...
By Sonam Sheth
Evening Politics Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump has been in office for just over a day and his administration is already the target of more than half a dozen lawsuits taking aim at a flurry of executive orders he signed after being inaugurated on Monday.
Why It Matters
Trump's allies pledged a campaign of "shock and awe" on "day one" of his presidency and the president wasted little time in delivering on that promise by signing at least 26 executive orders, some of which are all but certain to end up in court.
Read More on Politics
The lawsuits filed against Trump and his administration take aim at three of those actions he signed on Monday: an order seeking to eradicate birthright citizenship, an order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and an order reclassifying thousands of federal employees and making them easier to fire.
Newsweek reached out to the White House and a counsel for DOGE via email.
...
What To Know
The lawsuits set the tone for what the next four years will likely look like if Trump continues moving full steam ahead to enact hardline immigration policies, carry out mass deportations, purge the federal government of those he deems disloyal and roll back his predecessor's policies on everything from taxes to climate change to foreign affairs.
"The 'shock and awe' orders and associated rhetoric will cost Trump in the court challenges ahead," Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel to Barack Obama, and Jack Goldsmith, who served worked in the Justice Department during the Bush administration, wrote in their "Executive Functions" newsletter.
"Massive litigation in response to the Trump orders is a sure thing—indeed, it has already started," they wrote. "The larger the number of orders that rely on the most robust theories of executive power, the greater the likelihood the administration will lose in court—including on major issues."
Read more about the lawsuits, and which executive orders they target, below.
...
DOGE
Three lawsuits were filed against DOGE in Washington, D.C. within minutes of Trump being sworn in. All three accuse the department of violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a 1972 law that requires federal advisory committees to follow certain transparency rules.
The first, brought by the left-leaning group Democracy Forward, was filed at 12:01 p.m. ET on Monday and accused Elon Musk's DOGE of being a "shadow operation led by unelected billionaires" that flouts federal transparency rules.
It names DOGE, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the acting OMB director as defendants and seeks a court order to block DOGE from operating until it's in compliance with federal regulations.
"Plaintiffs and those they represent believe that the government should work for the American people and be transparent, efficient, and effective – and that the government can and should do better," the lawsuit says.
"The 'Department' of Government Efficiency is not a federal department," the suit alleges. "Elected representatives in Congress have not established nor have they funded such an enterprise. DOGE is, instead, a shadow operation led by unelected billionaires who stand to reap huge financial rewards from this influence and access."
The second lawsuit against DOGE was brought by the public-interest firm National Security Counselors and names Trump, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who was previously tapped to lead the department but withdrew just before Trump was inaugurated, as defendants.
The lawsuit from National Security Counselors argues DOGE meets the requirements to be a federal advisory committee and is therefore legally required to have "fairly balanced" representation, keep regular minutes of meetings and allow public access to meetings.
The third lawsuit was led by the left-wing think tank Public Citizen and alleges that DOGE members "do not represent the interests of everyday Americans."
...
Birthright Citizenship
Eighteen state attorneys general and a slew of immigrants' rights groups brought swift legal action against Trump after he signed his executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship for some children born in the U.S., arguing that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The first lawsuit was filed in New Hampshire late Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union and several immigrants' advocates.
The plaintiffs in the case were the ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Asian Law Caucus, State Democracy Defenders Fund and the Legal Defense Fund.
Their suit alleges that the Trump administration ignored the Constitution, Congress and longstanding legal precedent in issuing the order and said that "the Constitution and Congress—not President Trump—dictate who is entitled to full membership in American society."
"The Order straightforwardly violates the Citizenship Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, "as well as the birthright citizenship statute, and should be enjoined," the complaint says.
A second lawsuit challenging Trump's executive order was filed in Boston around midnight Tuesday by plaintiff O. Doe, an expectant mother, and the immigrants' rights groups Brazilian Worker Center and La Colaborativa.
Doe's child "will be one of the targeted citizens," the lawsuit says.
"By purporting to unilaterally strip the targeted citizens of their right to citizenship, the EO violates the Fourteenth Amendment and corresponding statutory protections," it says. "And because the EO treats the targeted citizens as a subordinate caste of native-born Americans, entitled to fewer rights, benefits, and entitlements than other Americans due to their parents' alienage, it also violates their right to equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
New Jersey's attorney general's office filed a third lawsuit—by far the most sweeping legal action targeting Trump's birthright citizenship order—in Massachusetts shortly after 1 p.m. ET on Tuesday, just over 25 hours after Trump took office.
Seventeen other states, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco also joined the lawsuit, which accuses Trump of seeking "to abrogate this well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle by executive fiat."
"The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute," the complaint says. "Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth."
Four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon—filed a fourth lawsuit challenging the executive order in the Western District of Washington.
'Schedule F'
The president is also facing legal headwinds over an executive order reinstating "Schedule F," which allows for tens of thousands of federal employees to be reclassified as political hires and makes it easier to fire them.
The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents employees in 37 agencies and departments, challenged the order in a lawsuit filed late Monday, arguing that it deprives federal employees of certain due process rights and is "contrary to congressional intent."
Congress allows a president to remove job protections for federal workers if warranted for "conditions of good administration," the lawsuit said. But it added that Trump's executive order does not meet that threshold.
"This order is about administering political loyalty tests to everyday employees in the federal workforce who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and serve their country," NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said in a statement to Bloomberg Law, which first reported the lawsuit.
What People Are Saying
Noah Bookbinder, the CEO of Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, one of the plaintiffs in Democracy Forward's lawsuit against DOGE, said in a statement: "Americans deserve to know their government is functioning fairly, transparently and without undue influence from Donald Trump's billionaire friends or other special interests."
SangYeob Kim, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Hampshire, said of Trump's birthright citizenship executive order: "Trump's executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history, and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights."
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said of Trump's birthright citizenship order: "The Trump administration's overreach is so egregious that we are confident we will ultimately prevail."
What Happens Next
It remains to be seen whether Trump will pump the brakes on his signing spree or plow full speed ahead in the face of the legal challenges coming his way. Bauer and Goldsmith warned that if he chooses the latter, he'll invite "significant trouble" for his agenda in the months ahead.
Update 1/21/25 4:15 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines