Struck Down: Trump actions blocked by courts

Many Trump Administration actions have been successfully challenged in court, but appeals to higher courts and the Supreme Court are pending in many of the cases.

JustSecurity is tracking over 700 cases filed against the Trump Administration. They count 240 total wins so far. Here are a few of the most prominent cases blocking government actions, including several executive orders. Many are being appealed, and since we expect some relevant Supreme Court rulings soon we’ll touch back on some additional actions in the future.

IEEPA Tariffs

In February, the Supreme Court struck down some of President Trump’s tariff policies, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not provide the president with the authority to impose sweeping tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “no president has read IEEPA to confer such power.” He went on to describe a violation of the “major questions” doctrine, which states that if Congress intended to delegate significant decisions it would have written so clearly. (We predicted this in an article we published last July.)

After the decision, President Trump signed a new Executive Order, ending the affected tariff actions described in nine previous orders which had cited IEEPA. Refunds of more than $166 billion may be issued to companies that paid the tariffs. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has said that a refund process could be ready by mid-to-late April.

(The rest of Trump’s tariff policies remain in place, as well as a new 10% tariff questionably under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which can only remain in place for 150 days, expiring on July 24 without Congressional approval. Several states have sued the federal government, asking the U.S. Court of International Trade to block the implementation of the new tariffs, arguing that the statute is out of date and was written to overcome currency exchange rate challenges that no longer exist. They also allege that the tariffs are not being applied per the statute’s requirements, with no facts to justify the 80 pages of product exceptions. According to the statute, the tariffs must be applied broadly and uniformly, but it does allow for exceptions to meet the needs of the U.S. economy.)

The National Guard

Trump attempted to deploy National Guard troops in three states against the governors’ wishes, with a stated goal of curtailing violent crime. The National Guard is generally under state control, and can only be federalized in certain situations: an invasion from a foreign nation, rebellion against the U.S. government, or when federal laws can’t be enforced using regular forces. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents military troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement.

In Illinois v. Trump, the plaintiffs alleged that the move to federalize the National Guard (both Illinois and Texas troops were called up) was politically motivated and unconstitutional. They cited the Posse Comitatus Act, as well as the Tenth Amendment which protects state sovereignty, and the APA. A District Court blocked the federalization of troops. The ruling was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court. The Administration tried to argue in front of the Supreme Court that only the president can determine if conditions have been met to federalize the troops, but SCOTUS held that the government had not shown sufficient authority to deploy the National Guard in Illinois. Cases in Oregon and California were affected by the Supreme Court ruling, and the cases were dismissed and stayed respectively.

Birthright Citizenship

Trump’s day-one Executive Order calling for the end of birthright citizenship was immediately challenged. Several judges issued preliminary injunctions, halting its implementation. They ruled that the order was unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Defense of the Executive Order hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which the Administration argues does not apply to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. The phrase has historically been interpreted as an exception for the children of foreign diplomats. Last Summer, the Supreme Court responded to a request to stay a preliminary injunction, ruling that lower courts couldn’t issue nationwide rulings. The decision notably did not rule on whether the order was unconstitutional, but it also didn’t rule out other types of court orders with national implications such as class-action suits or suits brought by states. The First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals both upheld the lower courts’ rulings. In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Barbara v Trump and determine whether the Executive Order violates the U.S. Constitution. Oral arguments were heard on April 1 with a ruling expected this summer. A ruling in favor of the Administration would upend a centuries-long understanding of citizenship in the U.S., but judicial experts think the Administration will lose.

“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”

In March of last year, Trump signed this Executive Order with wide implications for the way elections are run in the U.S. It directed the Election Assistance Commission to require a “show your papers” policy before approving voter registration forms to prevent non-citizens from registering and tie federal funding to the stipulation that states comply, sought to alter voting machine guidelines, allow DOGE to review state voter registration files to compel states to purge non-citizens from voter rolls, and limit mail-in ballots. Each of these provisions has been blocked in a slew of cases, each of which the government has filed to appeal. Most recently, a federal judge for the District Court of D.C. blocked agencies from requesting citizenship status when distributing voter registration forms. Each of the rulings cite the separation of powers, the states’ broad authority to run elections, and a lack of presidential authority. Voter registration forms themselves require attestation of citizenship and non-citizen voting is not a common issue despite political rhetoric asserting otherwise, as is the case with fraud by mail-in ballot. The proposed changes would, however, make it more difficult for citizens to register and vote, and provide an advantage to Republican candidates whose voters are less likely to use a mail-in ballot. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments for Watson v Republican National Committee, which will determine whether mail-in ballots have to be received rather than post-marked by election day. The conservative majority seemed skeptical that the post-mark rule should continue. If they rule this way, it could overturn laws in 29 states, impacting large rural areas and military members abroad.

“Protecting the American People Against Invasion”

This order in part sought to ensure that “sanctuary jurisdictions,” or jurisdictions which do not assist in federal immigration enforcement beyond the minimum legal requirements, wouldn’t receive federal funding. The State of New York is a recipient of funds from the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) for the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). When that grant funding was cut off for New York, the state sued in State of New York v. Noem alleging that it was cut due to their sanctuary policies. The suit accused the Administration of violating the APA, and the district judge ruled in the state’s favor, finding that withholding the funding due to New York’s sanctuary policies was arbitrary and capricious, and requiring the government to reinstate the TSGP funds.

Illinois and San Francisco County have filed similar complaints due to funding cuts stemming from sanctuary policies, which have thus far resulted in temporary blocks, still pending appeal.

The order also instructed DHS to expand the use of expedited removal beyond border enforcement, which was challenged in Make the Road New York et al v Kristi Noem. Plaintiffs argued that the new rule violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the APA. A district judge blocked the implementation of the new rule. The Administration has appealed from district court to circuit court, the next higher level of the federal court system.

“Unleashing American Energy”

The Executive Order “Unleashing American Energy” rescinded several orders Biden had signed on renewable energy, promoted energy production on federal lands, and sought to eliminate what it referred to as the electric vehicle (EV) mandate by directing the Federal Highway Administration to suspend the National Election Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Several legal challenges are awaiting court rulings, but State of Washington v. Department of Transport et al resulted in the district court requiring the government to restore NEVI, finding that the funding freeze violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because suspension of the program was arbitrary and capricious, meaning baseless and without an apparent motive (you’ll notice a pattern of rulings including this phrase below).

“Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”

This order in part required federal agencies to revise grant conditions to exclude any organizations which depicted or affirmed transgender and non-binary identities. It threatened grant funding for non-profit organizations which the government viewed as promoting “gender ideology” even if they met other criteria. A group of non-profits in Rhode Island received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), but their missions to affirm transgender and nonbinary identities would violate the new criteria. They sued the NEA in Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts claiming that the ban violated the Administrative Procedures Act for exceeding statutory limitations and being arbitrary and capricious, and the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based discrimination against artistic speech. The district judge ruled in favor of the Rhode Island Latino Arts on the First Amendment and APA claims. The NEA wasn’t allowed to condition its grant funding on whether organizations “promote gender ideology.”

Pursuant to the same executive order, the Department of Health and Human Services removed health-related data from public websites. A suit was filed on behalf of doctors and scientists who rely on those datasets, arguing that the new HHS Guidance was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and required that HHS restore the health-information webpages and datasets.

More than 10 cases challenge the legality of this executive order or its implementation. These are just a couple examples.

Targeting Law Firms

Last year, Trump signed executive orders targeting several of the country’s most prominent law firms including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale for taking cases (or hiring people who took cases) unfavorable to the President, such as cases relating to Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The orders sought to bar the lawyers from government buildings, suspend their security credentials, and terminate any contracts they had with the U.S. government. Trump alleged that the firms posed a threat to national security and accused them all of anti-white racism and partisan lawfare. Paul Weiss acquiesced to the orders by pledging pro bono legal work on cases or issues Trump cares about, but others sued. The suits were successful, with district judges consistently ruling that the executive orders served as retaliatory sanctions for firms exercising their constitutional rights. The Administration initially sought to appeal the decisions, but within a 24-hour period had moved to drop the appeal and then pick it back up again. The appeals have been consolidated under Zaid v. Executive Office of The President.

“Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities”

This Executive Order called for the closure of the Department of Education and faced several court challenges, many of which it overcame. However, the order resulted in a $6 billion funding freeze of Department of Education programs while they were reviewed for consistency with the administration’s policies. When the freeze was announced, 24 states and the District of Columbia filed State of California v McMahon, claiming that it would impact summer school, after school programs, as well as adult education programs. It alleged that the Department of Education violated the APA, the Separation of Powers, and Presentment Clause. The case was withdrawn, however, after the Administration agreed to release the frozen funds.

The Department of Education continues to operate, though with a drastic reduction of staff. It has moved to delegate some of its programs to other parts of the government through interagency agreements, most recently including a transfer of its federal student loan debt to the Treasury Department. The department can’t be disbanded without direct action from Congress, which actually increased its budget for fiscal year 2026.

“Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy”

With this order, Trump called for the elimination of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) and six other federal agencies, resulting in the termination of most of FMCS’s staff. This agency reviews labor disputes by providing conflict resolution services for workers and employers nationwide. In April 2025 a group of unions filed American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v Goldstein alleging arbitrary and capricious violations of the Administrative Procedure Act among other statutes. The district judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, requiring the government to reverse the reduction in force at FMCS. However, the agency currently lists 60 mediators on its website, while an anonymous FMCS employee cited almost 200 employees in 2024.

Another lawsuit on behalf of FMCS and three other agencies, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (ISICH) was also successful but is pending appeal.

“Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism”

As a result of this call for a joint task force on combating antisemitism, the government sent a letter to Harvard with a list of demands in order to maintain federal funding, which Harvard refused. Harvard sued the administration in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services. The district court ruled against the funding freeze, stating that the Administration had “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” It found that the attempt to condition federal funding on changes to campus policies violated the First Amendment, Title VI procedural requirements, and the APA.

Another case filed by Harvard faculty received a similar ruling, but is currently pending appeal.

Another case was filed by the American Association of University Professors, American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, alleging an “ideological-deportation policy” against noncitizen students and faculty who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. The Administration had been targeting protesters for deportation, claiming their actions were antisemetic. The district judge ultimately held that the Administration violated the First Amendment and the APA by being arbitrary and capricious, and that further deportation efforts in this context could be immediately challenged in court.

“Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”

An Executive Order placing sanctions in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its designation of war crimes committed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to punish anyone who did business with the ICC. In Rona v Trump, the plaintiffs were U.S. lawyers who advised and interacted with the ICC. The district judge ruled that the lawyers’ activities were speech-based activities for which they could not be sanctioned, permanently blocking the order from being enforced, but only against these lawyers.

Another case, Smith v. Trump, was filed by two human rights advocates who have advised the ICC. Their case also cites First Amendment violations, but goes further to claim that regulations put in place by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control violated the APA. A preliminary injunction was issued by the district court to prevent the government from imposing penalties on the plaintiffs, but the case remains ongoing.

Other Health Actions

HHS attempted to withhold Title X grant funding to 16 Family Planning and Reproductive Health organizations on the premise that they were in violation of civil rights laws and an Executive Order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” due to public statements on their websites about diversity, equity, and inclusion, and concerns that some members might provide care to undocumented immigrants. National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v Kennedy alleged that the withholding of the grant funding was arbitrary and capricious and because they weren’t given proper notice or the opportunity for corrective action. The case was eventually withdrawn, after the Administration restored the Title X grants.

The National Institute of Health issued guidance which would impose a 15% reimbursement rate for indirect costs of medical research across the board, instead of the previous practice of institutions negotiating the reimbursement rate individually. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v National Institutes of Health was filed on behalf of 22 states, arguing that the policy violates the APA as an arbitrary and capricious change as well as Congress’s appropriations of NIH funding. A district court ruled against the policy implementation, which was later upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.