FOIA requests to firings of consumer safety commissioners.⁸ The NAACP Legal Defense Fund lists its own nine active cases on birthright citizenship, voting rights, DEI in education, and the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Somali nationals.⁹

How the Administration Is Faring Overall

Through the first anniversary of Trump’s second inauguration, Democracy Forward reported the count had already passed 600 lawsuits, with the administration losing in court more than 70 percent of the time and fewer than five percent of cases reaching the Supreme Court.¹⁰ A Forbes analysis of 191 rulings through early July 2025 found a 31 percent win rate for the administration against a 60 percent loss rate, with nine percent mixed. The partisan split was wide: the administration prevailed 76 percent of the time before Trump-appointed judges and only 14 percent of the time before judges appointed by other presidents.¹¹

Tariffs

Beginning in early 2025, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and eventually most other trading partners. Importers sued in the Court of International Trade, which in May 2025 ruled that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate” imports does not grant “unbounded” authority to impose tariffs.¹²

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. 6-3 against the administration, holding that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs and applying the major questions doctrine to the question of taxation.¹³

The administration pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits, and announced across-the-board tariffs of 10 percent, later raised to 15 percent.¹⁴ A divided Court of International Trade panel struck those down in May 2026 in Oregon v. United States and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, though relief applied only to the three importer plaintiffs with standing. The government appealed, and the Federal Circuit granted a temporary stay.¹⁵

More than $100 billion in tariffs collected under IEEPA has not yet been refunded. A Customs and Border Protection official told the Court of International Trade in March 2026 the agency was “not able to comply” with refunds due to the volume and was building a web-based system to process them. The administration also opened new trade investigations under Section 301(b) that could support fresh tariffs on a different legal theory.¹⁴

Immigration

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. Every lower court to consider it blocked the order. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara on April 1, 2026, with a decision expected by late June or early July 2026.¹⁶¹⁷

The administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens produced the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. A Salvadoran man granted protection from deportation in 2019, Abrego Garcia was nonetheless deported to El Salvador in March 2025 and held in the CECOT megaprison. The Supreme Court ordered his return. The DOJ then charged him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop investigators had previously closed. On May 22, 2026, a federal judge in Tennessee dismissed the case, finding the prosecution was a “vindictive effort” to punish Abrego Garcia for challenging his deportation.¹⁸¹⁹

The broader Alien Enemies Act fight culminated in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, where the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to bar removal of named plaintiffs and putative class members under the Act. The Court held that roughly 24 hours of notice before deportation, without information about how to exercise due process rights, was constitutionally inadequate. The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit on the merits.²⁰

Khalil v. Trump, challenging the detention and attempted deportation of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, continues in the Third Circuit, which overturned a lower court’s protective order in January 2026. Separately, the administration’s mandatory immigration detention policy has drawn more than 700 individual challenges before more than 225 judges.²

DOGE and the Federal Workforce

A coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments including Chicago, Baltimore, and Harris County, Texas, sued in April 2025 over the administration’s mass workforce reductions, arguing the cuts lacked congressional authorization and that the Department of Government Efficiency had no statutory power to dictate staffing or spending. The suit targeted a February 2025 executive order titled “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”²¹

In a related case, U.S. District Judge William Alsup found that the Office of Personnel Management “illegally directed” six agencies to terminate probationary employees and ordered the reinstatement of more than 16,000 workers. The Supreme Court later vacated that reinstatement order without ruling on the underlying legality of the firings.²¹

DOGE’s handling of sensitive personal data generated its own litigation. In AFSCME v. SSA, filed in February 2025, plaintiffs alleged DOGE personnel bypassed data safeguards at the Social Security Administration to access millions of Americans’ bank account numbers, health records, and wage histories. In January 2026, the DOJ filed a “Notice of Corrections to the Record” acknowledging that personal data had been disclosed to third parties via a non-government server and that a DOGE team member had entered into a “Voter Data Agreement” to analyze state voter rolls at an outside party’s request.²² In Nemeth-Greenleaf v. OPM, a judge in March 2026 allowed privacy claims by federal employees to proceed into discovery after finding the government had admitted “DOGE staffers have in fact mishandled agency data in precisely the ways Plaintiffs feared.”²³

Department of Education

McMahon v. State of New York, filed in March 2025 by 20 states and the District of Columbia, challenged the mass termination of nearly half the Department of Education’s workforce and an executive order directing its shutdown. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction ordering reinstatement. The Supreme Court stayed that injunction in July 2025 over a dissent from Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, arguing that a president cannot eliminate a congressionally established department unilaterally. The department proceeded with its cuts, and merits litigation continued through late 2025.²⁴²⁵

In a separate education fight, the American Federation of Teachers and others won in August 2025 when U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland ruled the administration’s threat to withhold billions from schools that refused to certify they had no DEI programs failed to follow proper procedures and threatened educators’ free speech. The administration initially appealed, then withdrew the appeal on January 21, 2026, leaving the ruling in place.²⁶²⁷

LGBTQ+ Rights

The ban on transgender military service was enjoined nationwide in March 2025, but the Supreme Court stayed the injunction in May 2025 in Shilling v. Trump, letting the ban take effect while litigation continues.²⁸

In Kingdom v. Trump, a court certified a class and issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Bureau of Prisons to continue providing hormone therapy to transgender inmates. In San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, Judge Jon Tigar granted a preliminary injunction blocking three executive orders from being used to defund nine LGBTQ+ and HIV-serving nonprofits, writing that the executive branch “cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment.”²⁹ Other cases challenge bans on gender-affirming care for minors, restrictions on transgender girls in sports, and State Department refusal to issue passports with accurate sex designations. A court also ruled that the National Endowment for the Arts’ use of “gender ideology” criteria in grant applications violated the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction.⁶

Law Firm Sanctions

Executive orders sanctioning specific law firms that had represented clients against Trump-related interests drew suits from Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale. In May 2025, Judge Beryl Howell declared the order targeting Perkins Coie unconstitutional on First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds and issued a permanent injunction. Days later, Judge John Bates declared the order targeting Jenner & Block “null and void.” The D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for May 2026.²

Criminal Prosecutions

Lawfare counts six DOJ-brought criminal prosecutions as part of this litigation picture. The most prominent is the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James on charges of making false statements to a financial institution and bank fraud, tied to a 2020 mortgage on a Virginia property. James pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss, alleging vindictive and selective prosecution. A federal judge ruled the appointment of the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the charges was unlawful and dismissed the indictment. The DOJ attempted to re-file; two federal grand juries rejected the charges. As of March 2026, the DOJ was reportedly pursuing another investigation into James.³⁰³¹

Supreme Court Cases Still Pending

Trump v. Slaughter, argued in December 2025, asks the Court whether to overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent protecting members of independent agencies like the FTC from removal without cause. The case arose from the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and could reshape the independence of the federal regulatory apparatus. A decision is expected by the end of the June 2026 term.³²

In Trump v. Cook, argued in January 2026, the Court is considering Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. All nine justices expressed skepticism toward the administration’s claim of unreviewable removal authority, and several conservative justices questioned the lack of due process afforded to Cook. It was the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 112-year history a president had attempted to fire a board member. A decision is expected by summer 2026.³³³⁴

What a Win Now Means: The CASA Ruling

One ruling has changed how to read every entry in every tracker. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., decided 6-3 in June 2025, the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack historical authority to issue “universal injunctions” blocking the government from enforcing a policy against anyone beyond the parties to the case. Justice Barrett wrote that injunctions must be limited to providing “complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” The Court noted that in the first 100 days of the second term alone, district courts had issued roughly 25 such nationwide injunctions.³⁵ Since CASA, a “win” in a tracker may protect only the named plaintiffs unless challengers obtain class certification or similar relief, so headline injunction counts can overstate the practical reach of any given ruling.

1
The New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits
2
Just Security. Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions
3
Just Security. Relaunch: Trump Litigation Tracker
4
Lawfare. Tracking Trump Administration Litigation
5
AP News. Trump Executive Order Lawsuit Tracker
6
National LGBTQ+ Bar Association. Trump Anti-LGBTQ+ Executive Order Litigation Tracker
7
Brookings Institution. Tracking Lawsuits Challenging the Trump Administration’s K-12 Education Agenda
8
Public Citizen. Trump Administration 2.0 Lawsuit Tracker
9
NAACP Legal Defense Fund. LDF Trump Lawsuit Tracker
10
Democracy Forward. On Anniversary of Trump’s Second Inauguration
11
Forbes. Trump’s Success Rate in the Courts So Far: 31%
12
Just Security. International Trade Court Ruling on Tariffs
13
Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287
14
SCOTUSblog. The Remaining Questions After the Supreme Court’s Tariffs Ruling
15
Skadden. US Trade Court Strikes Down Section 122 Tariffs
16
SCOTUSblog. The Key Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case
17
ACLU. Supreme Court Arguments Wrap in Landmark Challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
18
The New York Times. Abrego Garcia Case Dismissed
19
BBC. Abrego Garcia Smuggling Case Dismissed
20
SCOTUSblog. A.A.R.P. v. Trump
21
NPR. Trump DOGE Lawsuit: Federal Workers, Cities
22
Democracy Forward. Department of Justice Acknowledges Misconduct by DOGE Employees
23
Bloomberg Law. Trump Agencies Must Defend Another Challenge to DOGE Data Access
24
Supreme Court of the United States. McMahon v. State of New York, No. 24A1203
25
SCOTUSblog. The Status of Trump’s RIFs
26
The New York Times. Trump Administration DEI Schools Lawsuit
27
EdSource. Trump Administration Abandons Anti-DEI Court Battle
28
GLAD Law. Legal Challenges to Trump’s Anti-LGBTQ Executive Orders
29
Los Angeles LGBT Center. Federal Court Blocks Trump Anti-Equity and Anti-Transgender Executive Orders
30
CNN. Letitia James Motion to Dismiss
31
House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Judiciary Democrats Launch Investigation Into DOJ’s Prosecution of AG Letitia James
32
SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Slaughter
33
NPR. Supreme Court Federal Reserve Lisa Cook
34
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Inclined to Prevent Trump From Firing Fed Governor
35
Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Casa, Inc., No. 24A884