Updated 3/26/25 at 9:17am ET

President Donald Trump is clashing with federal judges and courts across the United States. This page is tracking the latest developments in those legal battles.

For more information about the specific court filings, visit Lawfare.com's tracker.

Did we miss something? Email us.

Scheduling Houthi Signal Messages for Deletion

The Latest:

• Judge James E. Boasberg ordered Trump administration officials who participated in the "Houthi PC Small Group" Signal chat to preserve them as federal records.
• The move comes after one of the screenshots published by Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg showed National Security Advisor Mike Waltz setting the messages to be automatically deleted four weeks from Saturday, March 15.

Executive Argument: As of 10 a.m. EST on March 28th, The Trump administration has not officially responded to the order.

Judiciary Argument: Judge Boasberg's order was prompted by federal watchdog American Oversight on the grounds that deleting the messages would violate the Federal Records Act of 1950.

Deporting Alleged Gang Members

The Latest:

• In a hearing on March 24, a judge lamented how alleged gang members deported to El Salvador were not given notice, were not informed of their destination, and had no opportunity to challenge the removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
• At least one of the deported Venezuelan men appeared to be in the US legally.
• Judge James E. Boasberg called the Trump administration's response to his request for more detail on the deportations "woefully insufficient."

Executive Argument: In Trump's inaugural address, he stated he would use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to "eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to US soil."

Judiciary Argument: Boasberg's ruling sought to block the deportations until a full hearing was held.

Firing and Rehiring Federal Workers

The Latest: 

• The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to end the block on firing federal workers.
• A federal judge in California ruled that unions representing federal employees can sue over the administration's mass firings.
• The administration recently reinstated roughly 25,000 federal workers following multiple court orders to do so, and may reinstate more employees. However, some are immediately being placed on administrative leave.

Executive Argument: "Agencies are taking independent action in light of the recent hiring freeze and in support of the President’s broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government to better serve the American people at the highest possible standard," said a spokesperson from the Office of Personnel Management.

Judiciary Argument: “In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice. It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for 'performance' or other individualized reasons," U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland wrote in his ruling.

Shutting Down USAID

The Latest: A Maryland district judge blocked DOGE from continuing its efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), saying it violated the Constitution.

Executive Argument: Per BBC (Center bias): The White House has published a list of USAID projects which it said were evidence of "waste and abuse", including a grant of $1.5m to an LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5m for electric vehicles in Vietnam and $6m for tourism in Egypt.

Judiciary Argument: U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang wrote that the Trump admin “likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways” and “deprived the public's elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down" the agency.

Removing Transgender Service Members

The Latest: Multiple judges blocked Trump’s ban on transgender service members. The administration can still appeal.

Executive Argument: “A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” the executive order states. 

Judiciary Argument: “The court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes,” wrote U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. “We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect.”

Accessing Social Security Data

The Latest: On March 20, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a 137-page ruling blocking DOGE's access to Social Security information. The Trump administration has yet to comment. As recently as March 24, DOGE claimed to have been accessing Social Security data. It's unclear to what extent Hollander's ruling is being followed.

Executive Argument: The Trump administration's self-justification for accessing Social Security information revolves around improper payments and purported data mismanagement.

Judiciary Argument: "The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack," Hollander wrote.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

The Latest: On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. Read about other court challenges to the order.

Executive Argument: “As part of my plan to secure the border on Day 1 of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump said in 2023.

Judiciary Argument: "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour wrote. “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind.”