The Trump administration was temporarily blocked Friday from slashing diversity, equity and inclusion-related contracts and firing a watchdog—marking setbacks in two court cases—but its plans to slash foreign aid staff can move forward, the latest in a slew of legal actions over President Donald Trump’s reshaping of the federal government.
President Donald Trump delivers remarks before signing an executive order at his Mar-a-Lago resort ... [+]
Judge Adam Abelson temporarily halted Trump’s push to cancel DEI-related federal contracts and bring legal action over private sector DEI programs, calling the policies overly vague and arguing some of them could violate the First Amendment, following a lawsuit from the city of Baltimore and other plaintiffs (the administration is also facing a DEI-related lawsuit from the National Urban League and others).
The Supreme Court turned down the Trump administration’s request to toss out a lower court order preventing it from firing government ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger—at least for the next few days—in a narrow ruling that still represents Trump’s first setback before the high court.
Trump-appointed District Judge Carl Nichols allowed Trump to put thousands of staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development—which Trump is seeking to dismantle—on leave, declining to extend a temporary pause that came earlier this month, amid a lawsuit from a labor union that called the moves illegal and disruptive to foreign staff.
Judge Amir Ali said in a filing the Trump administration did not comply with a temporary restraining order preventing it from suspending foreign aid funds until March 10, though the judge did not hold the administration in contempt “given Defendants’ explicit recognition that ‘prompt compliance with the order’ is required.”
Judge Christopher R. Cooper denied a request from the National Treasury Employees' Union to block the Trump administration from firing more people. Cooper said the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the claims, though he seemed to express sympathy in the opinion, writing: “Federal district judges are duty-bound to decide legal issues based on evenhanded application of law and precedent—no matter the identity of the litigants or, regrettably at times, the consequences of their rulings for average people.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an emergency bid by the Trump administration to reverse a Seattle federal court’s order to pause Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented or temporary immigrants. Three judges ruled Trump officials had not made a “strong showing” that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied 14 Democratic-led states’ request to immediately block Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency from accessing data or firing federal employees, with Chutkan ruling the states have not shown they “will suffer imminent, irreparable harm,” though she suggested she could still rule against the federal government in the future and noted the states have “legitimate” concerns about Musk’s authority.
A federal judge reinstated Cathy Harris to lead the Merit Systems Protection Board—which protects federal employees from things like the government retaliating against whistleblowers—while Harris’ lawsuit challenging her firing moves forward, with U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruling Trump likely exceeded his authority by firing her.
Obama-appointed Judge Randolph Moss declined to issue an order that would have immediately blocked DOGE officials from accessing student loan data and withdrawn any information they already accessed—ruling there’s no evidence to suggest the access will result in “disclosure of any sensitive, personal information” about the borrowers—after a group of students from the University of California system sued to keep Musk and DOGE from accessing the sensitive student loan systems, arguing they were seeking access to the data without following the required protocol.
U.S. District Judge John Bates—whom Musk and his allies had previously been attacking for issuing an unfavorable opinion—sided with Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and declined to issue a restraining order blocking DOGE from accessing information at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, as labor unions had asked for, with Bates swatting down the legal arguments the unions made even as he acknowledged his “serious concerns” about DOGE’s access to the data.
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to temporarily lift a freeze on foreign aid—which began three weeks ago—noting that the officials “have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid...was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.” the judge said.
Baltimore-based Judge Brendan A. Hurson blocked Trump’s directives restricting transgender health care and gender-affirming care for people under age 19, multiple outlets report—putting the restrictions on hold as the lawsuit, brought by transgender youth, moves forward—with Hurson saying at a hearing that Trump’s restrictions on the medical treatments “seems to deny that this population even exists, or deserves to exist.”
Trump’s executive order rescinding birthright citizenship for people born in the U.S. to parents who aren’t citizens or permanent residents was blocked for a fourth time in court, as District Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an order pausing the policy in response to a lawsuit brought by an expectant mother who has Temporary Protected Status and is in the U.S. lawfully, but is not a permanent resident or citizen.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, sued the Trump administration in federal court, alleging the administration has not disbursed more than $2 billion in approved federal funds it owes the state despite a previous court order lifting the administration’s proposed freeze on federal spending.
U.S. District Judge George O’Toole lifted a previous order that paused the government’s deadline for 2 million federal employees to decide whether or not to accept a buyout offer—despite having earlier extended the deadline twice—after labor unions sued to block the buyout deal, with O’Toole ruling the unions did not have standing to bring the case and they legally first have to try challenging the buyout program through administrative methods.
Eight inspectors general—or federal agency watchdogs—who were fired by Trump filed a lawsuit, arguing their termination violated federal rules that require the executive branch to give Congress 30 days notice before any inspectors general are fired and give concrete reasoning to justify that decision.
A court order halting the Trump administration’s directive to freeze most federal spending will remain in place after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift it, the latest twist in a court battle over the funding pause, after multiple judges previously blocked it—and Judge John McConnell Jr. then separately had to order the Trump administration to “immediately restore frozen funding,” after a group of states that sued Trump alleged they “continue to be denied access to federal funds.”
District Judge John D. Bates ordered Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to restore their websites and datasets to what they were on Jan. 30—prior to data being removed—before the end of the day in response to a lawsuit from Doctors for America that alleged the Trump administration removed “a broad range of health-related data.”
A lawsuit was filed by a group of nongovernmental organizations and small businesses that receive American foreign aid against the Trump administration for its efforts to phase out the U.S. Agency for International Development, and it alleges Trump’s administration “violated the separation of powers” and, in doing so, put their aid work and employees’ livelihoods at risk.
After 22 states sued the National Institutes of Health over its decision to place a 15% cap on indirect funding for research projects—calling the rate change “arbitrary and capricious”—District Judge Mary Page Kelley halted the cap while the litigation moves forward.
District Judge Joseph LaPlante halted Trump’s order that only allows the children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to become citizens at birth, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union—marking the third time a federal judge has blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship since it was issued Jan. 20.
The Treasury Department asked District Judge Paul Engelmayer to “immediately” dissolve his order barring political appointees from accessing the Treasury Department’s system, after Trump, Musk and their allies blasted the judge’s ruling and claimed it shouldn’t be possible for the judge to restrict DOGE’s access.
Engelmayer ruled political appointees and “special government employees”—like members of Musk’s team—must be cut off from access from the Treasury’s systems while the litigation is pending, after 19 Democratic state attorneys general sued Trump over DOGE’s Treasury access.
The University of California Student Association sued the Department of Education, accusing Musk’s DOGE of illegally accessing “sensitive personal and financial information” of about 42 million federal student loan borrowers.
The Justice Department agreed to not name the FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigation before a judge rules on two lawsuits from FBI agents that argued the dissemination of the agents’ names could threaten their employment, reputation and wellbeing.
Judge John Coughenour in Seattle extended a pause on Trump’s day-one executive order rescinding birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented or temporary immigrants, in response to a lawsuit brought by Democratic-led states, writing, “The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order.”
A second judge —Deborah L. Boardman of Maryland—blocked Trump’s policy rescinding birthright citizenship, in response to a lawsuit brought by nonprofits representing undocumented pregnant women.
Coughenour paused Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship, the first major ruling against the second Trump administration.
The first lawsuit against Trump’s administration was filed minutes after he was sworn into office, as public interest law group National Security Counselors argued DOGE should be classified as a federal advisory board that has “fairly balanced” membership and follows public transparency rules.
Trump’s executive order that directs transgender women to be incarcerated in male prisons has been blocked in court while litigation from a transgender inmate moves forward. The ruling came after a separate judge previously blocked one incarcerated transgender woman from being moved to a male prison after she sued over the policy change. Lawsuits are still pending challenging Trump’s directives banning transgender Americans from serving in the military and no longer allowing Americans to change the sex designation on their passport or use the non-binary “X.” Transgender public high school students in New Hampshire also filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Trump’s ban on transgender women in women’s sports.
Courts granted plaintiffs’ efforts to block Musk and his DOGE team from accessing records at the Treasury Department—at least temporarily. Still, DOGE staffers have been able to access other agencies. Musk and his DOGE associates can keep accessing information at the Department of Labor, as District Judge Bates declined to pause their access in response to a lawsuit from labor unions, saying the plaintiffs hadn’t established standing to sue, even as the judge expressed concerns. Prior to Engelmayer’s ruling cutting off DOGE’s access to Treasury systems, D.C.-based Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly also said only two Musk-affiliated staffers can access the Treasury Department’s payment system on a “read only” basis, after workers’ unions sued the Treasury amid reports Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency accessed sensitive records. (One of the employees given access reportedly resigned over racist tweets, but was then reinstated.) Multiple lawsuits are still pending arguing Trump should not have been able to create Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” in the first place by renaming the already-existing U.S. Digital Service. As Musk and DOGE gain access to information at the Department of Education, a group of labor unions sued to block DOGE from accessing their private information from the Education Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management, arguing this “violates federal law.” DOGE’s actions “threatens to upend how these critical systems are maintained and compromises the safety and security of personal identifying information for Americans all across the country,” the unions argued in a filing. The National Treasury Employees Union also challenged DOGE being able to access Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees’ private information.
In addition to courts blocking Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, a judge also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from transporting three men from Venezuela to Guantanamo Bay. Those men already had litigation pending over their detention, and the order does not affect the Trump administration’s broader actions to detain undocumented immigrants at the naval base, though the ACLU separately sued the Trump administration Wednesday over the government allegedly denying immigrants at Guantanamo access to lawyers. Lawsuits are still pending challenging a number of Trump’s other directives =, including lawsuits regarding asylum restrictions, raids on sanctuary cities, withholding funds from sanctuary cities, immigration officers entering houses of worship, restricting grants to immigration-related groups, Trump ordering the “expedited removal” of immigrants and the administration shutting down the CBP One app used by asylum seekers. A lawsuit is also pending challenging the Trump administration suspending refugee admissions.
In addition to court rulings on Dellinger and the government buyouts, a federal judge denied an effort by federal workers to immediately block the Office of Personnel Management allegedly storing employees’ data on a private email server. Moss denied the order due to defects with how the plaintiffs made their request, but said they can file a new order, and the litigation remains ongoing. Lawsuits remain pending on a number of personnel issues, including litigation against the Justice Department targeting agents who worked on Jan. 6-related cases, Trump’s “Schedule F” that makes it easier to fire career civil servants and Trump’s firing of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne A. Wilcox. Despite O’Toole’s ruling allowing the buyout offer to expire, other labor unions filed a separate lawsuit Wednesday that also takes aim at the “deferred resignation” plan, as well as other mass firings of federal employees.
Additional lawsuits that haven’t resulted in any rulings yet include cases challenging the alleged dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Trump’s broader restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. While the CFPB case has not had any rulings, the parties agreed Friday that the agency will not terminate employees or destroy data for now while the case moves forward. Multiple other lawsuits challenge the cuts to USAID beyond the one Nichols ruled on on Feb. 7, as well as an additional lawsuit targeting the funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health.
Legal experts raised alarm Sunday after Vice President JD Vance suggested judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive's legitimate power” and shared a post suggesting the court order blocking Musk from accessing Treasury data violated the separation of powers. There is so far no indication that the Trump administration has intentionally not complied with rulings against it, however. While the administration protested in a court filing that the ruling limiting access to Treasury data was “anti-constitutional,” it still emphasized the administration was following it, with officials writing, “To be clear, notwithstanding the Order’s defects, Defendants are in compliance with it.” Some federal grant recipients have complained they were still unable to access federal funds even after a court order barred the administration from freezing federal assistance, but the Trump administration has claimed that was unintentional.
It’s unclear how the Supreme Court will rule in the Dellinger case, which could more broadly affect whether Trump can fire officials at independent agencies like the Office of Special Counsel. And it’s likely more cases will make it to the high court: The high stakes of the lawsuits brought against Trump policies, plus the fact that bringing multiple lawsuits against a single policy may result in conflicting rulings, makes it all but certain the high court will eventually weigh in on more of the legal challenges now making their way through the courts. It’s unclear how the 6-3 conservative court, which includes three Trump appointees, will ultimately rule on any challenges, though legal experts have suggested some of the administration’s moves may be too much for even the conservative-leaning court to get behind. Georgetown Law School professor Stephen Vladeck wrote he was skeptical the Supreme Court would back the administration’s memo halting federal funding, for instance. He noted that while the court was willing to give Trump more power in its recent decision giving him some immunity from criminal charges, it would be “quite another” thing for it to give him “the right to refuse to spend any and all money Congress appropriates.” Legal experts have also been highly skeptical of the legal justification the Trump administration has used to back the order nullifying birthright citizenship, which claims the 14th Amendment—which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—has always exempted the children of undocumented immigrants or noncitizens. Mark Krikorian, who runs the Center for Immigration Studies and supports ending birthright citizenship, acknowledged to NBC News in July Trump’s argument is “something that the Supreme Court may well decide against,” and legal experts have previously decried the legal theory behind Trump’s order as a “lunatic fringe argument,” with University of Massachusetts, Amherst, professor Rebecca Hamlin telling NPR in 2018 that any lawyer who believes it is “like a unicorn.”
Trump has already issued a number of major executive actions, and many have not yet been challenged in court, such as him pulling out of the World Health Organization, withholding federal funding from schools that allow transgender women in women’s sports, imposing tariffs on China, removing safeguards around artificial intelligence, and rescinding Biden-era climate change initiatives, including ordering federal agencies not to disburse some funding that was approved by Congress. Musk and DOGE have also undertaken a number of controversial moves that haven’t yet resulted in court action, including DOGE staffers accessing information for Medicare and Medicaid and reportedly using artificial intelligence to search through sensitive internal data for the Department of Education.
Trump has issued a slew of executive orders in the less than three weeks he’s been in the White House, issuing broad orders on issues such as climate change, transgender rights, DEI initiatives, education, immigration, the U.S. military, abortion, the federal death penalty and more. Musk, whom Trump appointed to lead DOGE and has become one of his top advisers, has also drawn widespread controversy as DOGE has burrowed into the federal government and gained access to government information while proposing widespread cuts to spending. With Republicans holding both the White House and control of Congress, the courts have become the primary way for Democrats to issue any sort of check on the Trump administration’s actions, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has pointed to litigation as a key pillar of Democrats’ response to the second Trump presidency. “We’ve seen a flood and an avalanche of outrageous executive actions that have been taken by the administration and by the current president, but that has also prompted a response of righteous litigation,” Jeffries told MSNBC when asked how Democrats would oppose Trump’s policies, saying the litigation strategy “will continue as we move forward.”