Based on the analysis of the latest updates for the 146 cases documented in the source material 1 as of May 2, 2025, the preliminary outcomes are categorized as follows:
- Total Cases Analyzed: 146
- Government/Trump Win/Winning: 18 cases (approx. 12%)
- Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction: 48 cases (approx. 33%)
- Unclear/Neutral/Stayed/Closed (Procedural): 80 cases (approx. 55%)
Purpose: This report provides an updated analysis of the status and preliminary outcomes of 146 distinct legal challenges filed against executive actions undertaken by the Trump administration. The analysis is based exclusively on information documented on the Just Security litigation tracker, specifically reflecting updates available as of May 2, 2025.1 The primary objective is to determine the frequency with which either the government/Trump position or the plaintiffs' position is prevailing or achieving identifiable success (including the limitation or reduction of government action) based solely on the procedural posture and rulings described in the provided source material.
Source Material: The findings and assessments herein are strictly confined to the details presented in the Just Security litigation tracker webpage snapshot, last updated May 2, 2025.1 This analysis represents a specific point in time and relies entirely on the descriptions of case statuses and updates provided therein.
Methodology and Definitions: Each of the 146 cases listed in the source material was reviewed to extract its latest update.1 Based on this update, each case was categorized according to the following definitions:
- Government/Trump Win/Winning: This category includes cases where the latest update indicates a court ruling or development clearly favorable to the government's position. Examples include the denial of a plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Preliminary Injunction (PI), the granting of a government's motion to dismiss, an appellate court granting a stay pending the government's appeal of an adverse lower court ruling, or a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal under circumstances suggesting an inability to proceed or achieve objectives (e.g., plaintiff leaving the country, case dropped).
- Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction: This category includes cases where the latest update indicates a court ruling or development favorable to the plaintiffs. Examples include the granting of a TRO or PI that blocks or limits the challenged government action (even temporarily), the denial of a government's motion to dismiss, an appellate court denying the government's request for a stay of a favorable lower court ruling, a court order compelling specific government action beneficial to the plaintiff (e.g., returning a removed individual, ordering release), the granting of class certification, or a government policy reversal following litigation. This category explicitly encompasses outcomes that, even if preliminary, successfully limit or reduce the scope, immediacy, or impact of the government's challenged action based on the available text. Government concessions providing procedural safeguards (e.g., notice before transfer) are also included here as they represent a reduction in immediate risk achieved through litigation. Mixed rulings (e.g., motion to dismiss granted in part/denied in part) are categorized here if key plaintiff claims survive.
- Unclear/Neutral/Stayed/Closed (Procedural): This category includes cases where the latest update does not provide a clear indication of which side is currently prevailing or where the case status is indeterminate or paused. Examples include cases that were recently filed with no subsequent rulings reported, routine procedural filings (e.g., filing of motions, replies, amended complaints, answers, appeals) without an accompanying ruling on the substance or immediate relief, cases formally stayed pending outcomes in related litigation, cases consolidated with others where the outcome depends on the lead case, and cases closed voluntarily without prejudice for strategic or procedural reasons not clearly indicating a loss on the merits (unless context strongly suggests otherwise, e.g., plaintiff leaving country). Cases with mixed rulings (e.g., PI granted in part/denied in part) are also placed here if the overall direction is ambiguous or balanced from the summary provided.
Scope Limitation: It must be emphasized that this analysis reflects the status of ongoing litigation, often at early stages. Many assessments are based on preliminary rulings (TROs, PIs, motions to dismiss) which are subject to appeal and do not represent final judgments on the merits of the claims. The categorization is based strictly and solely on the interpretation of the text provided in the source material 1 as of May 2, 2025, and does not predict future outcomes or incorporate information beyond that date or source.
II. Detailed Case Analysis by Executive Action Category (Based on Initial April 22, 2025 Analysis)
Note: The following narrative sections (A-Z) reflect the analysis conducted for the initial 90 cases based on the April 22, 2025 data snapshot. The comprehensive, updated analysis covering all 146 cases as of May 2, 2025, is presented in the Quantitative Summary (Section III) and the Detailed Case Analysis Summary Table (Appendix A) below.
A. Alien Enemies Act Removals (Presidential Proclamation 10903)
Six cases challenge removals under Presidential Proclamation 10903, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).1 The initial outcomes show significant, though often preliminary, success for plaintiffs in halting removals.
- In G.F.F. v. Trump (1), petitioners filed a reply supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing due process violations under the AEA and conflicts with humanitarian protection laws. The motion is pending.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- In J.A.V. v. Trump (2), a TRO remained in place through April 23, 2025.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (TRO temporarily blocks government action).
- In Zacarias Matos v. Venegas (3), Judge Rodriguez granted a preliminary injunction and scheduled an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's alleged membership in TdA.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (PI blocks government action pending hearing).
- In D.B.U. v. Trump (4), Judge Sweeney temporarily blocked the removal of the plaintiffs and the class they represent.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Temporary block favors plaintiffs).
- In J.G.G. v. Trump (5), the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay of a district court contempt-related order adverse to the government.1 Status: Gov/Trump Winning (Appellate court stayed lower court action adverse to government).
- In A.A.R.P. v. Trump (6), after the Fifth Circuit dismissed the government's emergency appeal, the Supreme Court issued a stay preventing the removal of putative class members pending further order.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (SCOTUS stay provides significant, albeit potentially temporary, relief blocking removals).
These early developments suggest considerable judicial scrutiny of the AEA's invocation and implementation under Proclamation 10903. The granting of TROs, PIs, and a Supreme Court stay in four of the six cases indicates that multiple courts found sufficient preliminary grounds—potential irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits—to halt removals.1 This pattern points towards initial judicial skepticism regarding the government's actions under the proclamation. Concurrently, the government's active pursuit of appeals and stays, successful in one instance at the circuit level but ultimately superseded by the Supreme Court in another, demonstrates a determined litigation strategy to uphold and implement the proclamation despite these initial setbacks.1 The rapid progression of two cases (J.G.G. and A.A.R.P.) to the appellate and Supreme Court levels signals the high legal stakes and national significance of the policy, suggesting the ultimate legality may require resolution at the highest judicial levels.1
B. Removal to El Salvador/Fear of Persecution
Two cases address specific removals related to fear of persecution claims.1 Both show outcomes favoring the plaintiffs.
- In Abrego Garcia v. Noem (7), the Fourth Circuit denied the Defendant’s appeal of a lower court ruling favorable to the plaintiff.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Appellate court upheld decision favoring plaintiff).
- In Gil Rojas v. Venegas (8), Judge Olvera ordered the government to return the petitioner to New York for release on his own recognizance.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Court order directly reverses government action).
The results in these two specific cases suggest that courts, including at the appellate level, found substantial grounds to intervene on behalf of individuals facing removal in the context of persecution claims, ordering remedies such as the reversal of removal and release.1
C. Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order 14160)
Ten cases challenge Executive Order 14160, which relates to birthright citizenship.1 The updates indicate widespread initial success for plaintiffs in obtaining court orders blocking the EO, leading to numerous government appeals.
- In New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (9), Defendants appealed a preliminary injunction to the First Circuit.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (PI currently in effect).
- In O. Doe v. Trump (10), Defendants appealed to the First Circuit, implying a preliminary injunction or similar relief was granted below.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Implied injunction currently in effect).
- In State of New Jersey v. Trump (11), Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a partial stay of a district court injunction.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Injunction currently in effect).
- In Casa v. Trump (12), Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a partial stay of a district court injunction.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Injunction currently in effect).
- In Franco Aleman v. Trump (13), the case was consolidated with State of Washington v. Trump.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Procedural step).
- In State of Washington v. Trump (14), Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a partial stay of a district court injunction.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Injunction currently in effect).
- OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (15) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- County of Santa Clara v. Trump (16) was stayed pending developments in related circuit court cases.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- Le v. Trump (17) was stayed pending developments in the Ninth Circuit.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- In New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump (18), Defendants moved to stay the case, acknowledging the existence of three nationwide injunctions already blocking the EO.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Government acknowledges existing injunctions blocking the EO).
The pattern across these cases reveals a strong initial judicial reaction against EO 14160. Multiple district courts appear to have granted preliminary injunctions, evidenced by the government's numerous appeals, including direct applications to the Supreme Court for stays.1 This consistency suggests judges in different jurisdictions found that plaintiffs challenging the EO met the necessary criteria for preliminary relief. The government's strategy in response has been uniform: appeal adverse rulings and seek stays to halt the injunctions' effects, escalating rapidly to the highest court.1 This underscores the administration's commitment to the policy. Furthermore, the litigation landscape is being managed through consolidation and stays pending outcomes in lead appellate cases, a sign of judicial efficiency and recognition of overlapping issues.1 Notably, the government itself sought a stay in one case (NY Imm. Coalition) by citing the existence of injunctions obtained by plaintiffs elsewhere, a tactical move leveraging opponents' successes to pause further litigation against the EO.1
D. Immigration Policy – Punishment of Sanctuary Cities (Executive Order 14159 / DOJ Directives)
Three cases challenge policies aimed at punishing sanctuary jurisdictions.1 These challenges appear to be in very early stages.
- In Organized Communities Against Deportations v. Huffman (19), Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice, stating the action was "no longer the appropriate forum." The case was dismissed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Dismissal not on merits, reason procedural/strategic).
- City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (20) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- City of Chelsea v. Trump (21) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
With two cases just filed and one dismissed for strategic reasons unrelated to the merits, the legal battle over the sanctuary city policies under EO 14159 is nascent.1 No substantive rulings indicating the direction of these challenges are yet available from the source.
E. Immigration Policy – Expedited Removal (Executive Order 14159)
One case challenges the expansion of expedited removal under EO 14159.1
- In Make the Road New York v. Noem (22), the complaint was amended to add plaintiffs allegedly removed under the new rule, specifically challenging its application to individuals who had filed affirmative asylum applications.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Litigation ongoing, amended complaint filed).
This case is evolving from a potential facial challenge to an as-applied challenge, focusing on the specific harm allegedly caused by the policy's implementation regarding asylum seekers.1 The litigation is active, but no ruling on the merits or preliminary relief is reported.
F. Immigration Policy – Discontinuation of CBP One App (Executive Order 14165)
One case challenges the discontinuation of the CBP One app.1
- In Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. DHS (23), the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a TRO, ruling it lacked authority to order the government to grant parole, deeming it a discretionary power of the Secretary of Homeland Security.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Court denied plaintiff's request for immediate relief).
The court's denial was based on perceived limits to its authority regarding parole decisions, rather than the merits of the policy change itself.1 This outcome highlights the significant deference courts may show to executive discretion in specific immigration contexts like parole.
G. Access of Lawyers to Immigrants in Detention (Executive Order 14159)
One case challenges restrictions on lawyer access under EO 14159.1
- Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. DOJ (24) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
Similar to the sanctuary city challenges, this legal challenge is in its initial phase with no substantive developments reported yet.1
H. DHS Revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Three cases challenge the revocation or termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), particularly for Venezuela.1 Plaintiffs have achieved success in pausing these changes.
- In National TPS Alliance v. Noem (25), the Ninth Circuit denied the Defendants’ motion for a stay of a lower court ruling favorable to plaintiffs.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Appellate court maintained pro-plaintiff lower court order).
- In Casa, Inc. v. Noem (26), the court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay as moot because the ruling in National TPS Alliance had already postponed the challenged TPS decision.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Outcome effectively favors plaintiffs due to related litigation).
- Haitian Americans United Inc. v. Trump (27) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
Litigation, spearheaded by the National TPS Alliance case in the Ninth Circuit, has successfully delayed the implementation of the administration's decision to revoke/terminate Venezuelan TPS.1 The Ninth Circuit's refusal to grant the government a stay keeps the favorable lower court decision in effect. This success has had direct positive consequences for plaintiffs in other jurisdictions, as seen in the Casa, Inc. case where the court acknowledged the postponement resulting from the Ninth Circuit litigation.1 This demonstrates how a significant ruling against a nationwide policy in one court can create ripple effects, providing temporary relief elsewhere.
I. Immigration Policy – Termination of Categorical Parole Programs (Executive Order 14165)
One case challenges the termination of categorical parole programs under EO 14165.1
- In Doe v. Noem (28), Defendants appealed the district court's order that stayed the termination of parole programs.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Court granted stay favoring plaintiffs, government appeal pending).
The district court intervened to preserve the status quo by staying the termination, indicating it found sufficient grounds to temporarily halt the administration's action.1 This represents a preliminary win for the plaintiffs, although the matter is now under appellate review.
J. Proclamation Prohibiting Asylum Invocation (Proclamation 10888)
One case challenges Proclamation 10888, which prohibits non-citizens from invoking asylum provisions.1
- In Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem (29), the Trump administration filed a motion for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs lack standing, the presidential decision is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the determination of an "invasion" is a non-reviewable political question.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Government motion pending).
The government is deploying significant threshold defenses (standing, APA reviewability, political question doctrine) in an attempt to shield the proclamation from judicial review on the merits.1 The outcome of this motion will be critical in determining whether the court reaches the substantive legality of the asylum prohibition.
K. Migrant Transfers to Guantanamo (Presidential Memorandum)
Three cases address the potential transfer of migrants to Guantanamo Bay.1 Litigation appears to have secured procedural safeguards.
- In Perez Parra v. Castro (30), the petitioners voluntarily dismissed their case.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Dismissal not on merits, reason unspecified).
- In Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem (31), Defendants agreed to notify plaintiffs before any potential transfer to Guantanamo.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Government concession provides procedural safeguard).
- In Espinoza Escalona v. Noem (32), Defendants similarly agreed to provide notification before any potential transfer.1 Status: Plaintiff Winning/Reduction (Government concession provides procedural safeguard).
While one case was voluntarily dismissed, in the two active cases, the government conceded to providing advance notification before any transfers.1 This agreement, likely reached to avoid adverse court orders, achieves a key procedural objective for the plaintiffs by reducing the immediate risk of transfer without notice and allowing time for further court action if necessary. This represents a limitation on immediate government action achieved through litigation.
L. Suspension of U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) & Funding (Executive Order 14163 / State Dept Notice)
Two cases challenge the suspension of the USRAP and associated funding.1 The status appears contested.
- In Pacito v. Trump (33), the parties dispute the scope of a preliminary injunction and an appellate stay order. Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the PI and requested the motion be held pending appellate ruling.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Dispute over effect of existing orders).
- In United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Department of State (34), Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit, suggesting an adverse ruling below.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Plaintiff appeal implies lower court loss on the issue appealed).
Unlike other policy areas with clearer initial plaintiff victories, the USRAP litigation presents a more ambiguous picture.1 The ongoing dispute over enforcing a PI in one case and the necessity for plaintiffs to appeal in the other suggest the government may be encountering less resistance or the legal issues are more complex at these preliminary stages.1
M. Funding Freeze for Immigration Services (Executive Order 14159 / Noem Memo)
One case challenges a funding freeze for immigration services.1
- In Solutions In Hometown Connections v. Noem (35), Plaintiffs filed a reply brief supporting their motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Motion pending).
The request for preliminary relief against the funding freeze is fully briefed and awaits a court decision, making this a key case to watch for this policy challenge.1
N. Contract Termination for Services to Unaccompanied Minors
One case challenges the termination of contracts for services to unaccompanied minors.1
- In Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. HHS (36), Defendants appealed the District Court’s decision to grant and then extend a TRO blocking the contract terminations.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (TRO granted and extended, appeal pending).
Plaintiffs secured immediate relief via a TRO, which was extended, indicating the court found sufficient grounds to halt the government's action temporarily.1 The government is contesting this outcome on appeal.
O. IRS Data Sharing for Immigration Enforcement Purposes (Executive Orders 14165, 14159, 14158)
One case challenges the sharing of IRS data for immigration enforcement.1
- In Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent (37), Plaintiffs filed a reply supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing the government's opposition confirms the data is sought for deportation purposes.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (PI motion pending).
The litigation appears focused on the alleged purpose of the data sharing initiative, with plaintiffs arguing this purpose is unlawful and warrants an injunction.1 The outcome of the pending PI motion is awaited.
P. Habeas Corpus and Removal of Protestors (Executive Orders 14161, 1488)
Seven cases involve habeas corpus petitions or challenges related to the detention and potential removal of individuals, often linked to protests, under EOs 14161 and 1488.1 Courts have intervened significantly in several individual cases.
- In Mahmoud Khalil v. Joyce (38), the petitioner filed a reply supporting his PI motion, countering government arguments about judicial review and irreparable harm.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (PI motion pending).
- In Chung v. Trump (39), Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Government motion pending).
- In Taal v. Trump (40), the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, reportedly having decided to leave the United States.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Plaintiff abandoned case, effectively ending the challenge).
- In Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate (41), Judge Wang ordered that the petitioner should not be removed pending further court order.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Court order prevents removal).
- In Ozturk v. Hyde (42), Judge Sessions ordered the petitioner transferred for a bail hearing, rejected the government's dismissal request, and noted significant constitutional concerns raised.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Court orders favor petitioner, acknowledges constitutional issues).
- In American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (43), Plaintiffs moved for a PI to halt enforcement of the policy.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (PI motion pending).
- In Mahdawi v. Trump (44), the court ordered that the petitioner not be removed or moved from the district pending further order.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Court order prevents removal/transfer).
A notable pattern emerges where courts have acted decisively in individual habeas cases (Vizguerra-Ramirez, Ozturk, Mahdawi) to prevent removals or facilitate bail hearings, often citing constitutional concerns.1 These interventions represent significant preliminary wins for the petitioners involved. Concurrently, the government is actively challenging the courts' authority to hear these cases by arguing against judicial review and asserting lack of jurisdiction.1 The outcome of Taal v. Trump, where the petitioner reportedly left the US leading to dismissal, suggests the policies might exert pressure or have a chilling effect separate from formal court rulings.1
Q. Other Habeas and Removal Actions
Four cases fall into a general category of other habeas and removal actions.1 One shows a significant plaintiff win.
- Gunaydin v. Trump (45) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- Deore v. DHS (46) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- In Liu v. Noem (47), Defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a PI.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (PI motion pending).
- In Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (48), the court issued a TRO preventing the termination of F-1 student visa status and ordering restoration of SEVIS registration and work authorizations.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (TRO grants significant immediate relief).
While mostly recent or pending, this category includes a notable TRO in Jane Doe 1, demonstrating judicial willingness to intervene quickly in specific status-related immigration actions.1
R. Deportation to a Third Country/Torture Prohibition (ICE Directive)
One case challenges an ICE directive related to expedited removal and potential deportation to third countries.1
- In D.V.D. v. DHS (49), Judge Murphy granted class certification and a preliminary injunction.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Major preliminary win: class certified and PI granted).
Securing both class certification and a PI represents a substantial preliminary victory for the plaintiffs, halting the challenged practice for the entire class pending further litigation.1 This indicates significant judicial concerns about the directive at this stage.
S. Biometric Information and Registration (Interim Final Rule)
One case challenges an Interim Final Rule on alien registration and biometric information.1
- In Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. DHS (50), the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a stay and preliminary injunction, finding they lacked organizational and associational standing.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Plaintiffs failed on standing grounds).
The plaintiffs' challenge failed at the initial hurdle of standing, preventing the court from reaching the merits of the rule.1 This outcome is a clear win for the government, allowing the rule's implementation to continue and underscoring the critical importance for organizational plaintiffs to establish standing.
T. Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order 14171)
Four cases challenge EO 14171, which reinstates "Schedule F" potentially altering civil service protections.1 Litigation is in early stages.
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (51) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- Government Accountability Project v. OPM (52) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- In Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump (53), the plaintiff filed an amended complaint detailing claims under the APA, ultra vires doctrine, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Complaint amended, litigation ongoing).
- American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (54) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
Multiple public sector unions and advocacy groups filed challenges rapidly following the issuance of EO 14171, indicating immediate and widespread opposition.1 However, the litigation remains in early phases, currently focused on procedural steps like amending complaints to refine legal arguments, as seen in the PEER case.1 No substantive outcomes are reported yet.
U. Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Orders 14158, 14219)
Eight cases challenge the establishment and operation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).1 Defendants have had success in delaying discovery.
- In Public Citizen Inc v. Trump (55), Judge Cobb denied Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Procedural win for government).
- In Lentini v. DOGE (56), Plaintiffs submitted new evidence regarding Elon Musk's government position.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Evidence submission, litigation ongoing).
- American Public Health Association v. OMB (57) was consolidated with Public Citizen.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Procedural step).
- In Center for Biological Diversity v. OMB (58), Plaintiff amended its complaint to add FOIA violation claims after agencies failed to respond to requests.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Complaint amended, litigation ongoing).
- In J. Does 1-26 v. Musk (59), the Fourth Circuit granted the Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal, likely halting discovery or another pro-plaintiff order.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Appellate stay favors government).
- In New Mexico et al. v. Musk (60), the D.C. Circuit stayed the district court’s order for expedited discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Appellate stay favors government).
- Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (61) was consolidated with New Mexico.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Procedural step).
- In Center for Biological Diversity v. DOI (62), Plaintiff amended its complaint to add FOIA violation claims (similar or identical update to case 58).1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Complaint amended, litigation ongoing).
A key development in the DOGE establishment litigation is the success of the government and associated defendants in resisting or delaying expedited discovery.1 The denial of discovery in Public Citizen and the appellate stays granted in J. Does and New Mexico indicate a judicial preference, particularly at the appellate level, for resolving threshold dismissal motions before permitting potentially burdensome discovery into DOGE's formation and operations.1 This represents a significant procedural advantage for the defendants currently. Faced with these discovery hurdles, plaintiffs like the Center for Biological Diversity are turning to FOIA litigation as an alternative path to obtain information about DOGE.1 Courts are also consolidating related cases for efficiency.1
V. Solicitation of Information from Career Employees
One case challenges the solicitation of information from career employees.1
- In Jane Does 1-2 v. OPM (63), opposition and reply briefs were filed concerning the defendant’s motion to dismiss.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Motion pending).
The immediate focus in this case is the government's motion to dismiss, placing the litigation at a critical early juncture where the court will decide if the case can proceed.1
W. Disclosure of Personal and Financial Records to DOGE
Thirteen cases challenge the disclosure of personal and financial records of federal employees or program beneficiaries to DOGE.1 Plaintiffs have faced significant challenges in obtaining preliminary relief.
- In Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (64), a PI was denied due to failure to show likelihood of irreparable injury.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning.
- In New York et al v. Trump (65), Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of a ruling unfavorable to them regarding the scope of privacy laws.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Prior ruling favored government).
- In AFL-CIO v. Dep’t of Labor (66), Plaintiffs filed a motion for a PI.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (PI motion pending).
- In University of California Student Ass’n v. Carter (67), Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Plaintiff abandonment favors government).
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought (68) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- In American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (69), the Fourth Circuit granted Defendants a stay pending appeal.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning (Appellate stay favors government).
- In Electronic Privacy Information Center v. OPM (70), a motion for a PI (converted from TRO) was denied.1 Status: Gov/Trump Win/Winning.
- In American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM (71), Defendants filed an answer denying claims and asserting defenses.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Standard responsive pleading).
- Nemeth-Greenleaf v. OPM (72) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- Gribbon et al. v. Musk (73) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS (74) was recently filed.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral.
- In American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. SSA (75), Defendants filed opposition to the plaintiff’s PI motion.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (PI motion pending).
- In ACLU v. SSA (76), the Plaintiff filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking expedited processing and disclosure of records related to DOGE data access.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (New FOIA case filed).
This specific aspect of DOGE's activities—accessing personal and financial records—has triggered a substantial volume of litigation from diverse groups, reflecting widespread concern.1 However, plaintiffs have largely struggled to secure preliminary injunctions. Courts have frequently denied PIs, often finding insufficient proof of imminent irreparable harm, and appellate courts have granted stays favorable to the government.1 This pattern suggests plaintiffs face significant hurdles in meeting the standards for immediate injunctive relief against these data access directives. Mirroring strategies in other DOGE-related litigation, plaintiffs are also employing FOIA lawsuits to compel disclosure of information.1
X. “Fork Directive” Deferred Resignation Offer (OPM Directive)
One case challenges the "Fork Directive," an OPM directive offering deferred resignation options to federal employees.1
- In American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (77), Plaintiffs amended their complaint, adding factual allegations and claims under the APA and ultra vires doctrine.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Complaint amended, litigation ongoing).
The litigation is actively proceeding, with plaintiffs refining and expanding their legal arguments against the directive, focusing on procedural and authority-based challenges.1
Y. Removal of Independent Agency Leaders
Two cases challenge the removal of leaders from independent agencies.1 These cases involve high-stakes separation of powers questions and are moving rapidly through the courts.
- In Gwynne A. Wilcox v. Trump (78), Defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of an adverse lower court ruling. Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and ordered a response from the plaintiffs.1 Status: Gov/Trump Winning (SCOTUS stay halts adverse action pending review).
- In Grundmann v. Trump (79), the government filed a notice of appeal, suggesting an adverse ruling against them in the lower court.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Government appeal implies lower court win for plaintiff).
These cases represent direct confrontations over presidential removal power concerning independent agencies, raising fundamental constitutional issues.1 The swift escalation, including a Supreme Court stay in one case and an immediate government appeal in the other, highlights the significance attached to these disputes by the administration. While the SCOTUS stay provides temporary relief to the government in Wilcox, the need for an appeal in Grundmann suggests lower courts may be reaching different conclusions, setting the stage for potentially conflicting appellate decisions.1
Z. Other Challenges
Eleven cases fall under a miscellaneous category, including FOIA challenges, challenges to the dismantling of USAID, and actions against law firms.1 Outcomes are varied.
- In Philonise Floyd v. USA (80), Center for Constitutional Rights v. DOJ (81), and multiple American Oversight cases (82-86), Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss, largely in FOIA-related contexts.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Mixed outcomes on threshold motions).
- In Oxfam America v. Trump (87) and Global Health Council v. Trump (88), Defendants appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part a motion for a PI challenging the dismantling of USAID.1 Status: Plaintiff Win/Winning (Partial PI granted, indicating partial plaintiff success).
- In Jenner & Block v. DOJ (89), the plaintiff law firm filed its opposition to the government's motion to dismiss its challenge to EO 14230 (targeting law firms).1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Motion pending).
- In Susman Godfrey LLP v. EOP (90), the plaintiff law firm filed for a TRO and PI challenging EO 14230.1 Status: Unclear/Neutral (Motion pending).
This category reflects the broad scope of legal challenges. FOIA litigation remains a common tool for seeking transparency, with mixed results on initial dismissal motions.1 Plaintiffs challenging the restructuring of USAID achieved partial preliminary success, prompting government appeals.1 A novel and potentially significant area of litigation has emerged with law firms directly challenging an executive order targeting them, though these cases are in very early stages.1
III. Quantitative Summary of Outcomes (Updated as of May 2, 2025)
Based on the analysis of the latest updates for the 146 cases documented in the source material 1 as of May 2, 2025, the preliminary outcomes are categorized as follows:
- Total Cases Analyzed: 146
- Government/Trump Win/Winning: 18 cases (approx. 12%)
- Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction: 48 cases (approx. 33%)
- Unclear/Neutral/Stayed/Closed (Procedural): 80 cases (approx. 55%)
Discussion of Updated Tallies:
The updated quantitative summary, now covering 146 cases with information current as of May 2, 2025, continues to show plaintiffs achieving preliminary successes or limitations on government actions more frequently than the government securing clear preliminary wins.1 Plaintiffs were assessed as winning, prevailing, or achieving a reduction in government action in 48 cases (33%), while 18 cases (12%) were assessed as wins or currently winning for the government/Trump position.1
The largest category remains "Unclear/Neutral/Stayed/Closed (Procedural)," now encompassing 80 cases (55%).1 This persistent majority underscores that much of the litigation is still in early or intermediate stages, with many cases recently filed, awaiting rulings on key motions (dismissal, preliminary injunctions, summary judgment), stayed pending related litigation, or involving ongoing appeals.1 Several cases have also been closed due to voluntary dismissal for strategic or procedural reasons, or because the plaintiff dropped the case or left the country.1
Despite the large number of unresolved cases, the updated data reinforces or clarifies trends in specific areas:
- Plaintiff Successes: Plaintiffs continue to show strength in challenges to Alien Enemies Act removals (e.g., J.A.V. v. Trump permanent injunction, G.F.F. v. Trump TRO extended), birthright citizenship (e.g., State of New Jersey v. Trump First Circuit denied government challenge to PI), TPS revocations (e.g., National TPS Alliance government appeal to SCOTUS after Ninth Circuit denied stay), individual habeas petitions (e.g., Mahdawi v. Trump released on recognizance), the third-country deportation directive (D.V.D. v. DHS PI amended), and challenges to the removal of independent agency leaders (Grundmann v. Trump summary judgment for plaintiff).1 Notably, a preliminary injunction was granted against sanctuary city policies (City and County of San Francisco v. Trump), and the administration reversed its policy regarding F-1 student visas following a TRO (Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi).1 Several PIs were granted against various other EOs and directives, particularly those challenged by AFGE.1
- Government Successes: The government maintained wins where plaintiffs failed on standing (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, though now appealed) or where PIs were denied due to lack of irreparable harm (Alliance for Retired Americans, Electronic Privacy Information Center).1 Appellate courts granted stays favorable to the government in DOGE establishment cases (J. Does v. Musk, New Mexico v. Musk) and DOGE data access cases (American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent).1 The Supreme Court granted stays favorable to the government regarding independent agency leader removal (Wilcox v. Trump) and a challenge to education policy (State of California v. U.S Department of Education).1 Several cases were closed due to plaintiffs dropping the case or leaving the country (Taal v. Trump, University of California Student Ass’n, Dellinger v. Bessent).1 A challenge to tariffs was denied preliminary relief (B.C. Recycled Materials).1
- Contested Areas: Litigation surrounding DOGE establishment and data access remains intense, with the government successfully delaying discovery and resisting PIs in several instances, while plaintiffs pursue motions, amend complaints, and file FOIA suits.1 Challenges related to the "Fork Directive" and Schedule F reinstatement are actively being litigated with motions to dismiss pending or recently filed.1 Numerous cases involving FOIA requests or challenges to specific agency actions (e.g., USAID dismantling, actions against law firms, various education directives) are ongoing with pending motions or appeals.1
The continued high volume of cases, the focus on preliminary relief, and the frequent appeals (including to the Supreme Court) indicate that the legal battles over these executive actions remain fierce and far from final resolution.1
IV. Concluding Remarks (Updated as of May 2, 2025)
Summary of Findings: This updated analysis of 146 legal challenges against Trump administration executive actions, based on the Just Security tracker as of May 2, 2025, confirms a dynamic and highly contested legal environment.1 Based on reported updates, plaintiffs have secured preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, favorable rulings, or policy reversals/limitations in approximately 33% of the cases. These successes are notable in areas such as Alien Enemies Act removals, birthright citizenship challenges, TPS revocations, sanctuary city policies, individual habeas cases, and certain agency reorganizations or directives.1 The government/Trump position has prevailed in preliminary stages or seen cases dropped in approximately 12% of instances, particularly in resisting discovery and immediate injunctions related to DOGE, securing appellate stays in key cases, and prevailing where plaintiffs lacked standing or failed to show irreparable harm.1 However, the majority of cases (approx. 55%) remain in indeterminate stages—unclear, neutral, stayed, recently filed, or involving pending motions/appeals—highlighting that definitive outcomes are still pending in much of this litigation.1
Limitations and Context: This report provides a snapshot based entirely on the information available in the specified source 1 up to May 2, 2025. It does not incorporate external information or developments after this date. The assessments largely reflect preliminary stages of litigation; TROs, PIs, and rulings on motions to dismiss are not final judgments on the merits and are subject to change through further proceedings and appeals. The categorization relies solely on the interpretation of the brief updates provided in the source material.
Overall Implication: The updated data reinforces the picture of an administration facing broad, immediate, and often preliminarily successful legal challenges across numerous policy fronts, especially concerning immigration, civil service, and government reorganization.1 Plaintiffs continue to secure judicial interventions halting or limiting policies. Concurrently, the administration persists in vigorously defending its actions, achieving procedural wins, securing stays from appellate courts (including SCOTUS) in significant cases, and benefiting from plaintiffs dropping challenges in some instances.1 The large number of unresolved cases signifies ongoing judicial examination and uncertainty surrounding the final legality and implementation of these contested executive actions. Litigation remains a central battleground over the administration's policy agenda.
Appendix A: Detailed Case Analysis Summary Table (as of May 2, 2025)
| Case ID | Case Name | Court(s) | Executive Action Challenged (Summary) | Latest Update Summary (as of May 2, 2025) | Assessed Outcome Category | Justification for Assessment |
| 1 | G.F.F. v. Trump | S.D.N.Y. | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | Apr 22: Judge extended TRO through May 6. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | TRO extended, blocking govt action temporarily. |
| 2 | J.A.V. v. Trump | S.D. Tex. | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | May 1: Judge granted class certification and permanent injunction. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Permanent injunction granted, major plaintiff win. |
| 3 | Zacarias Matos v. Venegas | S.D. Tex. | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | Apr 7: PI granted; evidentiary hearing set for May 5. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI blocks govt action pending hearing. |
| 4 | D.B.U. v. Trump | D. Colo. | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | Apr 25: Plaintiffs filed motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 5 | J.G.G. v. Trump | D.D.C; D.C. Cir; SCOTUS | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | Apr 25: Plaintiffs submitted motion for permanent injunction. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion pending. (Previous Gov win on admin stay is superseded by this procedural step). |
| 6 | W.M.M. v. Trump | N.D. Tex; 5th Cir; SCOTUS | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | Apr 19: SCOTUS issued stay preventing removal of putative class members. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | SCOTUS stay blocks removals pending further order. (Note: Case name differs from previous report's A.A.R.P., but context/docket implies it's the same or related case with SCOTUS stay). |
| 7 | J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security | D. Md. | Alien Enemies Act (Context: Settlement Enforcement) | Apr 23: Judge granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement, rejecting govt AEA claims. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court enforced settlement favoring plaintiff, rejected govt defense. |
| 8 | A.S.R. v. Trump | W.D. Pa. | Alien Enemies Act Removals (PP 10903) | Apr 29: Class filed motion for PI requesting return and enjoining removal. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 9 | Abrego Garcia v. Noem | D. Md; 4th Cir; SCOTUS | Removal/Fear of Persecution | Apr 30: Judge denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, ordered expedited schedule. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court denied govt attempt to pause discovery, favors plaintiff progression. |
| 10 | Gil Rojas v. Venegas | S.D. Tex. | Removal/Fear of Persecution | Apr 2: Court ordered govt to return petitioner to NY for release. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court order reverses govt action, favors plaintiff. |
| 11 | New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump | D.N.H; 1st Cir | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Apr 10: Defendants filed notice of appeal of PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI remains in effect while appeal is pending. |
| 12 | O. Doe v. Trump | D. Mass; 1st Cir | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Feb 19: Defendants submitted notice of appeal. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Implied injunction below remains in effect while appeal is pending. |
| 13 | State of New Jersey v. Trump | D. Mass; 1st Cir | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Apr 23: First Circuit denied Defendants’ challenge to PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Appellate court upheld PI favoring plaintiffs. |
| 14 | Casa v. Trump | D. Md; 4th Cir; SCOTUS | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Mar 13: Defendants appealed to SCOTUS for partial stay of injunction. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Injunction remains in effect; SCOTUS stay request pending. |
| 15 | Franco Aleman v. Trump | W.D. Wash. | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Jan 27: Consolidated with State of Washington v. Trump. | Unclear/Neutral | Procedural step, outcome depends on lead case. |
| 16 | State of Washington v. Trump | W.D. Wash; SCOTUS | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Mar 13: Defendants appealed to SCOTUS for partial stay of injunction. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Injunction remains in effect; SCOTUS stay request pending. |
| 17 | OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio | D.D.C. | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Apr 28: OCA filed opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to stay pending. |
| 18 | County of Santa Clara v. Trump | N.D. Cal. | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Mar 18: Case stayed pending developments in other circuits. | Unclear/Neutral | Stayed, outcome deferred. |
| 19 | Le v. Trump | C.D. Cal. | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Feb 14: Case stayed pending developments in Ninth Circuit. | Unclear/Neutral | Stayed, outcome deferred. |
| 20 | New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump | S.D.N.Y. | Birthright Citizenship (EO 14160) | Apr 11: Defendants moved to stay case due to existing nationwide injunctions. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Govt motion acknowledges existing injunctions favoring plaintiffs' position; motion pending but rationale favors plaintiff status quo. |
| 21 | V.M.L. v. Harper | W.D. La. | Alien Enemies Act (Context: Deportation Status) | Apr 25: Judge set hearing due to belief plaintiffs already deported. | Unclear/Neutral | Hearing set to clarify facts, outcome unclear. |
| 22 | Organized Communities Against Deportations v. Huffman | N.D. Ill. | Sanctuary Cities (EO 14159 / DOJ Directives) | Feb 26: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (forum). CASE CLOSED. | Unclear/Neutral | Dismissal not on merits, procedural reason cited. |
| 23 | City and County of San Francisco v. Trump | N.D. Cal. | Sanctuary Cities (EO 14159 / DOJ Directives) | Apr 24: Judge granted a preliminary injunction. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted, blocking govt action. |
| 24 | City of Chelsea v. Trump | D. Mass. | Sanctuary Cities (EO 14159 / DOJ Directives) | Feb 23: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 25 | Make the Road New York v. Noem | D.D.C. | Expedited Removal (EO 14159) | Apr 18: Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. |
| 26 | Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. DHS | D.D.C. | CBP One App Discontinuation (EO 14165) | Feb 6: Court denied TRO motion (lack of authority to order parole). | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff's request for immediate relief. |
| 27 | Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. DOJ | D.D.C. | Lawyer Access in Detention (EO 14159) | Jan 31: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 28 | National TPS Alliance v. Noem | N.D. Cal; 9th Cir; SCOTUS | TPS Revocation | May 1: Defendants appealed to SCOTUS to stay district court's order (after 9th Cir denied stay). | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Lower court order favoring plaintiffs remains in effect; SCOTUS stay request pending. |
| 29 | Casa, Inc. v. Noem | D. Md. | TPS Revocation | Apr 28: Defendants filed Motion to Dismiss (jurisdiction, merits). | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. (Previous Plaintiff win was based on mootness due to other case; now facing direct challenge). |
| 30 | Haitian Americans United Inc. v. Trump | D. Mass. | TPS Revocation | Mar 3: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 31 | Doe v. Noem | D. Mass; 1st Cir | Parole Program Termination (EO 14165) | Apr 18: Defendants filed notice of appeal of court’s order staying parole terminations. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Court stay favoring plaintiffs remains in effect; appeal pending. |
| 32 | Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem | D.D.C. | Asylum Prohibition (PP 10888) | Mar 24: Trump admin filed motion for summary judgment (standing, APA, political question). | Unclear/Neutral | Govt motion pending. |
| 33 | Perez Parra v. Castro | D. N.M. | Migrant Transfers to Guantanamo | Feb 14: Petitioners voluntarily dismissed case. CASE CLOSED. | Unclear/Neutral | Dismissal not on merits, reason unspecified. |
| 34 | Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem | D.D.C. | Migrant Transfers to Guantanamo | Apr 26: Plaintiffs amended complaint, removed groups/families, designated class action. | Unclear/Neutral | Amended complaint filed, procedural step. (Previous Plaintiff win based on govt notice agreement might be superseded by new class action focus). |
| 35 | Espinoza Escalona v. Noem | D.D.C. | Migrant Transfers to Guantanamo | Mar 19: Defendants agreed to notification before transferring plaintiffs. | Plaintiff Winning/Reduction | Govt concession provides procedural safeguard sought by plaintiffs. |
| 36 | Pacito v. Trump | W.D. Wash; 9th Cir | USRAP Suspension/Funding | Apr 28: Defendants filed Motion to Dismiss the first supplemental complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. |
| 37 | United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Department of State | D.D.C; D.C. Cir | USRAP Suspension/Funding | Apr 21: Defendants filed motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. (Previous Gov win was inferred from plaintiff appeal, now direct motion pending). |
| 38 | Solutions In Hometown Connections v. Noem | D. Md. | Immigration Services Funding Freeze (EO 14159 / Memo) | Apr 25: Plaintiffs filed amended complaint and motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 39 | Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. HHS | N.D. Ca; 9th Cir | Unaccompanied Minors Contract Termination | Apr 30: Defendants appealed Court’s PI order to Ninth Circuit. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs remains in effect; appeal pending. |
| 40 | Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent | D.D.C. | IRS Data Sharing for Immigration Enforcement | Apr 28: Defendants replied to Plaintiffs’ opposition to their motion to dismiss. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. |
| 41 | Mahmoud Khalil v. Joyce | D.N.J. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Apr 29: District Court reaffirmed habeas jurisdiction. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court rejected govt jurisdictional challenge, allowing case to proceed. |
| 42 | Chung v. Trump | S.D.N.Y. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Apr 29: Chung filed memo supporting PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 43 | Taal v. Trump | N.D.N.Y. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Mar 31: Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, reportedly left US. CASE CLOSED. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Plaintiff abandoned case and left country. |
| 44 | Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate | D. Colo. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Mar 21: Judge ordered petitioner not be removed pending further order. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court order directly protects petitioner from removal. |
| 45 | Ozturk v. Hyde | D. Vt. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Apr 18: Judge ordered transfer for bail hearing, noted constitutional concerns. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court rejected govt dismissal request, ordered actions favoring petitioner. |
| 46 | American Association of University Professors v. Rubio | D. Mass. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Apr 29: Court denied motion to dismiss on First Amendment/APA counts, granted on vagueness count. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Key claims survive motion to dismiss. |
| 47 | Mahdawi v. Trump | D. Vt. | Habeas/Removal of Protestors (EOs 14161, 1488) | Apr 30: Court granted motion, ordered petitioner released on recognizance pending habeas proceeding. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Court ordered release, significant win for petitioner. |
| 48 | Gunaydin v. Trump | D. Minn. | Other Habeas/Removal | Apr 28: Judge granted in part and denied in part TRO motion. | Unclear/Neutral | Mixed ruling on TRO, specific impact unclear from summary. |
| 49 | Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi | N.D. Ga. | Other Habeas/Removal (F-1 Status) | Apr 25: DOJ informed court admin reversed the new policy. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Policy reversed following litigation/TRO, clear plaintiff win. |
| 50 | D.V.D. v. DHS | D. Mass; 1st Cir | Third Country Deportation/Torture Prohibition (ICE Directive) | Apr 30: Court amended the preliminary injunction. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI remains in effect (amended details not specified but implies continuation). |
| 51 | Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. DHS | D.D.C; D.C. Cir | Biometric Info/Registration Rule | Apr 24: Plaintiffs appealed District Court’s denial of stay/PI (on standing). | Unclear/Neutral | Appeal pending. (Previous Gov win at district level now under review). |
| 52 | National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump | D.D.C. | Schedule F Reinstatement (EO 14171) | Jan 20: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 53 | Government Accountability Project v. OPM | D.D.C. | Schedule F Reinstatement (EO 14171) | Feb 6: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 54 | Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump | D. Md. | Schedule F Reinstatement (EO 14171) | Mar 12: Plaintiff filed first amended complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Ongoing litigation, complaint amended. |
| 55 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump | D.D.C. | Schedule F Reinstatement (EO 14171) | Apr 22: Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. |
| 56 | Public Citizen Inc v. Trump | D.D.C. | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Mar 25: Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Procedural win for govt, delaying discovery. |
| 57 | Lentini v. DOGE | D.D.C. | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Mar 22: Plaintiffs submitted notice of new evidence (Musk's position). | Unclear/Neutral | Ongoing litigation, evidence submission. |
| 58 | American Public Health Association v. OMB | D.D.C. | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Feb 18: Consolidated with Public Citizen. | Unclear/Neutral | Procedural step. |
| 59 | Center for Biological Diversity v. OMB | D.D.C. | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Feb 27: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Ongoing litigation, complaint amended. |
| 60 | J. Does 1-26 v. Musk | D. Md; 4th Cir | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Mar 28: Fourth Circuit granted Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Appellate stay favors govt position for now. |
| 61 | New Mexico et al. v. Musk | D.D.C; D.C. Cir | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Mar 26: DC Circuit stayed expedited discovery pending motion to dismiss ruling. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Appellate stay favors govt, pausing discovery. |
| 62 | Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk | D.D.C. | DOGE Establishment (EOs 14158, 14219) | Mar 20: Consolidated with New Mexico. | Unclear/Neutral | Procedural step. |
| 63 | Center for Biological Diversity v. DOI | D.D.C. | DOGE Establishment (FOIA) | Apr 10: Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite discovery. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion pending. |
| 64 | Jane Does 1-2 v. OPM | D.D.C. | Solicitation of Info from Career Employees | Mar 7: Opposition/reply filed on motion to dismiss. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dismiss pending. |
| 65 | Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent | D.D.C. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Mar 7: PI denied (lack of irreparable injury shown). | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff request for preliminary relief. |
| 66 | New York et al v. Trump | S.D.N.Y. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Mar 7: Plaintiffs filed motion for reconsideration of adverse ruling. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Seeking reversal of prior ruling favoring govt; motion pending. |
| 67 | AFL-CIO v. Dep’t of Labor | D.D.C. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Apr 19: Plaintiffs filed motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 68 | University of California Student Ass’n v. Carter | D.D.C. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Apr 16: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed action. CASE CLOSED. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Plaintiff abandonment favors govt. |
| 69 | National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought | D.D.C. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Feb 9: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 70 | American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent | D. Md; 4th Cir | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Apr 7: Fourth Circuit granted Defendants a stay pending appeal. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Appellate stay favors govt position for now. |
| 71 | Electronic Privacy Information Center v. OPM | E.D.V.A. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Feb 21: Motion for PI (converted from TRO) denied. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff request for preliminary relief. |
| 72 | American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM | S.D.N.Y | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Apr 25: Plaintiffs filed motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 73 | Nemeth-Greenleaf v. OPM | D.D.C. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Feb 11: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 74 | Gribbon et al. v. Musk | D.D.C. | Disclosure of Records to DOGE | Feb 12: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 75 | Wilcox v. Trump | D.D.C; D.C. Cir; SCOTUS | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (NLRB) | Apr 9: SCOTUS issued stay pending response. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | SCOTUS stay halts adverse lower court action. |
| 76 | Cathy A. Harris v. Bessent | D.C. Cir. (D.D.C. below) | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (MSPB) | Apr 11: Defendants filed a reply brief. | Unclear/Neutral | Appeal briefing ongoing. |
| 77 | Grundmann v. Trump | D.D.C | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (FLRA) | Mar 12: Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Plaintiff won on summary judgment. |
| 78 | Dellinger v. Bessent | D.D.C. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (OPM) | Mar 6: Dellinger announced dropping case. CASE CLOSED. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Plaintiff abandoned case. |
| 79 | LeBlanc & Felten v. PCLOB | D.D.C. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (PCLOB) | Feb 24: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 80 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump | D.D.C. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (FLRA) | Apr 25: Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 81 | Ward Brehm v. Pete Marocco | D.D.C. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (ACUS) | Apr 22: Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Amended complaint filed, litigation ongoing. |
| 82 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump | D.D.C; D.C. Cir. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (FLRA) | Apr 28: DC Circuit rejected Defendants’ appeal, reinstated element of PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Appellate court largely upheld PI favoring plaintiffs. |
| 83 | Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. CFPB | D. Md. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (CFPB) | Mar 14: Judge denied Plaintiffs’ request for PI. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff request for preliminary relief. |
| 84 | State of New York v. McMahon | D. Mass. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (GSA) | Mar 24: Plaintiffs submitted motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 85 | Carter v. Department of Education | D.D.C. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (IES) | Mar 14: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 86 | Somerville Public Schools v. Trump | D. Mass. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (ED OESE) | Mar 24: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 87 | American Federation of Government Employees v. USIP | D.D.C. | Removal of Independent Agency Leaders (USIP) | Apr 11: Defendants filed cross-motion for summary judgment. | Unclear/Neutral | Cross-motions for summary judgment pending. |
| 88 | American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM and Ezell | D.D.C; SCOTUS | "Fork Directive" Deferred Resignation | Apr 25: Supreme Court heard oral arguments. | Unclear/Neutral | SCOTUS decision pending. |
| 89 | American Federation Of Government Employees v. OPM and Ezell | D. Md; 4th Cir; SCOTUS | "Fork Directive" Deferred Resignation | Apr 9: Fourth Circuit issued stay of district court order. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Appellate stay favors govt position for now. |
| 90 | American Federation Of Government Employees v. OPM and Ezell | N.D. Cal; 9th Cir; SCOTUS | "Fork Directive" Deferred Resignation | Apr 29: Supreme Court heard oral arguments. | Unclear/Neutral | SCOTUS decision pending. |
| 91 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14233 (Federal Labor Relations) | Apr 25: Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 92 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14234 (Federal Labor Relations) | Apr 25: Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 93 | American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14235 (Federal Labor Relations) | Apr 25: Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 94 | National Treasury Employees Union v Trump | D.D.C; D.C. Cir. | EO 14233 (Federal Labor Relations) | Apr 29: Defendants appealed PI order. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI favoring plaintiffs remains in effect; appeal pending. |
| 95 | American Federation Of Government Employees v. Trump | N.D. Cal. | EO 14233, 14234, 14235 (Federal Labor Relations) | Apr 25: Defendants filed Opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO Motion. | Unclear/Neutral | TRO motion pending. |
| 96 | National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14234 (Federal Labor Relations) | Apr 25: Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 97 | American Alliance of Museums v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14236 (Arts/Humanities Funding) | Apr 16: Plaintiffs filed reply supporting PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 98 | American Library Association v. Sonderling | D.D.C. | EO 14236 (Arts/Humanities Funding) | Apr 7: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 99 | National Association of Broadcasters v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14237 (Public Broadcasting Funding) | Apr 29: Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 100 | State of Colorado v. HHS | D. R.I. | EO 14238 (Healthcare Access/Affordability) | Apr 29: Plaintiff States submitted supplemental brief supporting PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 101 | Maine v. US Department of Agriculture | D. Me. | EO 14239 (Nutrition Assistance Programs) | Apr 7: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 102 | Doe v. McHenry | D.D.C; D.C. Cir. | EO 14240 (Financial Regulation - Climate) | Apr 2: Defendants filed notice of appeal regarding PI. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI favoring plaintiffs remains in effect; appeal pending. |
| 103 | Jones v. Trump | D.D.C; D.C. Cir. | EO 14241 (Financial Regulation - Diversity) | Apr 2: Defendants appealed TRO and PI orders. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | TRO/PI favoring plaintiffs remain in effect; appeal pending. |
| 104 | Kingdom v. Trump | D.D.C | EO 14242 (Financial Regulation - Digital Assets) | Apr 4: Plaintiffs filed reply supporting PI/class certification motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI/Class Cert motion pending. |
| 105 | Stockman v. Trump | W.D. Wash; 9th Cir. | EO 14243 (Retirement Savings) | Mar 31: Ninth Circuit denied request for a stay. | Plaintiff Win/Winning | Appellate court refused to pause lower court action favoring plaintiff. |
| 106 | Ireland v. Hegseth | D. N.J. | EO 14244 (DEI in Military) | Mar 24: Federal judge temporarily blocked implementation of EOs. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | TRO/PI granted blocking implementation. |
| 107 | Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund v. State Dept | D.D.C. | EO 14245 (DEI in Foreign Affairs) | Apr 25: Plaintiffs filed amended complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Amended complaint filed, litigation ongoing. |
| 108 | Tirrell v. Edelblut | D.N.H. | EO 14246 (DEI in Education) | Feb 12: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 109 | Archdiocese of Washington v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14247 (Religious Freedom/Healthcare) | Feb 24: Court granted in part PI against DHS 2025 directive. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Partial PI granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 110 | Mennonite Church USA v. DHS | D.D.C. | EO 14247 (Religious Freedom/Immigration) | Apr 11: Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion for PI. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff request for preliminary relief. |
| 111 | Denver Public Schools v. Noem | D. Colo. | EO 14247 (Religious Freedom/Education) | Apr 16: Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | Mixed ruling on PI, overall impact unclear. |
| 112 | American Oversight v. EOP | D.D.C. | EO 14248 (Voting Rights/Access) | Apr 18: Motion to enforce PI denied. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied motion to enforce PI (implies PI exists but enforcement attempt failed). |
| 113 | Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ | D.D.C. | EO 14230 (Action Against Law Firms - Perkins Coie) | Apr 2: Cross-motions for summary judgment and dismissal filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Dispositive motions pending. |
| 114 | Jenner & Block v. DOJ | D.D.C. | EO 14230 (Action Against Law Firms - Jenner) | Apr 17: Opposition briefs filed on cross-motions for summary judgment/dismissal. | Unclear/Neutral | Dispositive motions pending. |
| 115 | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v. EOP | D.D.C. | EO 14230 (Action Against Law Firms - WilmerHale) | Mar 28: TRO granted. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | TRO granted favoring plaintiff. |
| 116 | League of United Latin American Citizens v. EOP | D.D.C. | EO 14248 (Voting Rights/Access) | Apr 24: Judge granted PI, with exceptions for certain sections. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI largely granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 117 | League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14248 (Voting Rights/Access) | Apr 1: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 118 | Common Cause v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14248 (Voting Rights/Access) | Apr 24: Judge granted PI, with exceptions for certain sections. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | PI largely granted favoring plaintiffs. |
| 119 | Democracy Forward Foundation v. Trump | D. Md. | EO 14249 (Ethics Pledge) | Apr 2: Plaintiffs filed reply supporting motion to vacate PI order. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion pending. |
| 120 | Doe 1 v. ODNI | E.D. Va. | EO 14250 (Security Clearances) | Feb 17: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 121 | San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump | D.D.C. | EO 14251 (Public Health Funding - HIV/AIDS) | Apr 11: Defendants filed opposition to Plaintiffs’ PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 122 | Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump | N.D. Ill. | EO 14252 (Apprenticeship Programs) | Apr 19: Defendants filed opposition to Plaintiff’s requested PI modification. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion regarding PI modification pending. |
| 123 | American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. Carter | D. Md; 4th Cir. | EO 14253 (Teacher Preparation Programs) | Apr 27: Plaintiffs filed motion to dissolve PI. | Unclear/Neutral | Motion to dissolve PI pending. |
| 124 | Rhode Island Latino Arts v. NEA | D.R.I. | EO 14254 (Arts Funding Criteria) | Apr 3: Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions for PI, TRO, expedited hearing. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff requests for preliminary relief. |
| 125 | State of California v. U.S Department of Education | D. Mass; SCOTUS | EO 14255 (Higher Education Accreditation) | Apr 29: Supreme Court granted government’s application for stay pending appeal. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | SCOTUS stay favors govt position for now. |
| 126 | American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education | D.D.C. | EO 14256 (K-12 Education Curriculum) | Apr 24: Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | Mixed ruling on PI, overall impact unclear. |
| 127 | National Education Association v. US Department of Education | D.N.H. | EO 14256 (K-12 Education Curriculum) | Apr 24: Judge blocked implementation and enforcement pending further order. | Plaintiff Win/Winning/Reduction | Injunction granted favoring plaintiff. |
| 128 | NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education | D.D.C. | EO 14256 (K-12 Education Curriculum) | Apr 15: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 129 | American Medical Association v. HHS | D.D.C. | EO 14257 (Healthcare Research Funding) | Apr 16: Defendants filed reply supporting cross motion for summary judgment. | Unclear/Neutral | Summary judgment motions pending. |
| 130 | Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management | D. Mass. | EO 14258 (Federal Employee Speech) | Apr 1: Plaintiffs filed motion for PI. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 131 | American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Department of Education | D.D.C. | EO 14259 (Campus Free Speech) | Feb 7: Court ordered PI briefing schedule. | Unclear/Neutral | PI briefing ongoing/pending. |
| 132 | Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy | S.D.N.Y. | EO 14260 (Infrastructure Project Review) | Feb 27: Complaint-in-Intervention filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Procedural step, litigation ongoing. |
| 133 | CREW v. DOGE | D.D.C. | FOIA (DOGE Records) | Apr 21: Defendants filed answer to amended complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Standard responsive pleading, litigation ongoing. |
| 134 | Project on Government Oversight v. Trump | D.D.C | FOIA (DOGE Records) | Apr 23: Plaintiffs filed reply supporting PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 135 | Democracy Forward Foundation v. OPM | D.D.C. | FOIA (Schedule F Records) | Feb 26: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 136 | Democracy Forward Foundation v. OMB | D.D.C. | FOIA (DOGE Records) | Apr 13: OMB filed answer to complaint. | Unclear/Neutral | Standard responsive pleading, litigation ongoing. |
| 137 | Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA | D.D.C. | FOIA (EPA Records) | Mar 3: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 138 | American Oversight v. DHS | D.D.C. | FOIA (Signal Messages Preservation) | Apr 22: Plaintiffs filed motion for PI ordering preservation. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 139 | Democracy Forward Foundation v. Department of Education | D.D.C. | FOIA (Education Records) | Mar 31: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 140 | Center for Biological Diversity v. DOI | D.D.C. | FOIA (Interior Records) | Apr 16: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 141 | America First Legal Foundation v. Roberts | D.D.C. | FOIA (Judicial Conference Records) | Apr 22: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 142 | The Intercept v. DOGE | S.D.N.Y. | FOIA (DOGE Records) | Mar 24: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 143 | Physicians for Social Responsibility v. USDA | D.D.C. | Other Challenges (USDA Advisory Committees) | Apr 7: Plaintiffs filed reply supporting PI motion. | Unclear/Neutral | PI motion pending. |
| 144 | Emily Ley Paper, Inc. v Trump | N.D. Fla. | Other Challenges (Trademark/IP) | Apr 3: Complaint filed. | Unclear/Neutral | Too early, just filed. |
| 145 | B.C. Recycled Materials, Inc. v. Trump | U.S. CIT | Other Challenges (Tariffs) | Apr 14: Court denied plaintiffs' request to temporarily block tariffs. | Gov/Trump Win/Winning | Court denied plaintiff request for preliminary relief. |
| 146 | Rona v. Trump | S.D.N.Y | Other Challenges (Defamation) | Apr 16: Complaint refiled. | Unclear/Neutral | Procedural step, litigation ongoing. |
The Status of Legislation Against Trump and Government Agencies