From January-September 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel received multiple reports from class members alleging that ICE agents had arrested individuals without warrants in violation of the agreement and the governing law. On September 4, two asylum seekers filed a class action to challenge the recent practice of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of arresting people present at immigration court to attend scheduled hearings before immigration judges. The court rejected the motion to stay ICE’s courthouse arrest policy and limited the stay to Manhattan and the Bronx. Plaintiffs are labor organizations representing federal employees that filed suit on Sept. 30, 2025, challenging the ability of the Trump administration to issue Reductions in Force (RIFs) during a government shutdown. On Sept. 24, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum that discussed using the government shutdown as a basis for downsizing federal agencies. The majority noted that the Executive Order and related memorandum are likely to be lawful, and found the district court had based its injunction on those directives rather than individual agency plans. Plaintiffs, a coalition of labor organizations, non-profits, and local governments, filed suit, alleging that the EO and actions taken to implement it violate constitutional protections for separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act, as ultra vires and arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs representing a class of federal probationary employees filed suit against several government agencies (Defendant Agencies), alleging their terminations were in violation of their Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights as well as in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In light of the remand, the court denied the remainder of defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after remand and confirmed that proceedings in the district court remain stayed.Plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ conduct violates the Tenth Amendment since it impedes Illinois and Chicago from carrying out core sovereign functions, including providing public safety and enforcing state statutes.The road to becoming director, however, was not smooth.On July 24, members of the Apache community filed a complaint challenging the administration’s plan to develop a mine on Oak Flat.Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to compel disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of internal records concerning a new enforcement policy implemented by ICE on Jan. 21 that allowed civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses, and by EOIR on Jan. 28 that allowed civil immigration enforcement in or near EOIR spaces.Plaintiffs filed a suit on Apr. 10 claiming that the rescission decision was a violation of the APA as arbitrary and capricious and that the blanket rescission of all extension approvals was a final agency action that was contrary to law.On Feb. 19, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support for a TRO and preliminary injunction. The decision sets an expedited briefing schedule to allow quick appellate review of these significant statutory claims, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight of executive compliance with congressional appropriations. Judge Pan dissented, criticizing the majority for “turning a blind eye to the ‘serious implications’ of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.” In addition to their previous four claims, Plaintiffs added a mandamus claim against the agency leader defendants and a fifth amendment procedural due process violation against all Defendants. Defendants seek the indicative ruling in light of the Supreme Court granting the Government’s request for a stay in Department of Education v. California. For these reasons—and because the major North American sports leagues prohibit public ownership of franchises—we focus on subsidies rather than outright government provision. The public goods aspect of sports teams is particularly difficult for governments to fund because consuming 26 Giants Stadium LLC is co-owned by John Mara, who is president, CEO, and co-owner of the New York Giants. C Isle of Capri Casinos agreed to fully fund the arena if they were awarded a state gambling license and allowed to build a new $500M casino in the city. The plaintiffs allege that the certification requirement is an unjustified interference with state and local control of education and that many of the federal funding statutes under which the states receive funding specifically require the implementation of a number of practices relating to DEI.The complaint asserts violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, as an improper expansion of expedited removal procedures, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and unconstitutional due to lack of notice or opportunity to be heard.The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants, which include Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Todd Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and two Florida state parties, violate federal and state environmental laws because of their failure to conduct environmental reviews.Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious denominations and associations sued for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting DHS from effectuating the directive.On May 19, Plaintiffs filed a reply further supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction.Plaintiffs seek an order declaring the EOs unlawful , as well as an injunction to block government officials from enforcing the EOs provisions and to require the agencies to recognize their employees’ collective bargaining rights.This “Defunding Provision,” which stems from Section of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” bars federal Medicaid funding for all health care services offered by non-profit community providers that also provide abortion services, including MFP.On September 25, a coalition of individual plaintiffs and immigrant advocacy group CASA filed a class action complaint challenging ICE’s warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. Named plaintiffs include residents with Temporary Protected Status and asylum claims, who were nonetheless detained, sometimes for days or weeks, before release. The Complaint calls the department’s finding “without notice, investigation, hearing, or opportunity to respond, and without a valid substantive basis.” Plaintiff argues that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of Title IX procedures, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and federal grant regulations. Judge Smith found the administration’s inclusion of the contested conditions “a ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster and other funding already appropriated by Congress.” The court ordered the administration to amend the award documents by removing the immigration-related conditions, consistent with the Sept. 24 injunction. The court also held the conditions unconstitutional under the Spending Clause, finding them to be overbroad, unrelated to the underlying disaster and emergency management programs, financially coercive, and lacking the clarity necessary for states to exercise their choice of participating in the programs knowingly. The court ruled that the conditions are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, finding that DHS made no attempt to examine relevant data or articulate a reason for the conditions. If the stadium is owned by the state or local authority or by a public–private partnership, the city could also lose tax revenue, as a local government cannot tax itself. Some costs do not involve any expenditure by the government. It also pays for infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, and for support services, such as police and sanitation. Like individuals and firms, governments face opportunity costs. More than half this amount, about $6.1 billion, has come from state and local governments. Circuit dissolved its July 25 administrative stay and granted the government’s emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s July 22 summary judgment order pending appeal. On the same day that plaintiffs filed the complaint, they also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop the funding freeze. The district court granted a preliminary injunction to block the government from freezing and withholding federal funds and later clarified that this block is applicable to Executive Orders (EOs) and government actions that postdate the block. They claim that plaintiffs’ claims are not properly before the court, there are no cognizable Administrative Procedure Act claims, and that the plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits, so the motion for preliminary injunction should be denied. The district court granted plaintiffs’ amended motion for a temporary restraining order. Twenty-six current and former USAID employees or contractors filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation violates the Appointments Clause. Among other changes, the second amended complaint added details about plaintiff’s Mar. 13 requests for DOGE and the DOGE Service Temporary Organization (DOGETO) to disclose records under FOIA (in addition to OMB). It also included a new second claim, with plaintiffs arguing DOGE’s alleged failures to comply with FOIA’s affirmative disclosure obligations violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Sweeney ordered the government to provide 21 day notice to Petitioners and members of the provisionally certified class before moving said individuals and that this notice must note that the government intends to remove these individuals pursuant to the AEA and Proclamation. The Petitioners submitted an emergency application for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block any removals of Petitioners and the class they represent from Colorado. In addition, the conclusions of the Court do not affect Respondents’ ability to continue removal proceedings or enforcement of any final orders of removal issued against J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H, or against any member of the certified class, under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Defendants filed their opposition to this motion on May 7, urging the court to deny Plaintiffs’ new motion because EO falls outside of the four corners of the complaint. On Mar. 31, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. On November 20, Pablo Pablo filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) or temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent his removal from the United States. On July 2, the court denied the motion for reconsideration and granted the motion to stay. While courts have issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to Defendants regarding the frozen funds, Plaintiffs have yet to receive their grants. Fact Check: Can Liv Muztang capsules solve all men’s sexual health problems? Plaintiffs, who receive federal funding through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, allege that the funding freeze violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Refugee Act of 1980. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants’ actions are unconstitutional, violating both the Take Care Clause and the Spending Clause. The complaint describes five different communications from EPA, HHS, and DOE after the Jan. 27 OMB Directive. SCOTUS issued its decision in Skrmetti on June 18, holding that the Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. On March 22, 2025, the White House issued a memorandum entitled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court” directing the Attorney General to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States”. Filed Under On Jan. 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. Plaintiffs Jamie Hash, Vera Wolf, Hunter Marquez, Ashley Davis, and Samuel Ahearn also filed a motion requesting a TRO to block enforcement of the EO and Department of Defense memoranda and preserve the status quo, on the basis that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim and likely to face irreparable harm. This order categorically prohibits both enlistment and continued service, deeming transgender individuals incompatible with military standards of “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” The plaintiffs are a group of active duty transgender service members and prospective or current enlistees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to find the new conditions unlawful and to bar HUD from enforcing them. Plaintiffs allege that HUD unlawfully conditioned statutory housing subsidies on certifications not authorized by Congress and in contradiction to enacted statutes, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s void-for-vagueness doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in being arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority. Plaintiffs, 20 state governments, sued, alleging that the action violates Constitutional protections for separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. Seattle alleges that the Orders jeopardize over $370 million in federal funding for critical infrastructure, housing, public safety, and health programs, as well as subjecting the City to coercive compliance requirements, budgetary uncertainty and potential liability under the False Claims Act. They seek declaratory judgment that the Executive Orders are unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctions against their further implementation.] Questions for the Vice Chancellor for Administration On Apr. 11, the Court granted defendants’ request to modify the preliminary injunction order. The plaintiffs requested an emergency temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and permanent injunction to bar access to political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from other agencies as well as to any person who has not received a background check, security clearance, and information security training. The TRO prohibits the government from publicly releasing any list before the court rules on whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The original complaint alleges that for the past month, “the Executive Branch has denied the Endowment access to its congressionally appropriated funds—something that has never occurred before in the Endowment’s forty-two-year existence.” In response to the court’s initial injunction, the impounded funds were turned over by the government. The Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction “insofar as it prohibits defendants from terminating or issuing a notice of reduction in force to employees whom defendants have determined, after a particularized assessment, to be unnecessary to the performance of defendants’ statutory duties.” The Circuit set the next oral argument for May 16, 2025. The American Bar Association (ABA), a non-partisan non-profit organisation and the nation’s largest voluntary association of legal professionals, filed suit against the United States as well as federal departments and agencies that have been directed to implement these EO’s, the heads of those departments and agencies, and federal agencies likely to implement these orders. On May 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum prohibiting the government, subject to limited exceptions, from hiring as private counsel any attorneys from any law firm that represents clients in “active litigation against Administration policies.” The EO’s (collectively, the “Law Firm Orders”) imposed sanctions that included termination of security clearances for employees of those firms, a requirement that all government contractors disclose any business done with those law firms, termination of government contracts, limiting federal building and employee access, and the refusal to offer federal employment to employees of targeted law firms. Additionally, Judge Walton denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and did not otherwise stay the proceedings. Finally, the EO bars Susman employees from accessing federal buildings, limits the interactions of government personnel with Susman employees, and prohibits agencies from hiring Susman employees. The majority held that the Government is likely to succeed in showing the Plaintiffs lacked standing, and noted, “the Supreme Court has stayed a similar preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (referring to American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell).” In one order, Alsup concluded that the district court does have subject-matter jurisdiction in the case, and therefore reversed the part of his earlier TRO ruling denying relief to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek to have the court find the EO unlawful as it applies to FMCS, issue a preliminary and permanent injunction and return the agency to its status prior to the EO, declare the dismantling of FMCS as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act, and compel FMCS to resume providing the mediation services it provided prior to the EO. The complaint alleges that Musk and the DOGE staff are exercising “significant authority” by controlling agency operations, making personnel decisions, and directing federal spending, all powers the plaintiffs claim can be wielded only by properly appointed officers of the United States. The Court reaffirmed the plaintiffs’ standing and articulated that the failure to spend the appropriated funds is likely arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the APA. As part of the “One Big Beautiful Act,” Congress passed Section (the “Defund Provision”) which stripped federal Medicaid funding from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The States contend that the Final Rule violates the APA by failing to follow correct procedure as required by law, as arbitrary and capricious, and in excess of statutory authority, and is ultra vires as agency action not authorized by Congress. On June 20, 2025, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a new set of rules and standards, entitled the “2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Final Rule” (the Final Rule). The dismissal leaves in place the administration’s bar on federal Medicaid funding for major abortion providers. Name and taxonomic classification On Feb. 20, Plaintiffs, a nonprofit that advocates for environmental causes, filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with various federal agencies, including the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, for records documenting implementation of the EO. CREW has asked the court to declare OMB’s decision unlawful, and to grant a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring OMB to restore the website and make all relevant information available. Among its defenses, USMS alleges that some of the requested documents are not subject to disclosure, that the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims, and that Democracy Forward failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing. Considering USMS’s role in the enforcement of court orders, Plaintiff also filed these FOIA requests after Vice President Vance made comments that may call into question whether court orders would be followed. Allegations include (1) inappropriate communication with federal judges regarding cases related to January 6, (2) DOGE-affiliated individuals invoking threats to engage USMS when attempting to access agency buildings and information, and (3) the deputizing of DOGE leader Elon Musk’s private security guards by USMS. In this amended complaint, Plaintiffs removed two IES termination-specific counts for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2024 and a count of termination of access to use data, while limiting all but one of the remaining counts to a specific plaintiff. They also seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from acting to shut down IES’s operations. Judge Rubin also denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice for administrative purposes in view of the overlap between Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ motions. On Mar. 20, Trump issued an Executive Order calling upon Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” Plaintiffs request that the court set aside Trump’s Mar. 20 Executive Order and take action to prevent the Trump Administration from dismantling the Department of Education. In addition to their previous four claims, Plaintiffs added a mandamus claim against the agency leader defendants and a fifth amendment procedural due process violation against all Defendants.Plaintiffs also submitted a new motion for a temporary restraining order, and the judge set an expedited briefing schedule in response.Each plaintiff alleges they were released from ICE detention under an improper classification under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).On Nov. 7, 2025, the plaintiff sued USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security over the August USCIS decision banning private voter assistance services.On Jun. 27, Judicial Watch filed suit asserting that the DOJ failed to conduct an adequate search or to disclose responsive records within statutorily prescribed time limits as required under FOIA.On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The New Civil Rights “Backstop”: How DAs and AGs Can and Must Investigate ICE Abuses On that same day, Judge Talwani denied Defendants’ petition for a stay pending appeal and granted Plaintiffs’ Mar. 27 emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and administrative stay as to individuals already present in the United States. On Mar. 27, Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and administrative stay to block DHS’ early termination of the temporary parole period, as stated in the Mar. 25 Federal Register Notice. Plaintiffs also filed a motion on Mar. 17 requesting a preliminary injunction and administrative stay against DHS’ indefinite moratorium on adjudicating immigration benefit applications, on the basis that Plaintiffs would succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality Act claims and that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for a stay of the district court’s September 5 summary judgment as it applied to Venezuelan TPS. However, the Court left open whether broader relief might be permitted in class actions or where needed for “complete relief.” Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, some of the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint and emergency motion for class-wide injunctive relief against the birthright citizenship order. The court rejected the government’s argument that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that permitting transfers to avoid judicial review would reduce the writ of habeas corpus “to a game of jurisdictional hide-and-seek.” Judge Wilkinson dissented. Plaintiffs also submitted a new motion for a temporary restraining order, and the judge set an expedited briefing schedule in response. The court recognized that same day the Plaintiffs had simultaneously submitted an amended complaint and asked for further briefing on the effect of the judgment. 🥣 9. Greek Yogurt – Gut Health = Hormone Health They seek declaratory judgment that the modification of employee messages is illegal and preliminary and permanent relief barring the government from continuing to modify out-of-office messages to include partisan political speech. On Sept. 2, Paz received a Notice of Proposed Adverse Action which informed her that the IRS was proposing removing her from federal service. Paz held the role of IRS Commissioner of Large Business and International Division from August 2022 until she was placed on paid administrative leave without explanation on July 29, 2025. The court ordered the administration to explain why it continues to claim “diplomatic discussion” would be necessary to facilitate the plaintiff’s return Judge Benjamin, joined by Judge Gregory, upheld the district court’s enforcement order; Judge Gregory concurred separately, suggesting that the underlying AEA proclamation was “plainly invalid,” while Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that AEA removals were outside the scope of the settlement and that “court-commanded negotiation with a foreign state” exceeded judicial authority. They also filed a motion to seal the Memorandum in Support, on the basis that it contains confidential information. The court found that the termination of the program is likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and the court is empowered to “set aside” such agency action. Plaintiffs argue that the actions by the NIH violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they are both contrary to NIH regulations and statutes and “arbitrary and capricious”, and that they also violate the Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses of the Constitution. The Court’s majority ruled that the grantees should have sought to have the funding reinstated in the Court of Federal Claims, and lifted a lower court order directing the NIH to restore the grants while litigation over the funding termination proceeds. HUD terminated these grants on the basis that they “no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities,” which Plaintiffs allege constitutes an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful action by HUD and an ultra vires action by DOGE. Circuit vacated an injunction and upheld the administration’s termination of $16 billion in climate funds authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act. On the same day, Plaintiffs responses (here, here, and here) in opposition to the contingent emergency motion. They seek declaratory relief and a court order vacating the decision to terminate the program. “Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so,” the appellate court said in its brief order. On the same day Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to stay the deployment. In response, on October 4th DOD Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memorandum stating his intention to federalize and bring under DOD control up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and on October 5th, sent another memorandum which ordered another up to 400 National Guard from the State of Texas to deploy into Chicago. In granting the TRO, the court found that the administration likely exceeded its authority under 10 U.S.C. § and violated the Tenth Amendment. "Plaintiffs’ claims are too speculative. They do not plausibly allege that Defendants are about to engage in any of the conduct agents are worried about. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack standing," the court wrote. They seek an injunction against “the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination” of information identifying FBI personnel involved in the relevant investigations. However, the complaint as amended on June 30 alleges that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has not apportioned funds Congress designated for NED for the fiscal year 2025. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) filed suit challenging the Executive Branch’s withholding of funds appropriated to the Endowment by Congress. They seek declaratory judgment that the FECA is constitutional and that the executive order is unlawful as applied to the FEC; and they seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the preliminary injunction. The order does not identify the District, noting that “the parties are familiar with the proper district based on the sealed documents previously filed in this matter.” The plaintiff, Maria Moe, is a transgender female federal inmate who was placed in a Special Housing Unit to await transfer to a men’s facility. On Jan. 19, 2026, former DHS employee filed a complaint suing secretary Noem, DHS, and a covert operative who secretly recorded him on a date, alleging that his termination was unconstitutional retaliation for private political speech and seeking damages for fraud, conspiracy, tortious interference, and unlawful wiretapping. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ actions were unlawful and an order vacating and enjoining the Defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs further allege that the government’s alleged restriction of information in and out of Guantánamo violates both the plaintiffs’ and the detainees’ First Amendment rights. On September 25, a coalition of individual plaintiffs and immigrant advocacy group CASA filed a class action complaint challenging ICE’s warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. Named plaintiffs include residents with Temporary Protected Status and asylum claims, who were nonetheless detained, sometimes for days or weeks, before release. On August 1, two non-governmental organizations filed a complaint challenging the administration’s policy regarding courthouse arrests and case dismissal tactics. The motion seeks relief for five of the six challenged provisions of the EO, including sections 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a), and 7(b).Plaintiffs argue that these provisions violate constitutional separation of powers, unconstitutionally impose extra-statutory conditions on congressionally appropriated funding, and unlawfully invade State sovereignty. In the alternative, Defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of the aforementioned cases. Plaintiffs have requested the court declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and void, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin all Defendants except President Trump from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions. The EO also directs the Attorney General to take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and it conditions various federal funding on compliance with the EO. On July 8, the Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the renewed motion for a stay or preliminary injunction. Judge Haines, however, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of W.J.C.C., rejecting the government’s claim that it could apply shortened notice akin to expedited removal procedures. On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court dismissed as moot the Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal and ordered dissolution of the June 10 administrative stay upon issuance of the mandate. The complaint asserts that the FTC’s inquiry is politically motivated and designed to chill protected speech in response to Media Matters’ reporting on Elon Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter). On June 23, 2025, Media Matters, a nonprofit organization that monitors, analyzes, and corrects mis-information in the US media, filed suit against the Federal Trade Commission and several of its commissioners alleging that recent investigatory actions by the FTC into Media Matters amount to unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. He reportedly said from the bench, “I don’t intend to micromanage the White House;” “I think they are entitled to a presumption of good faith in their actions;” and that it was too soon to draw conclusions as to whether the government was in violation of his order. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that denying AP access is unconstitutional, and a court order that the White House rescind the policy. They seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unconstitutional and unlawful; and preliminary and permanent national injunctions that stop agencies from implementing the policy as it relates to passports. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit after receiving limited or no communication in response to the requests and receiving no documents to date in response to these requests. Plaintiff alleges that these agencies and officials of the Trump administration widely use SIgnal to conduct government functions. Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense (DOD), and several other federal agencies concerning records related to the agencies’ and officials’ use of the messaging app Signal. Plaintiffs request that the court order immediate and comprehensive searches of documents, prompt production of all non‑exempt documents, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the advocacy groups. When the agencies failed to respond to these FOIA requests by the deadline, ACLU and CCR filed this lawsuit on December 9, 2025, alleging FOIA violations for failing to make reasonable efforts to search for and release the requested records. The following day, April 25, the plaintiffs submitted a motion for a permanent injunction and a memorandum in support. The court allowed Plaintiffs two weeks to submit a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction addressing Defendants’ arguments and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Dec. 12. The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Count I of the complaint and held it in abeyance as to Counts II and III. The district court ruled against the plaintiffs, but they have appealed that decision. The court found that “the Proclamation and its implementation are lawful and therefore withstand plaintiffs’ challenges as ultra vires and violative of the APA.” On July 16, 2025, twenty States filed suit challenging the termination of the BRIC program, claiming that the termination – along with the withholding and redirection of Congressionally appropriated funds – violate the Separation of Powers, the Appropriations Clause, and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. They seek a declaration that the terminations are unlawful and void and preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcing the terminations. The court further ordered that within 72 hours of entry of this order, Defendants provide written notice of the order to all funding recipients affected by the 15% Indirect Cost Rate. The complaint alleges that Musk and the DOGE staff are exercising “significant authority” by controlling agency operations, making personnel decisions, and directing federal spending, all powers they claim can only be wielded by properly appointed officers of the United States. Fourteen states filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation violates the Appointments Clause. The suit asks the court to declare Musk and DOGE to be acting unlawfully, enjoin Musk and DOGE from exercising government authority unless appointed by proper process, and set aside their actions taken to date. The plaintiffs also argue that DOGE’s structure violates separation of powers by creating a “shadow chain of command” that undermines Congress’s power to create agencies and their authorities through statute, confirm appointed officers, and conduct oversight. The plaintiffs also claim that Musk’s actions would be unconstitutional even if he were considered merely an inferior officer, as Congress has not authorized the President to directly appoint anyone to his position. Why Barbara O’Neill Was Banned From Providing Health Services? In response, Planned Parenthood affiliates filed a complaint on July 29 challenging the mandate.The complaint asserts violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for unlawful withholding, arbitrary and capricious conduct, and actions contrary to law and statute; constitutional violations of Separation of Powers and the Take Care Clause; and ultra vires actions by DOGE, which lacks congressional authorization.Selective abortion and implantationdecisions are made to obtain a child who is the correct gender or aprospective tissue donor (Kahn and Mastroianni 2004).Plaintiffs also allege that the order violates separation of powers by imposing conditions on the receipt of funding by the plaintiff states’ medical institutions, whereas Congress never authorized such a provision and explicitly barred medical institutions from denying individuals access to federally funded services based on gender dysphoria under 29 U.S.C. § 794.The case can be made that the first approach is indebtedto the second, and that one never explains a property of an objecttout court but only in relation to a reference class of anobject or objects that lack the property (but share the necessarybackground factors).On that same day, Plaintiff States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from enforcing or implementing the decision to terminate funding for Plaintiff States and their local health jurisdictions.Videos showing her supposedly revealing secrets to staying young have appeared on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. The complaint alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority and without observance of required procedures, as well as violations of the Spending Clause and principles of equal sovereignty. They seek declaratory judgment that the executive order and DOJ memo are statutorily unlawful and unconstitutional and that the cities are not criminally liable under the policies, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against implementation of the executive order and DOJ memo. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the executive order is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction on any effort to enforce the provisions withholding funding. 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. Plaintiffs noted its motions were to prevent federal officials from threatening or executing unlawful Chicago-based immigration raids. Agency for International Development (“USAID”) to provide...reproductive health care in five African countries.” Plaintiff requests that the court order DOS to search for and produce records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request Plaintiff alleges it filed a FOIA request with DOS seeking information about “...the potential destruction of contraceptive supplies purchased with taxpayer funds by the U.S. American Oversight requests that the court order (i) the FBI and DOJ to search for and release all non-exempt records responsive to its FOIA request and (ii) prohibit these agencies from withholding records. Although the gene implicated in CF was identified in 1989,statements issued by the American Society of Human Genetics in 1990 and1992 and by a NIH workshop in 1990 recommended against institutingpopulation-based carrier screening because adequate detection rateswere compromised by the heterogeneity of mutations found; in addition,the clinical course of the disease remained difficult to predict, andresources for education and counseling were lacking (ASHG 1990; ASHG1992; NIH Workshop 1990). In onewell-known episode, organizations representing indigenous peoplesmounted opposition to a 1995 patent granted to the NIH on a cell lineobtained from a Hagahai man from Papua New Guinea, a claim laterwithdrawn by the NIH due to the controversy. Of particular ethicalconcern is that much of the research which results in patenteddiscoveries is funded by government or nonprofits. For example, Myriad Geneticspatented BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast and ovarian cancer genes and grantedEli Lilly exclusive rights to market applications based on the BRCA1sequence. Whenresearchers are issued a patent on a gene they have mapped andsequenced, they may license exclusive rights to a biotech orpharmaceutical company to develop and market applications—perhapsa drug or diagnostic test. Plaintiffs, non-profits that receive federal funding for programs designed to serve vulnerable populations, allege that the executive orders violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On Jan. 20, the Trump Administration issued an executive order directing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Director, assisted by the Attorney General and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. The complaint alleges that Defendants placed Plaintiffs on administrative leave “apparently only because of Plaintiffs’ temporary assignments to personnel functions involving DEIA.” Plaintiffs bring several causes of action. An emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) was filed by A.S.R. on the same day the petition was filed, which was immediately granted by Judge Stephanie Haines. On the same day, the Plaintiffs submitted a new motion for a TRO asking the court to direct the government to provide 30 days’ notice before seeking to remove any class member under the AEA. (The Judge granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal, allowing it to be produced with redactions.) In the Memorandum, Defendants state that ICIS issued an Indicative Asylum Decision on May 1 which determined that if the Plaintiff returned, his asylum application would be denied based on Terrorist-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG) due to his alleged connection to TdA and as a matter of discretion. The Court entered a temporary restraining order which was then converted into a preliminary injunction, and the parties reached a final settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) which was approved by the court on Nov. 25, 2024. Plaintiffs requested that class certification be granted to “all persons who are currently, or in the future, held at the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility.” Plaintiffs also requested that provisional class certification be granted in connection with a TRO or preliminary injunction. The court found that the order “puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator” and “sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding on the personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch,” concluding that the order infringes on the separation of powers. The modified TRO came a day after Ellis reportedly expressed during a hearing that she was “startled” by “images in the paper” showing federal agents deploying tear gas against protestors without warning and had “serious concerns that my order is being followed.” The modification adds a requirement that all such federal agents wear active body cameras while engaged in enforcement activity, unless exempt under CBP, ICE, or DHS policy. The order prohibits federal agents from arresting, threatening, or using force against any person they “reasonably should know is a Journalist” without probable cause, using riot control weapons unless necessary to stop an “immediate and serious threat,” and seizing or arresting any non-violent protester without probable cause. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions are unlawful and injunctive relief to restore OCR’s complaint processing capacities. On Mar. 6, 2025, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon ended this “pause” on OCR complaint processing, but has since allegedly closed seven of twelve regional OCR offices and laid off many of the employees at the remaining offices. Shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the DOE allegedly froze all investigations with OCR, which is responsible for processing and investigating civil rights complaints by the public. Later that same day, the court formally consolidated the two actions and designated McMahon as the lead case. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that Trump and McMahon’s actions are unlawful and preliminary and permanent injunctions against the reduction in force and further efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. On Oct. 20, in response to defendants’ motion for clarification, the district court confirmed that the stay ends on Oct. 31, and no other relief was granted. On Feb. 12, following the Trump administration’s executive order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add federal defendants to the suit. While recognizing plaintiffs’ “exceptional service” and acknowledging their “legitimate grievances with being fired without explanation,” the court stayed this case pending Supreme Court review in Trump v. Slaughter and directed the parties to file a joint status report afterward on whether plaintiffs will pursue legal remedies such as back pay. The court noted that the administration’s termination is “plainly in conflict with the textual language of the statutory removal protections, rendering the terminations legally ineffective.” The court also ruled that stopping the injunction would harm the plaintiffs and the public, and keeping the plaintiffs’ position “preserves, rather than disrupts, agency operations.” Circuit granted an administrative stay of the district court’s July 22 summary judgment order, pending further order of the Court of Appeals. The NSF issued another directive (the Indirect Cost Directive) on May 2, 2025, capping the available reimbursement of “indirect costs” in awards to 15 percent, which have historically been negotiated by research institutions on an individual basis and were often much higher. While calling the administration’s actions “shameful” and “likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,” the court concluded it lacked the power to hear claims under the Administrative Procedure Act—finding these should instead be brought in the U.S. They also argue that the terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to a constitutional right, and contrary to law on the basis that OJP did not “clearly and unambiguously” state in Plaintiffs’ award documents that it could terminate an award because an award no longer effectuates program goals or agency priorities. Plaintiffs immediately filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) urging the court to immediately prohibit the defendants from continuing payments to the Government of El Salvador for Abrego Garcia's detention and to require the defendants to initiate efforts to secure his return to U.S. custody. On October 27, 2025, the district court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered Respondents to immediately release Garcia upon payment of the $6,000 bond with no additional conditions imposed beyond those ordered by the IJ at the bond redetermination hearing and found that Garcia’s continued detention violated the Fifth Amend and that the automatic stay regulation was ultra vires. Garcia also filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) on September 19 requesting the same relief. They seek a declaratory judgment that transfer to and detention in Guantánamo is unlawful and unconstitutional; that the memorandum be vacated; a grant of a writ of habeas corpus to enjoin defendants from transferring plaintiffs to Guantánamo, or if they have been transferred and detained, return to facilities in the United States; and an injunction on future transfers. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE’s access is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act in that it is contrary to law in violation of the Privacy Act and Internal Revenue Code; arbitrary and capricious; and in excess of statutory authority. On Feb. 3, 2025, reportedly 20 people affiliated with DOGE were working with the Department of Education, some of whom obtained access to sensitive internal information systems, including systems related to federal student aid. In her decision, Judge Vargas found that the government had complied with her earlier requests to demonstrate it is equipped to screen and train employees before granting them access. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and declaratory relief, as well as a temporary restraining order, for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and actions in excess of legal authority under the Privacy Act. This ruling comes after the government responded to the court’s June 11 order, claiming that the court did not order Khalil’s release, but only barred his detention. The filing argues that, if the court concludes it is not the proper venue for Khalil’s claims, the petition should be transferred to the District of New Jersey (not the Western District of Louisiana, as requested by the government) based on the immediate custodian rule. The judge also ordered that Khalil be granted at least one privileged attorney-client call on March 12 and at least one such call on March 13. On March 10, SDNY federal judge Jesse Furman temporarily blocked his removal from the United States pending further judicial review, which he extended after an emergency conference hearing on Mar. 12. DDF asks the court to order the DOJ to search for and produce responsive records and enjoin the DOJ from continuing to withhold non-exempt records responsive to their FOIA request.On Oct. 30, American Oversight filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security seeking records related to Heather Honey’s appointment and activities as the agency’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Election Integrity.While courts have issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to Defendants regarding the frozen funds, Plaintiffs have yet to receive their grants.Circuit for an emergency rehearing en banc and an emergency administrative stay while the appeals court considers the en banc petition, citing the drastic changes made by DOGE and President Trump.Networks may be willing to overpay if they view football as a “loss leader.” The broadcast itself might lose money, but if it attracts viewers to other shows on the network, it may still be consistent with overall profit-maximization.The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management, and Department of Education have provided DOGE “special government employees” with access to information systems that contain records of private citizens' sensitive personal information (including Social Security numbers, financial records, and more).Should the government step in when there is a strike or lockout in professional sports?On September 16, a collection of labor unions and associations that represent students and employees within the University of California system filed a complaint challenging the funding cuts and the Demand Letter.On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On that same day, the government appealed Judge Moss’s order granting summary judgment to the D.C. They also submitted a proposed order requesting a permanent injunction to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing Proclamation 10888 The constitutional separation of powers (by exceeding presidential authority and unlawfully overriding congressionally enacted immigration protections).The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the proclamation is unlawful and an injunction stopping its implementation. Plaintiffs assert that they do have standing to bring their claims and that the court should grant the preliminary injunction if it does not grant summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.On that same day, Defendants’ unopposed motion for a partial administrative stay of the Mar. 10 preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Ali.Plaintiffs claim that the grant was cut on the grounds that New York is a “Sanctuary Jurisdiction” and for its failure to commit sovereign law enforcement resources to supplement the federal government's immigration enforcement and allege that Defendants acted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because their actions are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the law, and in excess of statutory authority.Studies of Clemson University and Mississippi State University show that successful athletic teams lead to greater alumni giving, but a case study of Washington State University and a broader study by the Council for Financial Aid to Education show that athletic performance has no significant impact.The Court’s majority ruled that the grantees should have sought to have the funding reinstated in the Court of Federal Claims, and lifted a lower court order directing the NIH to restore the grants while litigation over the funding termination proceeds.The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was also vacated and both parties filed OSCs on Feb. 28.Economic theory suggests that governments maximize the well-being of their residents if they finance the subsidy by imposing taxes or fees according to the benefits each resident or business receives. Plaintiffs allege that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) issued directives to federal agencies to implement the EOs, resulting in the Plaintiffs and the class of federal workers being subject to Reductions in Force (“RIFs”). On Dec. 3, 2025, four former federal employees filed suit on behalf of a class of federal workers. On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (“EO”) 14151, which instructed federal agencies to coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including “illegal DEI” and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (“DEIA”) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the federal government. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14168, which directs government officials to prohibit transgender and intersex individuals from using intimate spaces that align with their gender identity. She seeks a judicial declaration that the Rule is unlawful, a stay and vacatur of the Rule, a permanent injunction against its enforcement, restoration of the investigation and conciliation processes for affected claimants, attorney’s fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper The plaintiff sued, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, to enjoin the Trump administration from enforcing the EO. On March 27, 2025, President Trump issued EO which invoked § 4103(b) of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to terminate the collective bargaining rights of all the Foreign Service members employed by the U.S. Even if some retaliatory intent existed, the court found the administration likely justified its action on national security grounds. The Plaintiffs also challenge the EO is ultra vires on the ground that it violates the federal statute that created the collective bargaining system and would therefore violate the separation of powers. The suit also seeks, among other requests, a preliminary injunction directing the DOE to vacate its non-continuation of the TRIO programs, directing the DOE to reconsider its action on the TRIO programs, and prohibiting the DOE from denying federal financial assistance without satisfying the requirements of Title XI and Title IX. On October 15, the New York City Board of Education filed suit against the Department of Education (DOE) challenging the federal government’s abrupt discontinuation of five-year Magnet Schools Assistance Program grants supporting nineteen NYC public schools. The administration’s award letters to the plaintiff states following the judge’s prior ruling said that if the injunction were invalidated, the immigration-related conditions would become effective immediately. They seek declaratory judgment that the effort to condition funding is unconstitutional, an order vacating the government’s immigration-related conditions and any actions taken to implement them, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against further efforts to condition or terminate federal funding based on immigration policy. On August 26, 2025, the Woodmere Art Museum in Pennsylvania filed a complaint challenging the administration’s termination of its federal grant by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) following the announced dismantling of the entire agency. Plaintiffs, a policy advocacy group focused on privacy protections and two nonprofit organizations who provide services to noncitizens, filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with ICE and CBP requesting records relating to their practices and procedures pertaining to DNA collection from noncitizens. Plaintiff filed suit against USSOCOM and the Department of Defense arguing that Defendants are acting in violation of FOIA by failing to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records, failing to issue a determination by the statutory deadline, and failing to produce responsive records. Plaintiff asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief to order Defendants to process Plaintiff’s requests, conduct required searches, and produce within 20 days of the court's order any and all non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff alleges that DOJ, DHS, and DOS have allegedly failed to respond to these requests within the statutorily mandated time period and seeks an order from the court to compel these agencies to comply with the FOIA requests and produce responsive records. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants NARA and Rubio violate the APA, also for arbitrary and capricious action, abuse of discretion, and acting contrary to the law, because NARA and Rubio have an obligation under FRA to initiate an action for recovery of documents through the Attorney General when an agency head fails to do so, and that NARA and Rubio have failed to take such action. Defendants’ memorandum of law in support of this motion asserts that Plaintiffs lack both associational and organizational standing to bring their claims and that the intent of Plaintiffs’ complaint is to interfere with IRS operations.SCOTUS issued its decision in Skrmetti on June 18, holding that the Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.A group of HHS employees filed suit on June 3, alleging that the information used to make decisions about who should be included in the RIF was inaccurate and flawed, that HHS knew the data was inaccurate, and that the sharing of this data with DOGE, OPM and OMB were a violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.Defendants argue the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a final agency action subject to review under the APA.Plaintiffs primarily ask the court to rule that the Declaration is unlawful, set the Declaration aside, and issue an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Declaration.The majority concluded that the government “has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent,” referencing Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court upheld this “exact question” regarding a similar for-cause provision.On Nov. 4, the court issued an order that the sua sponte request had been withdrawn, stating that proceedings before the panel would resume.Defendants are enjoined from enforcing or otherwise giving effect to the March 2025 terminations of grants issued directly or indirectly to these four plaintiffs under the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020, the CARES Act, and the CRRSAA. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to suspend the briefing schedule and deadline to respond to the Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal until the Supreme Court weighs in on the related case. In the alternative, the Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction against the defendant agencies. Plaintiffs National Urban League (NUL) and AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC) filed an amended complaint on June 30, which removed NFHA’s claims and dropped some of Plaintiffs’ APA claims. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the executive orders are unlawful, rescission of the executive orders, and permanent injunctions against any actions taken to enforce the executive orders. That same day, the administration filed an application requesting a stay of the lower court’s order pending appeal, as well as an administrative stay pending resolution of its application. Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare Trump’s termination unlawful because it was not undertaken based on “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” and to enter an injunction against Ferguson, Holyoak, and Robbins ordering them to treat plaintiffs as FTC Commissioners. Supreme Court for a stay, and the Court, per Chief Justice Roberts, issued a stay and ordered the plaintiffs to respond by Apr. 15, which they did. Plaintiff Cathy A. Harris challenges her removal from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent federal agency. The members argue that Congress’ designed the PCLOB with the intent to insulate it from executive branch influence and maintain the agency’s independent, non-partisan expertise. No new claims were added in the amended complaint, however Plaintiffs included a request for an award of backpay of up to $10,000 from the date of the unlawful removals to their prayer for relief. Plaintiff alleges she was improperly removed in violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. § 7104), which states that “Members of the Authority…may be removed by the President only upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and an injunction ordering her reinstatement. Its primary function is to protect federal employees and others who come forward as whistleblowers. Is Barbara O’Neill Arrested? The Truth About the Australian Banned Health Promoter Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an injunction ordering reinstatement of grant funds. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that EO is unconstitutionally vague and that the termination of the grants constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order only modified one of Plaintiff’ federal grants, and Plaintiff requested that the order be expanded to enjoin the enforcement of the termination provision as to all five of Plaintiff’ federally funded grants. In an emergency hearing on March 15, Chief Judge James Boasberg, first ruling from the bench, certified a class of “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation,” and granted the request for a temporary restraining order to block removals of any class members from the United States. The Plaintiffs submitted an emergency application for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block any removals from the United States. Plaintiffs also filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to prevent the imminent removal of another Class Member, an 18-yr-old from Venezuela who was detained on Mar. 19, after Defendants failed to confirm to that they would not be removing the Plaintiff Class Member. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher granted the TRO on April 16 after Defendants stated their position that they would not agree to not removing any Class Member until after the Motion to Enforce was resolved. At a hearing on March 26, the immigration judge continued his removal proceedings and scheduled a hearing for May 2025. Through a rigorous PRISMA-guided analysis of 80 high-quality studies, the review reveals that employers are increasingly prioritizing non-cognitive skills, such as flexibility, emotional intelligence, and perseverance, alongside traditional analytical capabilities. Grounded in the Moroccan context yet globally relevant, these studies provide a roadmap for navigating the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and well-being in higher education. Yet the lack of established promising practices coupled with limited training and support on how to support students' emotional well-being creates confusion and self-doubt. The recent unexpected impact of the global pandemic on higher education has caused universities, governments, students, and teachers to reexamine all components of existing systems, including how to become more effective and efficient in using technologies for education. They include 1) the students’ personal situation, 2) the socio-cultural context and familial milieu in which the student is embedded, 3) the institutional and academic domain, and 4) the broader, macro-public domain, which includes larger structural and political-economic issues. Judge Alston wrote, “Plaintiffs’ fears of future harm are much too speculative and would require the Court to make several leaps in reasoning in order to warrant injunctive relief” based on the record before the court. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief curing the release of information and halting further sharing by OPM and Treasury, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, the Fifth Amendment, 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and actions beyond the scope of authority—primarily by the DOGE defendants. They seek a declaratory judgment that disclosing records to DOGE is unlawful and temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief to bar defendants from allowing DOGE to access sensitive information; ensure there is no further unauthorized disclosure; ensure records improperly disseminated are retrieved or destroyed; and ensure future disclosures will only occur in accordance with the Privacy Act. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE access is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as (1) not in accordance with the Privacy Act; (2) an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and (3) in excess of statutory authority. On Oct. 16, a nonprofit organization providing free legal services to Oregonians and a membership organization largely consisting of farmworkers and Latino working families filed suit alleging that Defendants have repeatedly held individuals incommunicado, despite attempts by counsel to meet with them at ICE field office sites, and then rapidly transferred them out of the state. Plaintiffs allege the termination of NQRP violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Due Process, and violates the Accardi Doctrine. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asking for the administration to facilitate attorney-client communication and publicly indicate which immigration court has jurisdiction over Alligator Alcatraz. Further, they argue that any preliminary relief is unwarranted and if granted should be limited in scope. California has asked the court to declare the tariffs unlawful and void, and to enjoin Defendants from taking any action to implement the Executive Orders. California argues that the power to levy tariffs is exclusive to Congress, and that Congress can and has delegated this authority to the executive branch via statute. Together, these Executive Orders impose a broad tariff regime on imports from countries around the world. On February 1, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across our Northern Border), and on Apr. 2, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) (the “Liberation Day Order”). In this motion, Plaintiffs requested the Court block the imposition of all tariffs set forth in EO and award money damages to cover what Plaintiffs have already paid as a result of the tariffs. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.” On Sept. 28, Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memorandum to the Oregon National Guard Adjunct General and the Oregon Governor stating that 200 members of the Oregon National Guard would be called into federal service, referencing 10 U.S.C. §12406. The District seeks a declaration that the deployment is unlawful and an injunction against further unauthorized troop deployments. The complaint also alleges that the deployment is a violation of the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to law. On August 15, Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued Order No. 6372 , a directive implementing the EO. On July 23, 2025, Petitioners, four foreign nationals currently being held at the Adelanto Detention Center in Adelanto, California, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raising several challenges against this change in policy, including violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(Unlawful Denial of Release of Bonds), the Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In light of the government’s uncertainty regarding its ability to provide these statutorily-mandated services, the panel directed the government to reinstate the cooperative agreements necessary to provide such services. Further, having found that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded their claims and established jurisdiction, he denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Previously, on April 21, the Ninth Circuit limited and clarified Judge Whitehead’s injunction. Imagine baseball’s Colorado Rockies’ being sent down to the International League and replaced in the National League by the Columbus Clippers, and you have an idea of what promotion and relegation can do. The Impact of Promotion and Relegation Unlike MLB, the NBA, the NFL, or the NHL, membership in a typical soccer league is not fixed. Silvio Berlusconi’s purchase of AC Milan through his broadcast company, Fininvest, is only one of many prominent cable broadcasters to invest in soccer teams. The same can be said for leagues in England, Italy, Germany, and Spain.65 Aware of the value of integrating the game with the broadcast of the game, large cable companies have come to hold increasing stakes in teams themselves. With leagues facing a monopsonistic buyer of broadcast rights, soccer broadcasts and broadcast revenues lagged badly behind those of the North American sports. During the hearing, she reportedly noted that the Plaintiff had not requested the TRO apply to Section 2 (Security Clearances) and Section 4 (Racial Discrimination) of the executive order, although those sections are also part of the lawsuit. The Plaintiff also submitted a request for a temporary restraining order and a proposed order that enjoined only Sections 1 (Purpose), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel including access to Federal Government buildings) of the executive order. The Plaintiff sued on Mar. 11, alleging that the executive action is unconstitutional, violating separation of powers, the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They also seek a court declaration that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act and the First and Fifth Amendments. More than half this amount, about $6.1 billion, has come from state and local governments.He ruled that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the claim that the latter actions flowed from the original government directives in violation of the law.This naïve calculation, however, assumes that visitors do not respond to the higher cost of staying in a local hotel.Petitioners filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) due to being in imminent danger of removal to another country.The court found the terminations likely violated the First Amendment and thus the APA but limited relief to escrow.On October 3, Respondents confirmed Chogllo Chafla’s release in a status report to the court.The court disallowed this protest and permitted the lawsuit brought by star New York Jets running back Freeman McNeil and seven other players to go forward.The Plaintiff states that OPM failed to respond within the statutorily mandated time period under FOIA and seeks an order from the court to comply with the FOIA requests. They seek declaratory judgment that the spending freeze violates statutory law and the Constitution and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against enforcement of any funding freeze against the plaintiffs. Following this order, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or grant summary judgment in their favor on July 22. “FEMA's manual review process violates the Court's preliminary injunction order,” the court wrote with instructions to cease the manual review process. Judge McConnell’s order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims." Broadcast revenue is a major source of inequality between conferences. As with TV revenue in the major professional sports, broadcast revenue from football has an equalizing influence on revenues, at least at the conference level. In February of 2006, three former college athletes filed suit against the NCAA. The complaint alleges that while FEMA sent the Plaintiffs similar letters with deadlines to respond to an investigation into unlawful use of the funds to shelter undocumented people, FEMA preemptively terminated the program in its entirety before the deadlines. On Feb. 10, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) abruptly paused all federal grants previously disbursed or made available under the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), cancelling them completely a few weeks later. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from freezing STC funding and failing to issue reimbursements. Chicago filed suit on May 16 against DHS and Kristi Noem, in her capacity as the Secretary of DHS, to challenge the funding freeze. Plaintiff noted no emergency relief from the Court is required at this time, but requested they be allowed to seek additional relief in a future motion if necessary. On Mar. 14, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that eliminated non-mandatory functions and sections of seven federal agencies, including the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and required them to reduce mandatory functions and personnel to the legal minimum. The notice states, “Plaintiff has secured the primary relief—withdrawing the termination of its grant agreement—that it requested in the complaint. Plaintiff’s counts include an alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (for “arbitrary and capricious” action and action in violation of statutory non-discretionary duty); the Presentment, Spending, and Take Care Clauses; and the separation of powers. The Trump administration executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to cease operation of the CBP One app, which was created by the Biden administration to enable asylum seekers to schedule appointments to request asylum. This order allows Petitioner to travel to New York State for educational purposes, to meet with his lawyers, or as otherwise ordered by the court. Mahdawi has filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is under seal. Plaintiff argued that GAO should be treated as an executive-branch agency subject to FOIA’s disclosure requirements, notwithstanding its traditional characterization as a legislative-branch entity that provides oversight and advice to Congress. On March 6, 2025, America First Legal Foundation filed suit against the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), seeking to compel compliance with several FOIA requests. These FOIA requests sought copies of asbestos abatement permits issued for the Ease Wing demolition and other records related to the release and removal of asbestos during the demolition. On November 5, 2025, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to nine federal agencies with possible involvement in the White House East Wing demolition.