Fast-paced attempts by the Trump/Vance/Musk administration to implement the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 are demoralizing most Americans and the majority of the citizens of the world. Shocked and helpless to do anything about it is the way they want you to feel.
But, some groups of people, organizations and even politicians (see Bernie & AOC Oligarchy Tour at https://berniesanders.com/oligarchy/) – are standing up – including through the courts.
Below is a partial list of the 152 court cases filed this year from January 29 through March 31 seeking to block DOGE & the Trump Administration’s Project 2025 wrecking crew. (93% of decisions have been lost by Trump Administration so far).

(See the full list, details, and updates of all lawsuits by visiting JustSecurty.org excellent litigation tracker at https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/)

==============
•Dismantling/Restructuring of the Department of Education (Executive Order 14242 of Mar. 20, 2025)

“Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them” and “drastically improve program implementation in higher education,” claims the Executive Order seeking to defund education. Trump ordered Secretary of Education McMahon to eliminate half of the departments workforce (which she did March 11). On March 20 Trump ordered McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure.”

Three lawsuits were filed by separate groups based on violations of the constitutional separation of powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (1) Twenty states and District of Columbia; (2) Two parents and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; (3) Public school districts in Massachusetts and unions representing employees filed for preliminary injunction.

==============
•Executive Action: Habeas Corpus and Removal of Protestors (Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats Executive Order 14161) (Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism (Executive Order 1488))

The factsheet accompanying the order read “Immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities” and that the EO “demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws.” The Fact Sheet claims that American universities are overrun by “pro-Hamas aliens and left-wing radicals,” and that the Orders are designed to suppress speech occurring at “leftist, anti-American colleges and universities” – (this despite many Jewish-Americans participating in the on-campus demonstrations).

Five lawsuits were filed by separate persons and groups targeted for being involved in pro-Palestinian anti-war protests – some arrested, detained, and scheduled for removal from the country by Trump administration under the executive order. Khalil, Chung and Taal also requested that the Court vacate and set aside as unlawful Defendants’ policy of targeting noncitizens for removal on the basis that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and “enjoining Respondents from enforcing their Policy of arresting, detaining, and removing noncitizens who engage in constitutionally protected expressive activity in the United States in support of Palestinian rights or critical of Israel for the pendency of this litigation.”
(1) Columbia University grad Mahmoud Kahlil, a green card holder legal permanent resident married to a US citizen (who is 8 months pregnant) was arrested by plain clothes agents and taken from his home state to a prison in Louisiana. The Court blocked Khalil’s deportation on March 12 and lifted restrictions to calls with his attorney. On March 19 the Court denied the government’s petition and ordered Khalil be transferred to District of New Jersey from the out-of-state detention center where he had been taken.
(2) Columbia University student Yunseo Chung, a lawful permanent Korean-American resident who has been in US since age 7, was targeted by the administration because she participated in protests related to the war in Gaza. Court granted Chung a temporary restraining order on March 24 blocking the Trump administration from detaining her or removing her from the US until the court has heard her case. The administration is appealing.
(3) University student Momodou Taal, a noncitizen lawfully residing in the US on F-1 student visa, and other citizens and noncitizens filed motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The judge set an expedited briefing schedule.
(4) Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez, a Mexican citizen challenged her detention by ICE asserting it is unlawful and unconstitutional and on March 18 filied a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judge ordered that she should not be removed from US unless district or court of appeals vacates the order.
(5) Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen and PhD student at Tuffs University challenged her March 25 arrest and detention by ICE. Th judge issued order requiring DHS to provide 48-hour notice before removing Ozturk from District of Massachusetts. ACLU and CLEAR have joined Ozturk and filed amended. Petition for habeas relief on March 28.

==============
•Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE

Twelve separate lawsuits were filed attempting to block this Executive Action which required each government agency to establish a “DOGE Team” of four employees to coordinate with DOGE and implement the DOGE agenda. Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, National Treasury, National Federation of Government Employees, and other unions, 19 state attorneys general, USC Student Association, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Center for Taxpayer Rights sued alleging that individuals affiliated with DOGE were granted unauthorized access to sensitive data, records, and systems including private citizen’s data in violation of several laws, including the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Systems Modernization Act, the E-Government Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

In one case the Judge, on March 20, granted a temporary restraining order and clarification that the order applies only to the 10 DOGE employees assigned to the Social Security Association. In various cases – several Judges granted preliminary injunctions, expedited. Discovery and temporary restraining orders. Judge Boardman, one March. 24, granted preliminary injunction in the American Federation of Teachers case.

Judge Moss, on Feb. 17, in the UCS Student Association case denied plaintiffs temporary restraining order request opining that mere “access” to data by government employees who are not formally authorized to view it, without more, does not create an irreparable injury”. Plaintiffs filed for expedited discovery on March 4. And on March 7, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied plaintiffs preliminary injunction motion in the Alliance for Retired Americans case saying, “If Plaintiffs could show that Defendants imminently planned to make their private information public or to share that information with individuals outside the federal government with no obligation to maintain its confidentiality, the Court would not hesitate to find a likelihood of irreparable harm.”

On. Feb. 21, Judge Alston denied a preliminary injunction saying, “Plaintiffs’ fears of future harm are much too speculative…” but invited them back with more concrete evidence that unauthorized personnel had accessed BFS or EHRI systems.

==============
•Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order 14158 and Executive Order 14219)

Eight separate lawsuits were filed in Jan, Feb, and March by: (1) Public Citizen; (2) Lentini, Erlich & National Security Counselors; (3) American Public Health Association and several public interest advocacy organizations; (4) The Center for Biological Diversity; (5) 26 current and former employees of USAID; (6) Fourteen states; (7) Japanese-American Citizens League, Organization of Chinese Americans, Asian-Pacific American Advocates, the Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists; (8) Center of Biological Diversity – all alleging harm caused by firing federal employees, violations of separation of powers in slashes to federal funding and grants previously appropriated by congress, plan to shut departments (like Education) created by federal statute, violations of Appointments Clause, the Freedom of Information Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Federal Advisory Act which bars delegating regulatory and monetary power to un-elected citizens without public oversight.
Several of the cases have been combined.

Courts, in the various cases, granted plaintiffs motion for expedited discovery ordering DOGE to produce requested documents; granted plaintiffs preliminary injunctions; and granted defendants motion for a stay pending appeal.

==============
•Executive Action: Alien Enemies Act removals
(Presidential Proclamation 10903)

President Trump’s presidential proclamation purporting to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to allow for summary removal of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang (without evidence) to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The AEA does not provide for such removals except during a declared war. (AEA was used during WWII and lead to the mass imprisonment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. The US Congress eventually acknowledged that the incarceration was driven primarily by “racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership,” and President Ronald Reagan formally apologized for the injustice…” (https://www.historycolorado.org/story/2025/02/07/history-alien-enemies-act).)

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit arguing the 1798 statute does not apply to these circumstances, and the judge provisionally agreed issuing a temporary block to any removals until further hearings. The Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s ruling on appeal. The district court issued two Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against the government on Mar. 15 that have been extended through Apr. 12. On March 28 Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary Injunction.

==============
•Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship
(Executive Order 14160)

The Order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and for children of parents on lawful temporary visas.
Ten lawsuits filed by separate groups included: 25 States Attorney Generals, cities, counties, ACLU, CASA, Asylum Seeker Advocacy, Asian Pacific American Advocates, and individuals sue on grounds that the executive order is unconstitutional and violates federal statues, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the constitutional Separation of Powers, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Courts granted Plaintiffs preliminary injunctions in four cases, restraining orders in one, several cases were combined, and others are pending. The administration lost a Ninth District Court appeal and have appealed to the Supreme Court in several cases.

==============
• Executive Action: Immigration policy — punishment of sanctuary cities and states (Executive Order 14159)
(DOJ “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” (Feb. 5, 2025))

Trump’s executive order directed the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, which the Department of Justice implemented through a Feb. 5, 2025 “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” memorandum. The plaintiffs include various cities and counties. They sued on the grounds that the executive order and DOJ memo violate the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of unenumerated power to the states, separation of powers, the spending clause, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

==============
•Executive Action: Dismantling of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

National Treasury Employees Union, representing employees across 37 federal agencies and departments including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), challenged the Trump Administration’s efforts to shut down the CFPB and requested a temporary restraining order against the CFPB and Acting Director Russell Vought. A federal judge ordered the Administration to stop deleting and removing records, terminating employees without cause, or disbursing funds except for operating expenses, while the case proceeds.
Court granted plaintiffs preliminary injunction on March 28.

========
•Executive Action: Unleashing American Energy (Exec. Order No. 14154) Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Executive Order 14151); Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative (Executive Order 14222)

Four lawsuits were filed by groups of nonprofits; several farms; environmental organizations; municipalities and banks that provide financial services to pollution-reduction projects in four states sued multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others, to challenge an Executive Order requiring a pause of funding already appropriated by congress through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

===========
•Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14151; Executive Order 14173)

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “[defend] women from gender ideology extremism and [restore] biological truth to the federal government.” That same day, the President issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On Jan. 21, the administration issued a third executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs.

Nine lawsuits were filed by separate groups: Eight states including California; several organizations, including the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education; a group of career U.S. intelligence officers; suspended employees from the Office of Equity Assurance of the Veterans Benefits Administration; a group of civil rights organizations; a group of nonprofit organizations representing LGBTQ interests; a women’s nonprofit trade organization; three organizations representing hundreds of teacher preparation programs; and National Endowment for the Arts & four art nonprofits.

Courts responding have issued several temporary restraining orders, granted plaintiffs 4 preliminary injunctions – one extended to all federal agencies. The administration filed appeals; losing in First Circuit and pending in Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court.

=============
•Executive Action: Response to FOIA and Records Retention

Nine lawsuits filed by separate groups against DOGE and federal officials seek to preserve information, keep government from destroying information, force government to tell what information has been destroyed, compel government to comply with Freedom of Information of Information Act requests, including text message information from the recent Signal breach of national security by government officials including VP Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and others.

Courts responded granting preliminary injunctions in cases heard so far, ordered processing of FOIA requests, and Chief Judge James Boasberg issued an order, on March 27 “Defendants shall promptly make best efforts to preserve all Signal communications from March 11-15, 2025.” The court also ordered defendants to file a status report by Mar. 31 “setting forth the steps that they have taken to implement such preservation.

Source of Information: 

JustSecurty.org litigation tracker at

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/)