At the beginning of Donald Trump's second presidential term, he signed a series of executive orders. Many of these tested his legal authority, and drew immediate legal action. He issued more executive orders on his first day than any previous president. In the administration's first two months, 127 lawsuits were filed against it, according to data from New York University. In his first weeks, several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars.
Many cases have been brought in response to , establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Trump identified billionaire and tech CEO, Elon Musk, as leading DOGE, although he did not hold the office of DOGE Administrator. Musk began federal cost-cutting measures, including layoffs, shutting down departments and agencies, ending aid, and removing programs, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The Trump administration has claimed that they have wide powers to bypass Congressional oversight, while many others believe these actions to be unconstitutional. By mid-July, a Washington Post analysis found he defied judges and the courts in roughly one third of all cases against him, actions which were described by legal experts as unprecedented for any presidential administration. His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis.
Federal judges found many of the administration's actions to be illegal. By August 2025, several grant terminations and spending freezes were found by judges and the Government Accountability Office as being illegal and unconstitutional. His attempt to remove birthright citizenship was called "blatantly unconstitutional" by Reagan-appointed judge John C. Coughenour, and judges have also described other actions to be unconstitutional such as his unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers as part of his wider actions targeting political opponents and civil society.
Multiple analyses conducted by academic scholars and The New York Times found that both Republican and Democratic judicial appointees have found numerous constitutional and statutory flaws with Trump administration policies.Multiple sources:
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions cannot be issued by a federal district court. Following this decision, preliminary injunction may only provide relief for a plaintiff and may not block the implementation of the orders nationwide.
Tracking the cases Several organizations are tracking the cases that have been filed against the second Trump administration, including the Associated Press, the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Court Watch, Just Security, Lawfare, and The Washington Post. These organizations vary in the number of cases they're tracking, whether and how they group kinds of cases, how much information is provided about each case, whether and how they characterize cases' progress, and whether they link to the case docket. For example, as of January 3, 2026, the Associated Press was tracking 358 cases, grouping them in one of 14 categories (e.g., "Immigration"), describing each with a phrase or sentence, characterizing their progress in one of three ways (i.e., "Partially or fully blocked: 149", "Court left in effect: 102", and "Pending: 107"), and not linking to the case dockets, whereas Just Security was tracking 552 cases, grouping them into more and narrower categories (e.g., "Immigration enforcement against places of worship and schools", "Immigration and citizenship", "Access of lawyers to immigrants in detention"), describing each with one or more paragraphs, characterizing their progress in more and narrower categories (e.g., "Government Action Blocked Pending Appeal: 28", "Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 22"), and linking to each case's docket.
Color key
Actions against law firms and lawyers
+Case nameDate filedCase summaryOutcomePerkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00716
Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5241March 11, 2025On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14230, barring the federal government from using the services of law firm Perkins Coie and suspending security clearances. On May 2, the court granted summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLP and on June 30, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On March 2, 2026, the defendants filed notice that they would voluntarily dismiss the appeal.Summary judgement for Perkins Coie LLPWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00917
Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5277March 28, 2025On March 27, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14250, ending contracts with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr clients. The executive order cited their ties to Robert Mueller who led the Mueller special counsel investigation. On May 27, the court declared the executive order unconstitutional and on June 6, the firm amended the judgement, seeking to extend it to all federal agencies, not just the ones named in the complaint. On July 28, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On March 2, 2026, the defendants filed notice that they would voluntarily dismiss the appeal.Summary judgement for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLPJenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00916
Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5265March 28, 2025On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14246, suspending security clearances for the employees of Jenner & Block, restricted their access to federal buildings, and directed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. It cited the firm's prior association with Andrew Weissmann who was involved in the Mueller special counsel investigation. On May 23, the court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment. On July 22, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On March 2, 2026, the defendants filed notice that they would voluntarily dismiss the appeal.Summary judgement for Jenner & BlockSusman Godfrey LLP v. Executive of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01107
Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5310April 11, 2025On April 9, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14263, suspending Susman Godfrey LLP's security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and directing agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. The court held that the executive order violated the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. On August 26, the defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On March 2, 2026, the defendants filed notice that they would voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Summary judgement for Susman Godfrey LLPDoe 1 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01124April 15, 2025Three law students filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the government's investigation against the law firms violated their reasonable expectation of privacy. Voluntarily dismissedAmerican Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01263April 23, 2025The American Bar Association (ABA) alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully terminating grants to the ABA Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence.Preliminary injunction granted OngoingZaid v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01365May 5, 2025On March 22, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum, rescinding security clearances and access to classified information to a number of lawyers, including Mark Zaid.OngoingAmerican Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01888June 16, 2025The American Bar Association alleges that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and separation of powers by targeting law firms such as suspending their security clearances and cutting off federal contracts.Ongoing
Actions against political opponents and civil society
Case nameDate filedCase summaryOutcomeBaraka v. Habba (D.N.J.), 2:25-cv-06846June 3, 2025On May 9, 2025, Newark mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing after protesting against the opening of a new immigration detention facility. Baraka was released on bail and the charges were dropped. After the charges were dropped, Baraka announced that he was suing for damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution and accused the prosecutor, Alina Habba of defamation for comments that she had made about the arrest on X (formerly known as Twitter).OngoingMedia Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission (D.D.C) 1:25-cv-01959 Appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5302June 23, 2025Media Matters for America filed a lawsuit over an FTC investigation into the organization organizing an advertiser boycott of Twitter under Elon Musk.Preliminary injunction granted OngoingAmerican Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03553October 3, 2025In the run-up to the 2025 federal government shutdown, the Department of Education demanded that furloughed workers set up an out-of-office e-mail message. That message was later changed without their knowledge to include partisan language blaming the shutdown on "Democrat Senators." The union sued on First Amendment grounds, and an expedited summary judgement went for the plaintiffs ordering for the removal of the messages.Summary judgement for unionAaron v. Bondi (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04250December 8, 2025The developer of the ICEBlock app claimed in a lawsuit that the government violated the First Amendment when it threatened him with criminal charges and pressured Apple to remove it from the app store.OngoingO’Hara v. Beck (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-03753October 23, 2025The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man who claims he was handcuffed and detained solely for following an Ohio National Guard patrol while playing "The Imperial March", Darth Vader's theme from The Empire Strikes Back, on his phone. He is suing the District of Columbia for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights.OngoingLongworth v. Trump (D. Or.), 6:25-cv-02268December 5, 2025In November of 2025, federal agents arrested and threatened to arrest protesters for using bullhorns citing new regulations prohibiting loud noises near federal property instead of on the property.Preliminary injunction granted OngoingSwalwell v. Pulte (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04125November 25, 2025After Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi alleging that representative Eric Swalwell may have committed mortgage fraud, Swalwell sued claiming Pulte "abused his authority" in retaliation for his speech, violating the First Amendment and the Privacy Act of 1974.OngoingUAW v. Department of State (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-08566October 16, 2026Three labor unions (United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America and American Federation of Teachers) sued multiple agencies in the federal government on First Amendment grounds after the State Department claimed it revoked the visas of six people due to their comments on social media about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.Ongoing Kelly v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00081January 12, 2026After Senator Mark Kelly and five other congressional Democrats made a video reminding service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to reduce his military rank and pension as punishment. Kelly sued, arguing the comments were first amendment protected.Preliminary injunction granted