Federal Courts Have Ruled Against Trump Administration Policies At Least 63 Times [washington]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/


Federal Courts Have Ruled Against Trump Administration Policies At Least 63 Times

By Fred Barbash, Deanna Paul, Brittany Renee Mayes and Danielle Rindler March 19, 2019

The Trump administration has not been faring well in the courts, with major legal setbacks stalling important parts of its agenda, particularly on immigration and deregulation. President Trump has blamed liberal judges sitting in the 9th Circuit for the legal defeats, but a Washington Post analysis shows losses have occurred across the country and from judges appointed by both parties, often because of a failure to follow the law governing how changes in policy are made.

A Washington Post review shows over 60 adverse rulings against the administration. All administrations lose cases, but experts cannot recall so many losses in such a short time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

Many of the cases are in relatively early stages, where judges have determined that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits and, in some cases, issued orders pending final rulings. Reversals are possible. The U.S. Supreme Court already has reversed early rulings on the president's travel ban and stayed court orders in cases involving the proposed ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Because there is no master list of cases, The Post gathered data from a variety of sources, including a list kept by the Brookings Institution, newspaper articles and a search of dockets in the federal courts.

Below is a breakdown of cases in which a court has intervened in Trump administration decisions after determining they may violate the law or Constitution.

Citizenship status on the census

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced in March that the Census Bureau would start asking about citizenship status in the 2020 Census, a question critics and experts say will deter many immigrants from responding and produce an undercount for some congressional districts. Lawsuits brought by dozens of jurisdictions and organizations arguing that Ross acted illegally have been successful so far in at least three courts. Because the census questionnaire must be ready for printing in June, the administration asked the Supreme Court to review the issue before the completion of trials or judgments by appeals courts.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2019/01/28/18-966_department_of_commerce_pet.pdf

Kravitz v. Dept. of Commerce

The court rejected the Commerce Department's stated reasons for adding a citizenship question, saying the evidence suggested the "true purpose" was probably "to depress noncitizen response rates."

Date of decision: December 28, 2018•Court: D. Md.•Judge: George Hazel

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/judge-hazel's-ruling-in-census-case/98d34308-5717-44ce-9ab4-02c299eda1ce_note.html?questionId=290b5d13-280b-43db-9861-16cf50779f41

N.Y. v. Dept. of Commerce; N.Y. Immigration Coalition v. Dept. of Commerce

After a trial, the judge concluded that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was "arbitrary and capricious" in adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

Date of decision: January 15, 2019•Court: S.D.N.Y.•Judge: Jesse Furman

Read more about this case
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/judge-jesse-furmans-opinion-in-the-census-case/3393/

California v. Ross; San Jose v. Ross

After a trial, the judge found that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross acted in "bad faith" and violated the Constitution's enumeration clause when he tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

Date of decision: March 06, 2019•Court: N.D. Calif.•Judge: Richard Seeborg

Read more about this case
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/CAvRoss_MTDOrder_8.17.18.pdf

Environmental regulations

Numerous courts have invalidated rollbacks or delays by the Environmental Protection Agency and other Trump administration agencies of rules promulgated during the administration of President Barack Obama. Among them have been rules on chemical accidents, waste prevention, methane emissions, endangered species, pipelines, oil and gas leases, clean air and clean water. Additional administration degregulatory efforts have been withdrawn after the filing of lawsuits. The main reasons cited by judges in these cases are violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out the rules for regulatory change. Courts have found that administration agencies have failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions and, in some instances, have improperly avoided submitting them for notice and comment as required by the APA.

Oil and gas leases
Becerra et al. v. Dept. of Interior et al.

A delay of rules on royalties violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Date of decision: August 30, 2017•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: Elizabeth LaPorte

Read more about this case
https://policyintegrity.org/documents/Doc_47_Order_Granting_Summary_Judgment.pdf

Waste prevention
California v. Bureau of Land Management

The state of California sued the federal government for delaying a rule aimed at preventing waste. The court found the delay violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Date of decision: October 24, 2017•Court: N.D. Calif.•Judge: Catherine Blake

Read more about this case
https://www.leagle.com/decision/277180011fsupp3d110654

Energy
NRDC v. Perry

A federal court ruled that the Energy Department's refusal to use national energy-efficiency standards breached regulations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stayed the lower court's April order on pending appeal.

Date of decision: February 15, 2018•Court: N.D. Calif.•Judge: Vince Chhabria

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nrdc-v-perry/123de4c8-66c2-4eea-91ab-ed3fb754f745_note.html?questionId=0fc50ee3-da02-475c-ac3e-d78b41481062&utm_term=.ba6f545c96b3

Formaldehyde emission standards
Sierra Club et al v. Pruitt

The court found that a delay of a formaldehyde emissions rule violated the Formaldehyde Act.

Date of decision: February 16, 2018•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: Jeffrey White

Read more about this case
http://www.lawandenvironment.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/formaldehyde.pdf

Air-quality designations
In Re Ozone Designation

The EPA administrator failed to promulgate initial air-quality designations as required by law.

Date of decision: March 12, 2018•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: Haywood Gilliam

Read more about this case
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/72_Order_Granting%20Plaintiffs%27%20Motions%20for%20Summary%20Judgment_03-12-2018.pdf


Pesticide rule
Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Pruitt

After a federal court held that the EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, it forced it to reverse course on a pesticide rule.

Date of decision: March 21, 2018•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: Jeffrey White

Read more about this case
http://www.lawandenvironment.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/03/pesticide-training-case.pdf

Corporate average fuel economy standards
NRDC et al v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The panel vacated the NHTSA delay of a penalty readjustment for violations of fuel economy standards.

Date of decision: June 29, 2018•Court: 2nd Cir.•Judges: Rosemary Pooler, Ralph Winter and Barrington Parker

Read more about this case
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2dcir_nhtsa_penalty_delay.pdf

Methane emissions
Clean Air Council v. Pruitt

Several environmental groups sued the EPA, challenging its decision to delay and amend sections of a regulation curbing methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has original jurisdiction, ruled that the EPA overstepped its authority.

Date of decision: July 03, 2018•Court: D.C. Cir.•Judges: David Tatel and Robert Wilkins

Read more about this case
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/a86b20d79beb893e85258152005ca1b2/$file/17-1145-1682465.pdf

Pipelines
Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Service, Dept. of Agriculture

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service were sued by conservation groups for allowing a pipline through federal lands in Virginia and West Virginia. The court ruled that both agencies violated federal laws.

Date of decision: July 27, 2018•Court: 4th Cir.•Judges: Stephanie Thacker, William Traxler and Roger Gregory

Read more about this case
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/172399.P.pdf

Pesticide chlorpyrifos
League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Wheeler and EPA

In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ordered the EPA to ban the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos, which former administrator Scott Pruitt had refused to do. On Feb. 6, the circuit agreed to an en banc hearing.

Date of decision: August 09, 2018•Court: 9th Cir.•Judges: Jed Rakoff and Jacque Nguyen

Read more about this case
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/09/17-71636.pdf

WOTUS rule
SC Coastal Conservation League et al. v. Pruitt

A group of conservation advocates sued the EPA after it delayed the "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule. A federal court blocked the agency from further delays, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Date of decision: August 16, 2018•Court: D.S.C.•Judge: David Norton

Read more about this case
https://casetext.com/case/sc-coastal-conservation-league-v-pruitt-1

Chemical accidents
Air Alliance Houston v. EPA

A group of environmental groups sought to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from further delaying Obama-era regulations designed to reduce the risk of chemical accidents from being implemented. The D.C. court vacated the delay, writing that the administration's actions "make a mockery of the statute."

Date of decision: August 17, 2018•Court: D.C. Cir.•Judge: Robert Wilkins

Read more about this case
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D635BFF007DFAA56852582EC00509B00/$file/17-1155-1746106.pdf

EPA abeyance of coal waste
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group et al. v. EPA et al.

The court denied an EPA motion to hold a rule in abeyance after also deciding that Obama regulations weren't tough enough.

Date of decision: August 21, 2018•Court: DC Cir.•Judges: Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard

Read more about this case
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/2018-08-21%20CCR%20petition%20for%20review%20Opinion.pdf

Endangered species
Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. U.S.

After a lawsuit by the Indian tribe and others, a court restored Endangered Species Act status to Greater Yellowstone grizzlies after the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted them. The judge found that the service "illegally negotiated away the best available science in order to reach an accomodation" with Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

Date of decision: September 24, 2018•Court: D. Mont.•Judge: Dana Christensen

Read more about this case
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/montana/mtdce/9:2017cv00089/55114

Keystone XL pipeline
Indigenous Environmental Network et al. v. State Dept. et al.

A federal judge temporarily blocked construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, ruling that the Trump administration had failed to justify its decision granting a permit for the 1,200-mile-long project.

Date of decision: November 18, 2018•Court: D. Mont.•Judge: Brian Morris

Read more about this case
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/keystone-xl-pipeline-order-issued-by-us-district-judge-brian-morris-in-montana/3301/

Waters of the United States
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance et al v. Wheeler et al

The EPA delayed the effective date of a rule defining "waters of the United States." The judge ruled that it "deprived the public of an opportunity to comment on relevant and significant issues in violation of the APA's notice and comment requirements."

Date of decision: November 26, 2018•Court: W.D. Wash.•Judge: John Coughenour

Read more about this case
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/WOTUS-WA-MSJ-decision.pdf

Pipelines
Cowpasture River Preservation Association et al. v. Forest Service

Environmental groups successfully sued the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that the agency's authorization of a pipeline within national forests was unconstitutional.

Date of decision: December 13, 2018•Court: 4th Cir.•Judges: Stephanie Thacker, James Wynn and Roger Gregory

Read more about this case
https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/ACP_USFS_opinion.pdf

Transgender military ban

President Trump announced via Twitter on July 26, 2017, a ban on transgender people serving in the military, reversing an Obama administration decision. In response to court rulings saying the ban was probably discriminatory, the Defense Department modified the restrictions, but four courts blocked it, with one being overruled by an appeals court. On Jan. 22, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 vote, lifted injunctions while the cases move forward in the lower courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-announces-that-he-will-ban-transgender-people-from-serving-in-the-military/2017/07/26/6415371e-723a-11e7-803f-a6c989606ac7_story.html?utm_term=.b063ab411336
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-trump-restrictions-on-transgender-troops-in-military-to-go-into-effect-as-legal-battle-continues/2019/01/22/e68a7284-1763-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.7d97ace54a03

Military ban
Doe 1 v. Trump

One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues.

Date of decision: October 30, 2017•Court: C.D. Cal.•Judge: Jesus Bernal

Read more about this case
https://www.glad.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/doe-v-trump-memorandum-opinion-10-30-17.pdf

Military ban
Stone v. Trump

One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues. The injunction in this was was stayed on March 7, 2019.

Date of decision: November 21, 2017•Court: D. Md.•Judge: Marvin Garbis

Read more about this case
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4256871/Ruling-on-transgender-military-ban.pdf

Military ban
Karnoski v. Trump

One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues, staying the injunctions in this and two other cases.

Date of decision: December 11, 2017•Court: W.D. Wash.•Judge: Marsha Pechman

Read more about this case
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/EE-WA-0131-0004.pdf

Military ban
Stockman v. Trump

One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues, staying injunctions in this and two other cases.

Date of decision: December 22, 2017•Court: S.D. Cal.•Judge: Jesus Bernal

Read more about this case
http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CA-Order-Trans-Ban.pdf

Military ban
Doe 2 et al v. Trump

One of five cases enjoining Trump administration restrictions on transgender service in the military. The injunction was vacated by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Jan. 4, 2019. The Supreme Court has stayed injunctions as well.

Date of decision: August 06, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Read more about this case
https://www.glad.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/doe-v-trump-08-06-18-opinion-denying-motion-to-dismiss-dissolve-pi.pdf

Federal funding for 'sanctuary cities'

Days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order that placed immigration-related conditions on federal funding to cities. The action penalized "sanctuary cities" by threatening to withhold grants from jurisdictions that the Justice Department deemed insufficiently cooperative in helping federal authorities detain undocumented immigrants. Many jurisdictions won rulings declaring the conditions were likely to be illegal because they were not authorized by law. Some ruled unconstitutional the law invoked in support of the conditions.

San Francisco et al. v. Trump

The city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County filed a lawsuit to block Trump's executive order to deny funding to cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials. In August, a California appeals court upheld the injunction barring Trump from defunding the Bay Area city and counties. It did not uphold a nationwide injunction.

Date of decision: August 20, 2017•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: William Orrick III

Read more about this case
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-CA-0085-0057.pdf

Los Angeles v. Sessions

The city of Los Angeles sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding, arguing they were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which the Justice Department appealed. This case is ongoing.

Date of decision: September 13, 2017•Court: C.D. Cal.•Judge: Manuel Real

Read more about this case
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/LA-DOJ-Grant-pi-ORDER.pdf

Philadelphia v. Sessions

Philadelphia sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding. A district court judge issued an injunction, which the Justice Department appealed. This case is ongoing.

Date of decision: June 06, 2018•Court: E.D. Pa.•Judge: Michael Baylson

Read more about this case
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/judge-baylsons-memorandum-in-philadelphia-v-sessions/3384/

Chicago v. Sessions

The city of Chicago sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding, arguing they were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was upheld but narrowed, by a court of appeals.

Date of decision: July 27, 2018•Court: N.D. Ill.•Judge: Harry Leinenweber

Read more about this case
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ChicagoByrne.pdf

Evanston v. Sessions

The city of Evanston, Ill., and the U.S. Conference of Mayors sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding. A judge ordered a preliminary injunction, consistent with the one issued in Chicago v. Trump.

Date of decision: August 09, 2018•Court: N.D. Ill.•Judge: Harry Leinenweber

Read more about this case
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/injunction-in-evanston-sanctuary-cities-case/3396/

New York et al. v. Whitaker

The Trump administration added immigration-related conditions to receive grant funding. New York City and several states sued, alleging both constitituional and Administrative Procedure Act violations.

Date of decision: November 30, 2018•Court: S.D.N.Y.•Judge: Edgardo Ramos

Read more about this case
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinion_and_order_on_psmj_mot_.pdf

City and County of San Francisco v Sessions et al

A judge struck down a slightly revised version of a DOJ attempt to impose immigration-related conditions on federal grants.

Date of decision: March 04, 2019•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: William Orrick III

Read more about this case
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ecf-no.60-order-granting-pls-msj.pdf

DACA program

The Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provided temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. In March 2018, the Trump administration canceled DACA, claiming it was legally indefensible, rescinding deportation protection for nearly 700,000 of these immigrants known as "dreamers." Cities, states, organizations and individuals across the country challenged the rescission. Several judges, though not all, ruled against the Trump administration. Appeals are pending.

Torres v. Dept. of Homeland Security

A Mexican man living in California sued to halt several government agencies from revoking his legal status under DACA. The court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration from either revoking his DACA status or preventing him from applying to renew.

Date of decision: September 29, 2017•Court: S.D. Calif.•Judge: Jeffrey Miller

Read more about this case
https://casetext.com/case/torres-v-us-dept-of-homeland-sec

Regents of Univ. of California v. Dept of Homeland Security

The University of California system filed a lawsuit in response to the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA. A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the federal government to continue accepting DACA renewal applications; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction. The administration filed for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the related New York and D.C. lawsuits.

Date of decision: January 09, 2018•Court: N.D. Calif.•Judge: William Alsup

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Regents-v-DHS-prelim-injunction-2018-01-09.pdf

Vidal v. Nielsen, New York v. Trump

Individuals, organizations and states challenged the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA and end protections for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally. A New York court granted a preliminary injunction. The administration appealed the decision.

Date of decision: March 29, 2018•Court: E.D.N.Y.•Judge: Nicholas Garaufis

Read more about this case
https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Batalla-Vidal-v-Nielsen-updated-pi-order-2018-02-13.pdf

NAACP et al. v. Trump; Princeton v. Trump

The NAACP alleged that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by revoking DACA without explanation. The case was later joined by a similar suit filed by Princeton University and Microsoft. A D.C. court held that the DACA termination was unlawful and reinstated the status quo. The government appealed the decision.

Date of decision: April 24, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: John Bates

Read more about this case
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv2325-70

Crackdowns on illegal immigration

In addition to the DACA rulings, courts have ruled against elements of the Trump administration's signature crackdown on illegal immigration, including limiting entry points for asylum seekers, revoking temporary protected status for immigrants from certain countries already living legally in the United States and family separation. At least three courts ruled against the administration's travel ban applied to certain Muslim-majority countries, which, after being redrafted, was upheld by the Supreme Court on June 26.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban/2018/06/26/b79cb09a-7943-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.63827bace615

Travel ban
Washington v. Trump

This travel ban case was among those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, but only after a redo by the administration.The case was terminated voluntarily.

Date of decision: February 03, 2017•Court: W.D. Wash.•Judge: James Robart

Read more about this case
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3446215/Washington-v-Trump-Order.pdf

Travel ban
Hawaii v. Trump

This travel ban case was among those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, but only after a redo by the administration.

Date of decision: March 15, 2017•Court: D. Haw.•Judge: Derrick Watson

Read more about this case
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/state-hawaii-and-ishmael-elshikh-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al-order

Travel ban
IRAP v. Trump

This travel ban case was among those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii.

Date of decision: October 17, 2017•Court: D. Md.•Judge: Theodore Chuang

Read more about this case
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/irap-v-trump-memorandum-opinion

Entry for foreign entrepreneurs
National Venture Capital Association et al. v. DHS

The group sued over a delay in the implementation of a rule allowing certain foreign entrepreneurs to get immigration "parole." A judge ruled it was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Date of decision: December 01, 2017•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: James Boasberg

Read more about this case
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Venture-Capital-ruling.pdf

Abortion
Garza v. Hargan

The ACLU sued the Trump administration on behalf of detained and unaccompanied immigrant teenagers, challenging government policies of obstructing their access to abortions. In March, a D.C. court temporarily enjoined the government from enforcing those procedures.

Date of decision: March 30, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Tanya Chutkan

Read more about this case
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/garza-v-hargan-memo-opinion-and-order

Asylum
Ms. L. v. ICE

The ACLU sued on behalf of asylum-seeking parents forcibly separated from their children, arguing that the policy was unconstitutional. In June, a judge temporarily blocked the administration from deporting parents whose children were forcibly removed. The government appealed; the case is ongoing.

Date of decision: June 26, 2018•Court: S.D. Cal.•Judge: Dana Sabraw

Read more about this case
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-classwide-preliminary-injunction

Asylum
Damus v. Nielsen

Asylum seekers in five states challenged the Trump administration's blanket practice of detaining them. A federal judge blocked the government, ordering agencies to follow its policies and make individualized determinations for parole.

Date of decision: July 02, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: James Boasberg

Read more about this case
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/order-granting-preliminary-injunction-and-class-cert-damus-et-al-v-nielsen

Temporary protected status
Centro Presente v. DHS

A Massachusetts-based immigrant advocacy group sued the Trump administration after it terminated temporary protected status for Haitians, Salvadorans and Hondurans, arguing the decision was fueled by "racial animus." The lawsuit, joined by more than a dozen state attorneys general, alleges that the administration's actions were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is ongoing.

Date of decision: July 23, 2018•Court: D. Mass.•Judge: Denise Casper

Read more about this case
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-MA-0014-0003.pdf

Temporary protected status
Ramos v. Nielsen

DHS terminated a protected status for immigrants already in the United States from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaraugua and Sudan.The judge said plaintiffs had made a strong showing of violations of the Administratiave Procedure Act and acting with racial animus.

Date of decision: October 13, 2018•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: Edward Chen

Read more about this case
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/aclu_ramos_20181003_order_granting_prelim_injunction.pdf

Temporary protected status
Casa de Maryland v. Trump

An immigrant advocacy group sued the Trump administration over its decision to revoke temporary protected status for El Salvador, arguing that it was driven by "Trump's anti-Latino immigrant animus." The designation, created in 2001 after a devastating earthquake displaced thousands, allowed more than 200,000 to remain in the United States lawfully. A Maryland court ruled that the termination was racially motivated. The case is on appeal.

Date of decision: November 28, 2018•Court: D. Md.•Judge: George Hazel

Read more about this case
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/8:2018cv00845/417111/43/

Temporary protected status
Saget et al. v. Trump et al.

Haitian immigrant litigants made a plausible case of Administrative Procedure Act violations in the revocation of temporary protected status.

Date of decision: December 14, 2018•Court: E.D.N.Y.•Judge: William Kuntz II

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/order-in-saget-et-al-v.-trump-et-al/fcdf1afb-3de7-45ec-a2f7-74a2c354e761_note.html?questionId=bd9a57d6-0d63-44a7-957f-b3f95b68793f

Asylum
Grace et al. v. Whitaker

A group of Central American adults and children filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's decision to strip asylum protections from immigrants fleeing domestic and gang violence. In December, a D.C. federal judge permanently enjoined the department's new policy, holding that it was unconstitutional.

Date of decision: December 17, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Emmet Sullivan

Read more about this case
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/opinion_-_grace_v._whitaker.pdf

Asylum
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump

The Trump administration made anyone crossing the southern border other than at a designated point of entry ineligible for asylum. A court issued a preliminary injunction, saying the decision was a likely violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Date of decision: December 19, 2018•Court: N.D. Cal.•Judge: Jon Tigar

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/12/19-new%20opinion,%20Injunction

Health-care programs

States challenged Trump administration regulations that would permit employers to stop covering workers' birth control under the Affordable Care Act for religious or moral reasons. At least two courts have stepped in to block the regulations. Separately, multiple courts invalidated a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to end grants to 81 programs designed to curb teenage pregnancies.

Teen pregnancy protection
Planned Parenthood of Greater Wash. and N. Idaho et al. v. HHS, Azar

HHS ended funding for teen pregnancy protection programs, contrary to statute.

Date of decision: April 24, 2018•Court: E.D. Wash.•Judge: Thomas Rice

Read more about this case
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/waedce/2:2018cv00055/80244/36/

Teen pregnancy protection
Healthy Teen Network v. Azar

HHS cut grants for teen pregnancy programs without providing a reason, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Date of decision: April 25, 2018•Court: D. Md.•Judge: Catherine Blake

Read more about this case
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/1:2018cv00468/414166/35

Teen pregnancy protection
Policy and Research LLC et al. v. HHS

HHS cut off grants for teen pregnancy programs "without any explanation whatsover," in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Date of decision: May 11, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Ketanji Jackson

Read more about this case
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2018cv00346/193532/22/

Teen pregnancy protection
King County v. Azar

HHS cut off grants for a teen pregnancy program without explanation.

Date of decision: May 29, 2018•Court: W.D. Wash.•Judge: John Coughenour

Read more about this case
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2018cv00242/255902

Teen pregnancy protection
Planned Parenthood of N.Y. v. HHS, Azar

HHS ended funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs, contrary to statute.

Date of decision: August 30, 2018•Court: S.D.N.Y.•Judge: Naomi Buchwald

Read more about this case
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/92/aa/92aad476-187a-486a-b294-b0802922739a/055_-_order_and_opinion.pdf

Teen pregnancy protection
Multnomah County v. Azar, HHS

HHS terminated grants for teen pregnancy programs without "reasoned explanation."

Date of decision: August 30, 2018•Court: D. Ore.•Judge: Youlee You

Read more about this case
https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Multnomah-order.pdf

Affordable Care Act
California v. HHS

A group of 13 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump administration policies undercutting the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide no-cost birth control to workers. Gilliam issued a preliminary injunction against the administration's move.

Date of decision: January 13, 2019•Court: N.D. Calif.•Judge: Haywood Gilliam

Read more about this case
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/pi-order.pdf

Affordable Care Act
Commonwealth of Pa. et al. v. Trump

A coalition of attorneys general fought the Trump administration's rules that weakened the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive policies and allowed employers to opt out based on moral or religious grounds.The judge held that the administration lacked legal authority for the action.

Date of decision: January 14, 2019•Court: E.D. Pa.•Judge: Wendy Beetlestone

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pennsylvania-and-n-j-aca-contraceptive-ruling/d62a719d-7753-4250-bde2-c14ac231277a_note.html?questionId=78635f09-c50e-4b7f-abb1-3e1a0c7a2dd7

Other rulings

The administration has taken hits from the courts in a variety of other cases, including Trump's attempt to de-credential CNN's Jim Acosta, trim the rights of federal employees, change the rules on predatory lending to students and even Trump's practice of blocking his critics on Twitter.

First Amendment
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump

A federal court ruled that Trump's practice of blocking his critics on Twitter violated the First Amendment.

Date of decision: May 23, 2018•Court: S.D.N.Y.•Judge: Naomi Buchwald

Read more about this case
https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf

Labor relations
American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump

Executive orders making it easier to fire federal employees and weaken representation were struck down as a violation of federal labor-management relations law.

Date of decision: August 25, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Ketanji Jackson

Read more about this case
https://www.nteu.org/~/media/Files/nteu/docs/public/eo-lawsuit/us-district-court-decision.pdf

Education
Bauer v. DeVos

Nineteen states and the District sued the Education Department and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for delaying regulations protecting students from predatory lending practices. The court vacated the department rule, saying it dispensed with improper rulemaking procedures.

Date of decision: September 17, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Randolph Moss

Read more about this case
https://www.citizen.org/system/files/case_documents/bauer_memorandum_opinion_and_order_on_vacatur.pdf

First Amendment
CNN, Acosta v. Dept. of Justice

CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging a First Amendment violation and demanding that journalist Jim Acosta's White House credentials be restored. A federal court ruled that due process and notice must be given before the administration can revoke a press pass.

Date of decision: November 19, 2018•Court: D.D.C.•Judge: Timothy Kelly

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/judge's-ruling-in-cnn-v.-trump/50d21e90-c98b-48a8-91d7-2691410312b1_note.html?questionId=090c88ed-1e26-401d-823d-b4e53c9c444f

Civil rights, equal opportunity
National Women's Law Center et al v. OMB et al

A judge ordered the Trump administration to reinstate an Obama-era rule that required companies to report pay data by race and gender, a move advocates say will help shrink the wage gap.

Date of decision: March 04, 2019•Court: D. D.C.•Judge: Tanya Chutkan

Read more about this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-women-s-law-center-et-al-v-omb/58752a58-0489-46d5-93d8-3340883f1df3_note.html?questionId=94a414ad-bc61-4250-970c-800d6fc4d8f6

Education, IDEA
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates v DeVos

A judge ruled that Education Secretary Betsy Devos violated the APA by delaying a rule to ensure children of color are not disproportionately punished or sent to special-education classrooms.

Date of decision: March 07, 2019•Court: D. D.C. •Judge: Tanya Chutkan

Read more about this case
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1636-31


About this story

The Washington Post compiled cases in which a court has issued an opinion against a Trump administration policy decision in response to a lawsuit. The data is collected from federal district and appellate courts around the country. Since there is no master list available from a government source and "policy decision" is a subjective concept, but the list may not capture every case.