Topline
Eight federal inspectors general challenged their firings in court Wednesday, arguing the moves violated the law—the latest in a slew of legal actions as Democrats and others fight President Donald Trump and cost-cutting czar Elon Musk in court.
Donald Trump speaks briefly with reporters after the National Prayer Service at the National … [+]
Timeline
Eight inspectors general—or federal agency watchdogs—who were fired by Trump filed a lawsuit, arguing their termination violated federal rules that require the executive branch to give Congress 30 days notice before any inspectors general are fired and give concrete reasoning to justify that decision.
A court order halting the Trump administration’s directive to freeze most federal spending will remain in place after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift it, the latest twist in a court battle over the funding pause, after multiple judges previously blocked it—and Judge John McConnell Jr. then separately had to order the Trump administration to “immediately restore frozen funding,” after a group of states that sued Trump alleged they “continue to be denied access to federal funds.”
District Judge John D. Bates ordered Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to restore their websites and datasets to what they were on Jan. 30—prior to data being removed—before the end of the day in response to a lawsuit from Doctors for America that alleged the Trump administration removed “a broad range of health-related data.”
A lawsuit was filed by a group of nongovernmental organizations and small businesses that receive American foreign aid against the Trump administration for its efforts to phase out the U.S. Agency for International Development, and it alleges Trump’s administration “violated the separation of powers” and, in doing so, put their aid work and employees’ livelihoods at risk.
Trump’s deadline for over 2 million federal employees to accept buyout offers was once again extended by Boston-based Judge George O’Toole, as he weighs whether to halt the buyouts long-term, as requested by federal workers’ unions that sued over the plan (the buyout deadline was initially set for Feb. 6, but O’Toole has now delayed it twice).
After 22 states sued the National Institutes of Health over its decision to place a 15% cap on indirect funding for research projects—calling the rate change “arbitrary and capricious”—District Judge Mary Page Kelley halted the cap while the litigation moves forward.
District Judge Joseph LaPlante halted Trump’s order that only allows the children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to become citizens at birth, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union—marking the third time a federal judge has blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship since it was issued Jan. 20.
The Treasury Department asked District Judge Paul Engelmayer to “immediately” dissolve his order barring political appointees from accessing the Treasury Department’s system, after Trump, Musk and their allies blasted the judge’s ruling and claimed it shouldn’t be possible for the judge to restrict DOGE’s access.
Engelmayer ruled political appointees and “special government employees”—like members of Musk’s team—must be cut off from access from the Treasury’s systems while the litigation is pending, after 19 Democratic state attorneys general sued Trump over DOGE’s Treasury access.
Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, blocked a plan to put 2,200 USAID staff on paid leave, part of Trump’s gambit to wind down the foreign aid agency—a temporary reprieve following a lawsuit by a federal employees’ union calling Trump’s efforts to dismantle USAID without Congress’ permission “unconstitutional and illegal.”
The University of California Student Association sued the Department of Education, accusing Musk’s DOGE of illegally accessing “sensitive personal and financial information” of about 42 million federal student loan borrowers.
The Justice Department agreed to not name the FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigation before a judge rules on two lawsuits from FBI agents that argued the dissemination of the agents’ names could threaten their employment, reputation and wellbeing.
Judge John Coughenour in Seattle extended a pause on Trump’s day-one executive order rescinding birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented or temporary immigrants, in response to a lawsuit brought by Democratic-led states, writing, “The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order.”
A second judge —Deborah L. Boardman of Maryland—blocked Trump’s policy rescinding birthright citizenship, in response to a lawsuit brought by nonprofits representing undocumented pregnant women.
Coughenour paused Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship, the first major ruling against the second Trump administration.
The first lawsuit against Trump’s administration was filed minutes after he was sworn into office, as public interest law group National Security Counselors argued DOGE should be classified as a federal advisory board that has “fairly balanced” membership and follows public transparency rules.
How Have Courts Ruled On Transgender Rights?
Trump’s executive order that directs transgender women to be incarcerated in male prisons has been blocked in court while litigation from a transgender inmate moves forward. The ruling came after a separate judge previously blocked one incarcerated transgender woman from being moved to a male prison after she sued over the policy change. Lawsuits are still pending challenging Trump’s directives banning transgender Americans from serving in the military, banning gender-affirming care for minors and no longer allowing Americans to change the sex designation on their passport or use the non-binary “X.” Transgender public high school students in New Hampshire also filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Trump’s ban on transgender women in women’s sports.
How Have Courts Ruled On Doge?
Courts granted plaintiffs’ efforts to block Musk and his DOGE team from accessing records at the Treasury Department—at least temporarily. Still, DOGE staffers have been able to access other agencies. Musk and his DOGE associates can keep accessing information at the Department of Labor, as District Judge Bates declined to pause their access in response to a lawsuit from labor unions, saying the plaintiffs hadn’t established standing to sue, even as the judge expressed concerns. Prior to Engelmayer’s ruling cutting off DOGE’s access to Treasury systems, D.C.-based Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly also said only two Musk-affiliated staffers can access the Treasury Department’s payment system on a “read only” basis, after workers’ unions sued the Treasury amid reports Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency accessed sensitive records. (One of the employees given access reportedly resigned over racist tweets, but was then reinstated.) Multiple lawsuits are still pending arguing Trump should not have been able to create Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” in the first place by renaming the already-existing U.S. Digital Service. As Musk and DOGE gain access to information at the Department of Education, a group of labor unions sued to block DOGE from accessing their private information from the Education Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management, arguing this “violates federal law.” DOGE’s actions “threatens to upend how these critical systems are maintained and compromises the safety and security of personal identifying information for Americans all across the country,” the unions argued in a filing. The National Treasury Employees Union also challenged DOGE being able to access Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees’ private information.
How Have Courts Ruled On Immigration?
In addition to courts blocking Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, a judge also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from transporting three men from Venezuela to Guantanamo Bay. Those men already had litigation pending over their detention, and the order does not affect the Trump administration’s broader actions to detain undocumented immigrants at the naval base, though the ACLU separately sued the Trump administration Wednesday over the government allegedly denying immigrants at Guantanamo access to lawyers. Lawsuits are still pending challenging a number of Trump’s other directives =, including lawsuits regarding asylum restrictions, raids on sanctuary cities, withholding funds from sanctuary cities, immigration officers entering houses of worship, restricting grants to immigration-related groups, Trump ordering the “expedited removal” of immigrants and the administration shutting down the CBP One app used by asylum seekers. A lawsuit is also pending challenging the Trump administration suspending refugee admissions.
How Have Courts Ruled On Federal Workers?
In addition to the rulings on the government buyouts, government ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger temporarily had his firing from the Office of Special Counsel delayed, as District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled he should stay in his role through at least Thursday as litigation he brought against the Trump administration plays out. A federal judge also denied an effort by federal workers to immediately block the Office of Personnel Management allegedly storing employees’ data on a private email server. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss denied the order due to defects with how the plaintiffs made their request, but said they can file a new order, and the litigation remains ongoing. Lawsuits remain pending on a number of personnel issues as Trump and Musk try to make broad cuts to the federal workforce, including litigation against the Justice Department targeting agents who worked on Jan. 6-related cases, Trump’s “Schedule F” that makes it easier to fire career civil servants, Trump’s firing of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne A. Wilcox and Trump’s firing of Cathy Harris, a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board that shields federal employees from things like retaliation against whistleblowers.
What Other Lawsuits Against Trump And Musk Are Pending?
Additional lawsuits that haven’t resulted in any rulings yet include cases challenging the alleged dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Trump’s broader restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Multiple other lawsuits challenge the cuts to USAID beyond the one Nichols ruled on February 7, as well as an additional lawsuit targeting the funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health.
Is Trump Following The Court’s Orders?
Legal experts raised alarm Sunday after Vice President JD Vance suggested judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” and shared a post suggesting the court order blocking Musk from accessing Treasury data violated the separation of powers. There is so far no indication that the Trump administration has intentionally not complied with rulings against it, however. While the administration protested in a court filing that the ruling limiting access to Treasury data was “anti-constitutional,” it still emphasized the administration was following it, with officials writing, “To be clear, notwithstanding the Order’s defects, Defendants are in compliance with it.” Some federal grant recipients have complained they were still unable to access federal funds even after a court order barred the administration from freezing federal assistance, but the Trump administration has claimed that was unintentional.
Will The Supreme Court Side With Trump?
None of the lawsuits against the second Trump administration have yet made it to the Supreme Court, though at least some inevitably will. The high stakes of the lawsuits brought against Trump policies, plus the fact that bringing multiple lawsuits against a single policy may result in conflicting rulings, makes it all but certain the high court will eventually weigh in on some of the legal challenges that are now making their way through the courts. It’s unclear how the 6-3 conservative court, stacked with three Trump appointees, will ultimately rule on any challenges, though legal experts have suggested some of the administration’s moves may be too much for even the conservative-leaning court to get behind. Georgetown Law School professor Stephen Vladeck wrote he was skeptical the Supreme Court would back the administration’s memo halting federal funding, for instance. He noted that while the court was willing to give Trump more power in its recent decision giving him some immunity from criminal charges, it would be “quite another” thing for them to give him “the right to refuse to spend any and all money Congress appropriates.” Legal experts have also been highly skeptical of the legal justification the Trump administration has used to justify the order nullifying birthright citizenship, which claims the 14th Amendment—which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—has always exempted the children of undocumented immigrants or noncitizens. Mark Krikorian, who runs the Center for Immigration Studies and supports ending birthright citizenship, acknowledged to NBC News in July Trump’s argument is “something that the Supreme Court may well decide against,” and legal experts have previously decried the legal theory behind Trump’s order as a “lunatic fringe argument,” with University of Massachusetts, Amherst, professor Rebecca Hamlin telling NPR in 2018 that any lawyer who believes it is “like a unicorn.”
What Controversial Actions By Trump And Elon Musk Haven’t Yet Resulted In Lawsuits?
Trump has already issued a number of major executive actions, and many have not yet been challenged in court, such as him pulling out of the World Health Organization, withholding federal funding from schools that allow transgender women in women’s sports, imposing tariffs on China, removing safeguards around artificial intelligence, and rescinding Biden-era climate change initiatives, including ordering federal agencies not to disburse some funding that was approved by Congress. Musk and DOGE have also undertaken a number of controversial moves that haven’t yet resulted in court action, including DOGE staffers accessing information for Medicare and Medicaid and reportedly using artificial intelligence to search through sensitive internal data for the Department of Education.
Key Background
Trump has issued a slew of executive orders in the less than three weeks he’s been in the White House, issuing broad orders on issues such as climate change, transgender rights, DEI initiatives, education, immigration, the U.S. military, abortion, the federal death penalty and more. Musk, whom Trump appointed to lead DOGE and has become one of his top advisers, has also drawn widespread controversy as DOGE has burrowed into the federal government and gained access to government information while proposing widespread cuts to spending. With Republicans holding both the White House and control of Congress, the courts have become the primary way for Democrats to issue any sort of check on the Trump administration’s actions, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has pointed to litigation as a key pillar of Democrats’ response to the second Trump presidency. “We’ve seen a flood and an avalanche of outrageous executive actions that have been taken by the administration and by the current president, but that has also prompted a response of righteous litigation,” Jeffries told MSNBC when asked how Democrats would oppose Trump’s policies, saying the litigation strategy “will continue as we move forward.”
Further Reading
Read the full article here