The Legal Landscape

Executive Order 14149: Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14149 primarily seeks to underscore First Amendment speech protections.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • As stated in its introduction, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 14149 in part motivated by claims that the “[Biden] administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech . . . .”[1] However, private companies largely control how content is regulated on their platforms—without direction from the federal government—because they “have a First Amendment right to control the content of their publications.”[2]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • The Supreme Court has recognized platforms’ First Amendment right to regulate content on their platforms—despite attempts by states to impose restrictions on their content moderation.[3]
  • There have also been recent challenges to who has standing (i.e., ability to bring a lawsuit) to challenge content moderation restrictions and, in 2024, the Supreme Court held that two states and five social media users did not have standing to sue executive branch officials and agencies over their claims that “the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment.”[4] This decision could affect the types of plaintiffs that challenge attempts by the government to regulate platforms’ content.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14149 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14155: Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • By statute, the U.S. can withdraw from the World Health Organization with two conditions: the U.S. (1) must give one-year notice and (2) must continue its financial obligations to the World Health Organization “in full for the Organization’s current fiscal year.”[5] Executive Order 14155 instructs the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to “take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to . . . pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the [World Health Organization].”[6] While the Executive Order does not make clear if withdrawal with “all practicable speed” will happen before the U.S.’ obligations are paid by the end of fiscal year, if the U.S. withdraws prematurely, this could contradict federal law that sets out withdrawal procedure.[7]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • The U.S. is authorized to withdraw from the World Health Organization by statute, but it is not clear whether congressional approval is required for withdrawal or if the President can withdraw unilaterally.[8] When President Trump attempted to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization in July 2020, some members of Congress introduced legislation to prevent withdrawal.[9] To date, Democrats have not yet introduced similar legislation in the 119th Congress, but there have been several bills introduced by Republicans related to the U.S.’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization including H.R. 54, which would “require[] the President to immediately withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) and prohibit[] using any federal funds to provide for U.S. participation in the WHO,” and H.R. 401, which would “prohibit[] the United States from providing any assessed or voluntary contributions to the World Health Organization.”[10]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • We did not identify any legal precedents that could affect the enforceability of Executive Order 14155.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14155 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14156: Declaring a National Energy Emergency

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • We did not identify any existing federal laws or regulations that this Executive Order departs from, modifies, expands, or contradicts. Executive Order 14156 appears primarily to depart from prior policy positions.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • Section 2 of Executive Order 14156 directs the heads of agencies to “identify and exercise any lawful emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other lawful authorities they may possess, to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources, including, but not limited to, on Federal lands.”[11] The agencies are responsible for making an “emergency” determination under their statutory authority, and these statutes (e.g., the Defense Production Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act) set forth different criteria for declaring an emergency. Agencies will likely have discretion in determining how their emergency authority is used to carry out this Executive Order. Executive Order 14156 will also implicate the federal permitting and contracting process for energy-related activities.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • During the first Trump Administration, President Trump used emergency authority to construct funds on the US-Mexico border. There were several cases filed in response challenging President Trumps authority to do so under the National Emergencies Act and other statutory authority to try to divert funds to fund the boarder wall.[12] Notably, in July 2020, the Ninth Circuit held that 10 U.S.C. § 2808, which grants the President with emergency military construction authority, did not authorize eleven boarder wall construction projects.[13] In another 2020 case concerning the use of President Trump’s use of the National Emergencies Act, a D.C. District Court acknowledged that an agency’s finding of an emergency could be struck down as arbitrary and capricious.[14] Scholars have also argued that an agency finding of an emergency solely because an executive order directed the agency to find such an emergency may not be sufficient to comply with the underlying statute.[15]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14156 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Yes, Executive Order 14160 departs from a long-standing interpretation of the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” For over 150 years, courts have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as conferring citizenship to anyone born on U.S. territory regardless of the immigration status of the individual’s parents.[16]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • The federal government has broad power to regulate immigration. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, Congress has “plenary” power over immigration, “giving it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals.”[17] The Executive Branch has the power to enforce the laws, including those related to immigration, where Congress has delegated authority to the President.[18] Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Secretary of Homeland Security power to administer and enforce the statute and “all other laws relating to immigration and naturalization of aliens.”[19] The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 also gives the President power to detain and deport “alien enemies” during wartime.[20]
  • States play a more limited role in immigration enforcement than the federal government, but the federal government has delegated some authority to states related to the enforcement of immigration laws.[21] For example, Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 “authoriz[es] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to delegate to state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under the agency’s direction and oversight.”[22]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • S. courts have said that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship since the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that an individual who was born in the U.S. to parents of Chinese descent was a U.S. citizen.[23]
  • In February 2025, when granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Executive Order 14160, a federal judge pointed to Wong Kim Ark for the constitutionality of birthright citizenship saying: “Executive Order [14160] directly conflicts with Wong Kim Ark. Under Wong Kim Ark, a person ‘born in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ encompasses every person born in this country save specific classes of people. The Executive Order purports to expand the classes of people that are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ and thus to deny citizenship by birth to people who are entitled to it under the Constitution.”[24]
  • The language of Wong Kim Ark was codified in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a U.S. citizen.[25]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • There are several cases challenging Executive Order 14160 including[26]:
    • Casa Inc., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 8:25-cv-00201-DLB (D. Md.)
      • On February 4, 2025, two immigrants-rights organizations and individual members sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14160 violates the Fourteenth Amendment by “interfere[ing] with, deny[ing], or fail[ing] to recognize citizenship that is granted by the United States Constitution” and the Immigration and Nationality Act “[b]y refusing to acknowledge citizenship that has been recognized by an Act of Congress, and by taking actions that are inconsistent with that citizenship.”[27] On February 5, a federal district judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation and enforcement of Executive Order 14160.[28] On February 13, defendants appealed to the Fourth Circuit and, on February 28, the Fourth Circuit denied their request for a partial stay.[29] On March 13, defendants appealed the denial of partial stay to the Supreme Court.[30]
    • New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump, 1:25-cv-38 (D.N.H.)
      • On January 20, 2025, three nonprofit plaintiffs sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which “mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause” “because it denies citizenship to the children of noncitizens who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”[31] On February 10, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Administration from enforcing the Executive Order.[32]
    • Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc; La Colaborativa v. Donald J. Trump et al, 1:25-cv-10135-LTS (D. Mass.)
      • On January 20, 2025, plaintiffs, including nonprofit organizations and an expectant mother who is in the U.S. with Temporary Protected Status and expects to be in the U.S. when she gives birth, sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and “parallel statutory protections of 8 USC § 1401” by “instruct[ing] federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of people born in the United States” which will result in “federal agencies citizenship benefits to many thousands of American citizens” and Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment by “singl[ing] the targeted citizens out for disparate treatment based on the alienage of their parents . . . [and] ensur[ing] that the targeted citizens will receive fewer rights and benefits than those deemed “true” citizens by Defendants.”[33]
      • On February 13, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order holding that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401.”[34] On February 19, defendants appealed the order.[35]
    • State of New Jersey et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, 1:25-cv-10139 (D. Mass.)
      • On January 20, 2025, a number of states and states attorneys general sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14160 violates (1) the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because “[the President] lacks authority to strip individuals of their right to citizenship”; (2) Article I Section I and Article II Section 3 of the Constitution because “[t]he President has no authority to override Section 301[ of the Immigration Nationality Act]’s statutory guarantee of citizenship, and his Executive Order directly contradicts Section 301’s requirements by usurping Congress’s legislative authority and violating the Constitution’s separation of powers”; and (3) the Immigration and Nationality Act because “[t]he President has no authority to override Section 301’s statutory guarantee of citizenship.”[36]
      • On February 13, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order holding that “plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401.”[37] On March 11, the First Circuit denied the Administration’s motion for a stay.[38] On March 13, the Administration appealed to the Supreme Court for a partial stay.[39]
    • State of Washington et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.)
      • On January 21, 2025, three states (Washington, Arizona, and Illinois) sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14160 violates the “Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship to all individuals born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and the Immigration and Nationality Act’s “guarantee of birthright citizenship to all individuals born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”[40]
      • On February 6, a federal judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order.[41] Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and also moved to stay the district court’s injunction, which the Ninth Circuit denied.[42] On March 13, defendants appealed the denial of stay to the Supreme Court.[43]

Executive Order 14162: Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • No, Executive Order 14162 primarily deals with the United States’ international environmental commitments.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • In response to Executive Order 14162, state governments committed to meeting certain climate targets to try to address the void resulting from the U.S.’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. The bipartisan United States Climate Alliance, which is a “coalition of two dozen governors representing nearly 60 percent of the U.S. economy and 55 percent of the U.S. population,” committed to “continue America’s work to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and slash climate pollution.”[44] On January 20, 2025, the Alliance wrote a letter to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change expressing their commitment to climate action to meet the Paris goals, underscoring their “broad authority” as states “under the U.S. Constitution to . . . advance the climate solutions we need” and that “[t]his does not change with a shift in federal administration.”[45]
  • Executive Order 14162 also does not withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a 1992 treaty that was adopted “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations ‘at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system’”[46]—because a two-thirds vote from the Senate would likely be required to withdraw the U.S. from this treaty obligation.[47]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • We did not identify any legal precedents that could affect the enforceability of Executive Order 14162.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14162 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14163: Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14163 likely contradicts the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), (later amended by the Refugee Act of 1980), which created a “permanent and systematic procedure” for refugee admissions and gave the president the ability to set ceilings for the number of admitted refugees (while requiring the president to consult Congress when creating admission and resettlement plans).[48] Executive Order 14163 suspends all refugee admissions under USRAP until the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State determine that the admission of refugees “under the USRAP would be in the interests of the United States.”[49]
  • The executive’s authority under Executive Order 14163 is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which provides that if the President determines that “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”[50] However, the blanket suspension of all refugee admissions under the USRAP does not contain any time period or other bounds, and refugee admission is paused indefinitely, to include “statutorily created programs [under the] USRAP.”[51]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • Under existing Supreme Court precedent, Congress has “plenary” power over immigration, “giving it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals,” to include asylum seekers and refugees, can enter into the United States.[52] Here, the Refugee Act “reflects Congress’s intent that refugee admission decisions involve both political branches, not unilateral executive action.”[53] The Refugee Act provides for an overarching legislative policy of “a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to this country of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and . . . comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.”[54] Executive Order 14163 threatens to circumvent this congressional policy altogether by removing all procedures for admission to the United States.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • The scope of the executive branch’s power in immigration enforcement using 8 U.S.C. §§1182(f) and 1185(a) of the INA was challenged following President Trump’s 2017 “Travel Ban” Executive Order 13,769, which “placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states.”[55] In the Travel Ban case, the Supreme Court considered the President’s authority through § 1182(f) of the INA and noted that “[the existing statutory framework] does not give the President authority to countermand Congress’s considered policy judgments.”[56] While the President did not try to “expressly override particular provisions of the INA” with the Travel Ban Executive Order, the Supreme Court suggested that there may be limits to executive action on immigration enforcement where the action “expressly override[s]” a provision of federal law (here, potentially the Refugee Act and statutorily created refugee admissions programs).[57] Furthermore, in the Travel Ban case, the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to suspend entry temporarily for certain classes of immigrants, not indefinitely, as Executive Order 14163 does.[58]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-255-JNW (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2025)
    • On February 10, 2025, a consortium of individual refugees (current applicants and recipients), refugee sponsors, and community service organizations that support refugees, sued the Trump Administration seeking to enjoin enforcement of Executive Order 14163.[59] Plaintiffs alleged that Executive Order 14163 violates (1) the Refugee Act; (2) various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); (3) the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause; (iv) and the separation of powers.[60]
    • On February 18, 2025, nineteen states attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs, arguing that Executive Order 14163 improperly relies on the INA for authority and improperly references state-declared emergencies related to migration, including those of states who were represented as amici.[61] Executive Order 14163 states that “[s]ome jurisdictions, like New York and Massachusetts, have even recently declared states of emergency because of increased migration,” as one of the rationale for Executive Order 14163, but the amicus brief notes that the emergencies referenced were declared in order to obtain additional federal funding to support refugee admission and resettlement.[62]
    • On February 28, 2025, a federal judge granted plaintiffs a preliminary nationwide injunction, finding that the Executive Order “countermand[s] Congress’s considered policy judgment” expressed in the Refugee Act.[63] Furthermore, the Court found that Executive Order 14163 exceeds the President’s authority to temporarily limit refugee entry by banning entry altogether indefinitely.[64] Finally, the Court found that Executive Order 14163 likely violates due process and would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiffs without emergency injunctive relief.[65]
    • On March 3, 2025, during District Court proceedings, Defendants filed an emergency appeal to stay the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[66]
    • On March 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, in which they alleged that the government violated the preliminary injunction.[67] Plaintiffs moved for a second preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order.
    • On March 21, 2025, the Court denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, ruling that an “injunction is necessary to protect Plaintiffs from immediate, irreparable harm” and a stay of the injunction would go against the public interest.[68]
    • On March 24, 2025, the Court kept in place the original preliminary injunction granted on February 28, 2025.[69] The judge noted that the executive branch has “significant discretion over how to administer USRAP, including which partners to work with, how much funding to allocate to specific initiatives, and what procedures to adopt. But they lack the discretion to effectively dismantle the program Congress established.”[70] The Court also noted that the provision of this Executive Order that cuts off funding to certain refugee programs administered under the USRAP is likely arbitrary and capricious.[71]
    • On March 25, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel partially denied the Trump Administration’s Mar. 3 motion to stay the temporary injunction.[72] The Ninth Circuit kept in place the preliminary injunction for individuals who were “conditionally approved for refugee status by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services before January 20, 2025.”[73] The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction for all other aspects of the Order, largely allowing the Order to go into effect while the appeal is considered.[74]
  • United States Conf. of Cath. Bishops v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:25-CV-00465 (TNM) (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025)
    • On February 18, 2025, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which provides refugee-related resettlement services for which they received federal funding, sued the Trump Administration arguing that the Order violated the APA, among other claims. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order as emergency relief, which was denied on February 20, 2025.[75] In the midst of the ongoing litigation, the Department of State cancelled the Conference’s contracts, changing the nature of the litigation to a contract cancellation dispute.
    • On March 11, 2025, a district court judge further denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency preliminary injunction, noting that the Court “has no authority to remedy” Plaintiffs’ contractual disputes, since the executive branch has significant discretion in how it can spend appropriated funds.[76] Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and a decision has not been issued yet.

Executive Order 14164: Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • The U.S. has a federal death penalty that allows the federal government to seek the death penalty for a list of federal crimes.[77] While the Biden Administration issued a moratorium on carrying out federal death sentencings, Executive Order 14164 instructs the U.S. Attorney General to “pursue the death penalty for all crimes of a severity demanding its use.”[78] Executive Order 14164 also instructs the U.S. Attorney General to seek the death penalty, “where consistent with applicable law,” for “every federal capital crime involving (i) [t]he murder of a law-enforcement officer; or (ii) [a] capital crime committed by an alien illegally present in this country.”[79]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • Each state has its own legislation related to the death penalty. Currently, 23 states have abolished the death penalty, while 27 states still have the death penalty.[80] However, even in states that have abolished the death penalty, the federal government can seek the death penalty for individuals convicted of federal crimes that permit a death penalty sentence.[81]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • While Executive Order 14164 directs the Attorney General to “take all appropriate action to seek the overruling of Supreme Court precedents that limit the authority of state and federal governments to impose capital punishment,” there are several Supreme Court precedents that impose constitutional limits on the death penalty. Notably:
    • In 1972, the Supreme Court held in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), that Georgia’s death penalty scheme violated the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment because it gave juries “complete sentencing discretion” over whether to issue the death penalty, which could lead to “arbitrary sentencing.”[82] This decision “effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes” (but many states subsequently rewrote their death penalty statutes to address the issues identified in Furman).[83]
    • In 2002, the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), held that sentencing intellectually disabled individuals to death was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.[84]
    • In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited sentencing to death individuals who were convicted of crimes that occurred when they were under age 18.[85]
  • Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
    • Executive Order 14164 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14168: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • We did not identify any existing federal laws or regulations that this Executive Order departs from, modifies, expands, or contradicts. Executive Order 14168 appears primarily to depart from prior policy positions.[86]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • Executive Order 14168 applies only to federal agencies, not private employers. The executive branch has broad latitude and discretion over federal agencies, provided it is not directing agencies to engage in unconstitutional or otherwise illegal activity.
  • Executive Order 14168 indicates that the White House will draft “proposed bill text to codify the definitions in this order,” indicating that the executive branch agrees that the underpinning authority comes from Congress. Congress may or may not agree to bring up such a bill for debate and vote.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that an employer violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex.”[87] Executive Order 14168 directs the Attorney General to “issue guidance to agencies to correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision” in Bostock.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?[88]
  • Doe v. McHenry, 1:25-CV-286-RCL (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025)
    • On January 30, 2024, three transgender women in prison sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14168’s provisions requiring Plaintiffs to be moved into a men’s facility and cease any medical procedures related to gender dysphoria violate the Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
    • On February 4, 2025, a District Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order on the “narrow” grounds of plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim.[89] The Court noted that, for the Eighth Amendment claim to proceed, “the plaintiff must be confronted with an ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm,’ and prison officials must knowingly or recklessly subject the plaintiff to such a known risk” and, here, Plaintiffs successfully showed they were likely to succeed with their argument that transgender inmates are at a higher risk of physical and sexual violence when housed in facilities of the opposite gender, and that the government was aware of this heightened risk.[90]
    • The Court declined to grant the temporary restraining order on the plaintiff’s other grounds, noting that the government “may be correct that [the Prison Litigation Reform Act] foreclose[s] any APA challenges to facility designations and transfer decisions.”[91] The Court said that, while the Bureau of Prisons has significant discretion in creating policies, including as related to transgender inmates, the transfer and restriction of hormonal treatments was not a policy created by the Bureau because it was ordered by the Executive Branch.[92]
    • On February 18, 2025, the Court granted a preliminary injunction on the same grounds as the temporary restraining order.[93] Plaintiffs then moved to amend their complaint to add additional plaintiffs and seek the injunction on behalf of those additional individuals; the motions were granted.
  • Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10195 (D. Mass. January 26, 2025)
    • On January 26, 2025, a transgender woman in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons, who received hormone therapy and was housed in a female prison, sued the Trump Administration arguing that, under Executive Order 14168, she was unlawfully transferred to a male prison.[94] That same day, the District Court granted Plaintiff a temporary restraining order, directing the prison officials to continue Plaintiff’s hormone treatment and not transfer her to the male facility.[95] On February 7, the Court transferred the case to the District Court for the district where the Plaintiff is presently confined.[96]
  • Orr v. Trump, 1:25-CV-10313-JEK (D. Mass. Mar. 18, 2025)
    • On February 7, 2025, seven transgender and nonbinary individuals sued the Trump Administration over Executive Order 14168’s provision directing the Secretary of State to limit U.S. passport sex designations options to “male” and “female”. Plaintiffs argued that Executive Order 14168 violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s right to travel, the Fifth Amendment’s right to privacy, and the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.[97] Plaintiffs argued that the passport restriction is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex, and is depriving plaintiffs and transgender individuals the freedom of movement and travel into and outside of the United States.[98] Plaintiffs further argued that Executive Order 14168 violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as an arbitrary and capricious action. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the passport provision of the Order, which has not yet been ruled on.

Executive Order 14170: Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • No, but Executive Order 14170 directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to review and potentially revise prior practices regarding federal employee hiring processes, including DEI hiring initiatives and considerations.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • While the executive branch has broad authority and discretion over its internal hiring practices, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance”[99], is still in effect and “likely would cover the vast majority of [employment discrimination] actions, except a[n employment] transfer that did not result in any harm to the employee.”[100]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • No legal precedents identified that could affect enforceability.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14170 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14173 revokes Executive Order 11246, which was a civil-rights era executive order that aimed to “enforce federal civil rights laws ‘for the benefit of all Americans’ . . . [by] establishing antidiscrimination requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors and in the administration of federally assisted construction contracts.”[101] Executive Order 11246 required federal contractors to, among other things, not discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.[102] Executive Order 11246 was in place for over 60 years before the Trump Administration rescinded it, and was enforced by the Department of Labor through its Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs branch.[103]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance,”[104] is still in effect and “likely would cover the vast majority of [employment discrimination] actions, except a[n employment] transfer that did not result in any harm to the employee.”[105] Title VII also only covers employers with more than 15 employees, but there are also state laws that may have more expansive antidiscrimination protections.[106]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • In 2019, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2019) that Title VII also prohibits an employer from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.[107] Certain labor laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, may also protect employees who discuss compensation in some situations.[108]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., 1:25-cv-00333-ABA (D. Md.)
    • On February 3, 2025, organizations representing diversity officers and education professionals sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14173 violates (1) the spending clause because “[t]he Constitution gives neither the President nor his subordinate executive branch officials authority to unilaterally terminate “‘equity-related’ grants and contracts” without express statutory authority”; (2) Fifth Amendment due process because it “‘fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited’ and ‘is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement’”; (3) First Amendment freedom of speech because “[the Executive Order’s] thread of ‘civil compliance investigations’ impermissibly restricts the exercise of [plaintiffs’] constitutionally protected speech based on its content and viewpoint”; and (4) the separation of powers because “the President and the executive branch have no authority to dictate government spending or place conditions on the spending power that is vested in the legislative branch.”[109]
    • On February 21, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Administration from (1) pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, cancelling, or terminating any awards, contracts, or obligations on the basis of the Executive Order’s instruction to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts; (2) requiring grantees or contractors from certifying or representing that “[they] do[] not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws”; and (3) implementing the Executive Order’s enforcement provision.[110]
    • On February 24, the Trump Administration appealed to the Fourth Circuit and, on March 14, the Fourth Circuit granted the Trump Administration’s petition for stay of preliminary injunction pending appeal.[111]
  • National Urban League v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00471 (D.D.C.)
    • On February 19, 2025, three nonprofits that identify as “committed to principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” sued the Trump Administration challenging three Executive Orders: No. 14151 “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing”; No. 14168 “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”; and No. 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”[112] Plaintiffs argued that the Executive Orders violate their First Amendment rights by, among other things, “impermissibly burden[ing] and chill[ing] Plaintiffs’ exercise of constitutionally protected speech”; their Fifth Amendment rights because, among other things, the vagueness of the Executive Orders “fail to provide reasonable and adequate notice as to which speech, advocacy, and activities may or may not be permitted”; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and that the Executive Orders “usurp” Congress’ legislative authority “by unilaterally terminating or modifying federal grants and contracts without congressional authorization for such actions.”[113] The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.[114]

Executive Order 14185: Restoring America’s Fighting Force

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • We did not identify any existing federal laws or regulations. However, Executive Order 14185 departs from prior long-standing policy and executive orders committed to promoting diversity in the Armed Forces.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • We did not identify any non-legal challenges to enforcement.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • Not presently. However, many other DEI-related executive orders have been subject to legal challenges.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14185 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14190: Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14190 potentially modifies who can receive federal funding by requiring the Secretaries of Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services to recommend a strategy to eliminate federal funds for educational programs that promote “anti-American, subversive, harmful and false ideologies,” including resources based on “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology.”[115] Executive Order 14190 also potentially expands offensive legal action against K-12 educators who may “unlawfully facilitat[e] the social transition of a minor student.”[116]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • States generally regulate K-12 educational institutions and programs and direct curricula, although many institutions and programs rely upon federal funding in some capacity. Executive Order 14190 sets up a potential challenge testing the limits between state and federal authority. Notably:
    • The split between state and federal authority in the context of K-12 education and curriculum is codified in statute, and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act says that “[n]o officer or employee of the Federal Government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this chapter.”[117]
    • The Department of Education Organization Act states that “no provision of a program administered by the Secretary [of Education] or by any other officer of the Department [of Education] shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel.”[118] Certain commentators have speculated that Executive Order 14190 may be considered such an exercise of direction, supervision, or control over educational curriculum and programming, which would be inconsistent with the Department of Education Organization Act and inconsistent with applicable state law regarding education.[119] States with laws codifying protections in K-12 institutions based upon gender, for example, may come into conflict with this Order, which could trigger litigation over whether the Order preempts inconsistent state law.
  • Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
    • Executive Order 14190 arguably impinges upon the First Amendment right to free speech.[120] This Executive Order instructs directed agencies (1) provide strategy for and reports relating to eliminating federal funding for “discriminatory . . . indoctrination” (including based on “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology”) in K-12 schools; (2) work with state officials to enforce the law and file action against school officials and teachers who, for example, unlawfully facilitate the “social transition” of minor students; and (3) prioritize funding for “patriotic education.”^[121] Executive Order 14190 is already being implemented, including by the K-12 educational institutions that are run by the Department of Defense.
    • Courts have long agreed that the First Amendment extends onto school grounds to provide protection to students’ and teachers’ free speech rights.^[122] Notably, the Supreme Court explained that an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech is the right to receive information and ideas.^[123] This right flows both from the sender’s First Amendment right to send ideas and the recipient’s right to receive them in order to meaningfully exercise their own rights of speech.^[124] This is particularly important in the context of schools: students must remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, and to gain new maturity and understanding.^[125]
    • Limiting speech, expression, and dissemination of information/ideas in a manner that restricts certain viewpoints is “the most blatant and egregious form” of a First Amendment violation.^[126]
  • Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
    • Executive Order 14190 has not been directly challenged yet. However, on March 10, 2025, eight states sued the Department of Education for “arbitrarily terminat[ing] all grants previously awarded under the Teacher Quality Partnership . . . Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development . . . Grant Program in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”[127] The states alleged that the Department took the actions in part as a result of Executive Order 14190, which directed the Department of Education to develop a plan to eliminate federal funding for “illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools.”[128]
    • On March 10, 2025, the states’ motion for a temporary restraining order was granted.[129] Plaintiffs sought an extension to the temporary restraining order, while the government sought a stay pending appeal. Defendants ultimately appealed the temporary restraining order to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal on April 4, 2025, indicating that the case itself may need to be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims.[130]

Executive Order 14191: Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • No, school vouchers have largely been regulated at the state level to date.[131]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • While Executive Order 14191 says that the Secretary of Education will issue guidance for states regarding “how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives,” states will still control how funds are spent. States also have varying programs regarding school choice, including programs for tax-credit scholarships, vouchers, and direct tax credits.[132]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • Yes, there have been a number of cases about school vouchers, both on the federal and state levels. Notably:
    • In 2002, the Supreme Court held in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), that vouchers could be used for both religious-affiliated and non-religious-affiliated schools.[133]
    • In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. __ (2020), that rule issued by the Montana Department of Revenue prohibiting families from using scholarships for private school tuition at religious schools was unconstitutional and in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, which “protects religious observers against unequal treatment,” because the rule “does not zero in on any essentially religious course of instruction but rather bars aid to a religious school ‘simply because of what it is’— a religious school” and the rule did not satisfy strict scrutiny review.[134]
  • Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
    • Executive Order 14191 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Executive Order 14206: Protecting Second Amendment Rights

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14206 directs the U.S. Attorney General to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment,” including the Biden Administration’s rules, regulations, plans, orders, and reports related to firearms.[135] The primary implication for existing federal laws and regulations related is whether the gov’t will abandoning its defense of certain firearm-related lawsuits.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement? (limits of federal power, etc.)
  • Guns are regulated both on the federal and state levels. Key federal gun laws cannot be repealed by the executive without congressional action. Guns are also regulated on the state level, and many of these state regulations have been the subject of legal challenges that subsequently have shaped the scope of the Second Amendment.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • Under existing Supreme Court precedent, “modern firearm regulations that burden the right to keep and bear arms are constitutional only where they are consistent with history and tradition.”[136] The historical record must be presented by the parties and “the government, not the challenger, bears the burden of showing historical analogues that are relevantly similar to the modern regulation.”[137]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges? If so, what is the status of those cases?
  • Executive Order 14206 is not currently facing legal challenges.

 

 

[1] Exec. Or. 14149 (January 20, 2025).

[2] David Greene, Platforms Have First Amendment Right to Curate Speech, As We’ve Long Argued, Supreme Court Said, But Sends Laws Back to Lower Court To Decide If That Applies To Other Functions Like Messaging, EFF (July 13, 2024), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/platforms-have-first-amendment-right-curate-speech-weve-long-argued-supreme-1#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20long,%2D44%20(1974).%E2%80%9D.

[3] NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 603 U. S. ____ (2024).

[4] Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U. S. ____ (2024).

[5] 22 U.S.C. § 290c.

[6] Exec. Or. 14155 (January 20, 2025).

[7] See The World Health Organization (WHO): Background and U.S. Withdrawal, Congressional Research Service (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12496/IN12496.2.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.; see, e.g., S.4240 – No WHO Withdrawal Act, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4240/text (last visited Mar. 21, 2025).

[10] Summary: H.R.54 — 119th Congress (2025-2026), Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/54?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22%5C%22world+health+organization%5C%22%22%7D&s=3&r=52 (last visited Mar. 22, 2025); Summary: H.R.401 — 119th Congress (2025-2026), Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/401?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22%5C%22world+health+organization%5C%22%22%7D&s=3&r=15 (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[11] Exec. Or. 14156 (Jan. 20, 2025).

[12] See, e.g., Border Wall Emergency Declaration Litigation, Brennan Center for Justice (Oct. 16, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/border-wall-emergency-declaration-litigation.

[13] Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-16102 (9th Cir. 2020).

[14] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Trump, 453 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2020).

[15] See, e.g., Olivia Guarna and Michael Burger, Demystifying President Trump’s “National Energy Emergency” and the Scope of Emergency Authority, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Feb. 14, 2025), https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/02/14/demystifying-president-trumps-national-energy-emergency-and-the-scope-of-emergency-authority/.

[16] See, e.g., United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); John Fritze, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship by arguing about something else, CNN (Mar. 14, 2025 3:42 PM EDT), https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/14/politics/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-explainer/index.html.

[17] ArtI.S8.C18.8.1 Overview of Congress’s Immigration Powers, Congress.gov, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/#ALDF_00015258 (last visited Mar. 17, 2025).

[18] The President’s Broad Legal Authority to Act on Immigration, National Immigration Law Center (August 2014), https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/president-legal-authority-2014-08-20.pdf.

[19] 8 U.S.C § 1103(1)(a).

[20] 50 U.S.C. § 21; see The Alien Enemies Act, Explained, Brennan Center for Justice (Oct, 9, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained.

[21] See, e.g., State Map on Immigration Enforcement 2024, Immigrant Legal Resource Center (Nov. 8, 2024), https://www.ilrc.org/state-map-immigration-enforcement-2024.

[22] Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g (last visited Mar. 17, 2025).

[23] Amy Howe, A history of birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 5, 2025 9:57 am), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/a-history-of-birthright-citizenship-at-the-supreme-court/.

[24] Casa, Inc., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 8:25-cv-00201-DLB (D. Md. February 5, 2025).

[25] 8 U.S.C. § 1401.

[26] Other cases include: Franco Aleman et al. v. Trump et al., 2:25-cv-00163-JCC (W.D. Wash. January 24, 2025) (consolidated with State of Washington, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash. February 6, 2025)); OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Marco Rubio et al., 1:25-cv-00287 (D.D.C. January 30, 2025) (no decisions yet issued)); County of Santa Clara v. Trump, et al., 5:25-cv-00981 (N.D. Cal.) (proceedings stayed pending the outcome of Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.)); Le v. Trump (briefing held in abeyance pending Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.) litigation); New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump et al. 1:25-cv-01309 (S.D.N.Y.) (no decisions issued yet).

[27] Complaint, Casa, Inc., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 8:25-cv-00201-DLB (D. Md. January 21, 2025).

[28] Id.

[29] Order, Casa, Inc., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 25-1153 (4th Cir. February 28, 2025).

[30] Application for a Partial Stay of the Injunction Issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Donald J. Trump, et al., v. Casa, Inc., No. 24A (2025).

[31] Complaint, New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case 1:25-cv-00038 (D. N.H. January 20, 2025).

[32] Preliminary Injunction, New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case 1:25-cv-00038 (D. N.H. February 10, 2025).

[33] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, O. Doe et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10135 (D. Mass. January 20, 2025).

[34] Preliminary Injunction, O. Doe et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10135 (D. Mass. February 13, 2025).

[35] Notice of Appeal of Preliminary Injunction, O. Doe et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10135 (D. Mass. February 13, 2025).

[36] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, State of New Jersey, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10139 (D. Mass. January 21, 2025).

[37] Preliminary Injunction, State of New Jersey, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10139 (D. Mass. February 13, 2025).

[38] State of New Jersey v. Trump, 25-1170 (1st Cir. 2025).

[39] Donald J. Trump, et al., v. State of New Jersey, et al., 24A (Mar. 2025).

[40] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, State of Washington, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash. January 21, 2025).

[41] Order, State of Washington, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash. February 6, 2025).

[42] Order, State of Washington, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., 25-807 (9th Cir. 2025).

[43] Application for a Partial Stay of the Injunction Issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Donald Trump, et al. v. State of Washington, et al., No. 24A (2025).

[44] Letter to Executive Secretary Stiell, United States Climate Alliance (Jan. 20, 2025), https://usclimatealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FORMATTED_USCA-Co-Chair-Letter-to-UNFCCC-250112.pdf.

[45] Id.

[46] UN Climate Change Conferences, United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/un-climate-conferences (last visited Mar. 20, 2025).

[47] See, e.g., Five things to know about the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Woodwell Research Center (Jan 30, 2025), https://www.woodwellclimate.org/us-withdrawal-paris-agreement/.

[48] Pub. L. No. 96-212, § 101, 94 Stat. 102 (1980). Executive Order 14163 also revoked the Biden Administration’s Executive Order 14013, which aimed to “enhance access to the [United States Refugee Admissions Program] for people who are more vulnerable to persecution, including women, children, and other individuals who are at risk of persecution related to their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.” Exec. Or. 140131 (Feb. 4, 2021).

[49] Exec. Or. 14163 (Jan. 20, 2025).

[50] Id.

[51] Pacito v. Trump, 2025 WL 655075, at *20 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2025).

[52] ArtI.S8.C18.8.1 Overview of Congress’s Immigration Powers, Congress.gov, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/#ALDF_00015258 (last visited Mar. 17, 2025).

[53] Pacito, 2025 WL 655075, at *2.

[54] Pub. L. No. 96-212, § 101(b), 94 Stat. 102, § 101.

[55] Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018).

[56] Id.

[57] 8 U.S.C. § 1157 et seq.

[58] Hawaii, 585 U.S. at 687.

[59] Complaint, Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-255-JNW (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2025).

[60] Id.

[61] Brief for Amicus Curie, Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-255-JNW (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2025).

[62] Id. at *3-4.

[63] Id. at *11.

[64] Id.

[65] Id. at *22.

[66] Pacito v. Trump, 2025 WL 655075 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2025).

[67] Second Amended Complaint, Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-255-JNW (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2025).

[68] Order, Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-255-JNW, 2025 WL 887343, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 21, 2025).

[69] Order, Pacito v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-255-JNW, 2025 WL 893530, at *15 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 24, 2025).

[70] Id. at *7.

[71] Id. at *10.

[72] Pacito, et al. v. Trump, et al., 25-1313 (9th Cir. 2025).

[73] Id.

[74] Id.

[75] United States Conf. of Cath. Bishops v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:25-CV-00465 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025).

[76] Order, United States Conf. of Cath. Bishops v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:25-CV-00465 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025).

[77] Four Things to Know About the Federal Death Penalty, Brennan Center for Justice (Dec. 10, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/four-things-know-about-federal-death-penalty; Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty (last visited Mar. 20, 2025).

[78] Exec. Or. 14,164 (January 20, 2025).

[79] Id.

[80] State by State, Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state (last visited Mar. 20, 2025).

[81] Background on the Federal Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/federal-death-penalty/background-on-the-federal-death-penalty (last visited Mar. 20, 2025).

[82] Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America, Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/background/history-of-the-death-penalty/constitutionality-of-the-death-penalty-in-america (last visited Mar. 20, 2025).

[83] Id.

[84] Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

[85] Roper v. Simmons Resource Page, Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/united-states-supreme-court/significant-supreme-court-opinions/roper-v-simmons-resource-page (last visited Mar. 20, 2025).

[86] Executive Order 14168 also may potentially implicate existing federal contractual obligations, by directing agencies “to end the Federal funding of gender ideology” and requiring agencies to create plans to impose the requirements of Executive Order 14168 on federal contractors.

[87] 590 U.S. 644, 649 (2020).

[88] Additional lawsuits have been filed challenging this Executive Order, so this list is not exhaustive. Certain lawsuits with similar fact patterns have not been ruled on yet and are not included here.

[89] Order, Doe v. McHenry, 1:25-CV-286-RCL (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025).

[90] Id.

[91] Id.

[92] Id.

[93] Order, Doe v. McHenry, 1:25-CV-286-RCL (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2025).

[94] Complaint, Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10195 (D. Mass. January 26, 2025).

[95] Temporary Restraining Order, Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10195 (D. Mass. January 26, 2025).

[96] Opinion and Order, Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-10195 (D. Mass. February 7, 2025).

[97] Complaint, Orr v. Trump, 2025 WL 449214 (D.Mass. February 7, 2025) at 212.

[98] Id., at 204-220 (“The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Supreme Court has held that the liberties protected by this Due Process Clause include fundamental rights to free movement and travel, including travel abroad.”).

[99] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI#:~:text=Title%20VI%2C%2042%20U.S.C.,activities%20receiving%20federal%20financial%20assistance (last visited March 18, 2025).

[100] David Carpenter and Abigail Graber, Rescission of Executive Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity”: Legal Implications, Congressional Research Service (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11268.

 

[101] Id.

[102] Id.

[103] Id.

[104] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI#:~:text=Title%20VI%2C%2042%20U.S.C.,activities%20receiving%20federal%20financial%20assistance (last visited March 18, 2025).

[105] David Carpenter and Abigail Graber, Rescission of Executive Order 11246, supra note 101.

[106] Id.

[107] Id.; Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2019).

[108] David Carpenter and Abigail Graber, Rescission of Executive Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity”: Legal Implications, Congressional Research Service (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11268.

[109] Complaint, Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., 1:25-cv-00333-ABA (D. Md. February 3, 2025).

[110] Preliminary Injunction, Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-00333-ABA (D. Md. February 21, 2025).

[111] Order, Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 25-1189 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025); see Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions, Just Security (Mar. 20, 2025), https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/.

[112] National Urban League v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00471 (D.D.C. February 19, 2025).

[113] Id.

[114] See National Urban League v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00471, Court Listener by Free.Law, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69651274/national-urban-league-v-trump/ (last visited Mar. 21, 2025).

[115] Executive Order 14190 revised President Trump’s 2020 Executive Order on Establishing the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission, which was rescinded by President Biden on this first day of his administration. In terminating the 1776 Order, President Biden made it the policy of the United States to promote “equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity” in education, which Order 14190 expressly overturns. Order 14190 also reinstated the 1776 Commission.

[116] Exec. Or. 14190 (Jan. 29, 2025).

[117] 20 U.S.C § 7906a.

[118] 20 U.S.C. § 3401.

[119] See e.g., Anna Merod, How Trump’s ‘radical indoctrination’ executive order could impact schools, K-12 Dive (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.k12dive.com/news/how-trumps-radical-indoctrination-executive-order-could-impact-schools/740431/ (last visited Mar. 28, 2025); Dan Gordon, “Consistent With Applicable Law”: Critical Statutory Constraints on President Trump’s Executive Order about K-12 Curricula, Education Counsel (Jan. 30, 2025), https://educationcounsel.com/our_work/latestcounsel/consistent-with-applicable-law-critical-statutory-constraints-on-president-trump-s-executive-order-about-k-12-curricula.

[120] U.S. Const. amend. I.

[121] Exec. Or. 14190 (Jan. 29, 2025).

[122] See, e.g., Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 864 (1982) (“Pico”) (“[M]atters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment.”); W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943) (“[Boards of Education] have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights.”); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (“First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”).

[123] Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982); see also id. at 866 (explaining the First Amendment’s role in fostering individual self-expression and affording the public access to information—not to be contracted by the State).

[124] Pico, 457 U.S. at 867.

[125] Pico, 457 U.S. at 867; see also Tinker, 393 U.S. at 512 (“The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas. The Nation’s future depends upon leaders training through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.” (cleaned up, emphasis added)).

[126] Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ., 2025 WL 573764, at *2 (internal quotations omitted).

[127] Complaint, California v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. CV 25-10548-MJJ (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2025).

[128] Id.

[129] Order, California v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. CV 25-10548-MJJ (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2025) (finding that Plaintiffs have established that they will suffer irreparable harm and the balance of equities weighs in favor of a temporary restraining order.).

[130] Dep’t of Educ. v. California, No. 24A910 (Apr. 4, 2025). The Supreme Court Court also found that the government was likely to succeed on the merits of its APA claims, thus vacating the lower court ruling and TRO.

[131] See, e.g., Collin Binkley and Zeke Miller, Trump looks to expand school choice programs by repurposing federal funding, PBS (Jan. 29, 2025 4:25 EDT), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-looks-to-expand-school-choice-programs-by-repurposing-federal-funding.

[132] Libby Stanford et al., Which States Have Private School Choice?, Education Week (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/which-states-have-private-school-choice/2024/01.

[133] See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1751 (last visited Mar. 21, 2025).

[134] See Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195 (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).

[135] In February, a group of Republican Senators write to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the Executive Order and set forth certain Biden administration firearms rules that the group of senators encourages the ATF to roll back in accordance with Executive Order 14206. Cassidy, Cornyn, Colleagues Urge ATF to Rescind Unconstitutional Biden Rules, Align with Trump 2A Agenda, Bill Cassidy (Feb. 21, 2025), https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-cornyn-colleagues-urge-atf-to-rescind-unconstitutional-biden-rules-align-with-trump-2a-agenda/.

[136] Trump’s Latest Executive Order on Firearms, Duke Center for Firearms Law (Feb. 21, 2025) https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/02/trumps-latest-executive-order-on-firearms.

[137] Id.