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?
  • 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?
  • Executive Order 14149 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

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.”[1] 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].”[2] 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.[3]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.[4] 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.[5] 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.”[6]
• 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?
  • Executive Order 14155 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

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?
  • 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.”[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • Executive Order 14156 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

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.[1]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.”[2] The Executive Branch has the power to enforce the laws, including those related to immigration, where Congress has delegated authority to the President.[3] 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.”[4] The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 also gives the President power to detain and deport “alien enemies” during wartime.[5]
  • 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.[6] 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.”[7]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • U.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.[8]
  • 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.”[9]
  • 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.[10]

• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • There are several cases challenging Executive Order 14160 including[11]:
    • 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.”[12] On February 5, a federal district judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation and enforcement of Executive Order 14160.[13] On February 13, defendants appealed to the Fourth Circuit and, on February 28, the Fourth Circuit denied their request for a partial stay.[14] On March 13, defendants appealed the denial of partial stay to the Supreme Court.[15]
    • 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.”[16] On February 10, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Administration from enforcing the Executive Order.[17]
    • 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.”[18]
      • 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.”[19] On February 19, defendants appealed the order.[20]
    • 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.”[21]
      • 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.”[22] On March 11, the First Circuit denied the Administration’s motion for a stay.[23] On March 13, the Administration appealed to the Supreme Court for a partial stay.[24]
    • 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.”[25]
      • On February 6, a federal judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order.[26] Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and also moved to stay the district court’s injunction, which the Ninth Circuit denied.[27] On March 13, defendants appealed the denial of stay to the Supreme Court.[28]

Last Updated: 4/17

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?
  • 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.”[1] 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.”[2]
  • 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’”[3]—because a two-thirds vote from the Senate would likely be required to withdraw the U.S. from this treaty obligation.[4]
• 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?
  • Executive Order 14162 is not currently facing legal challenges. 

Last Updated: 4/17

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).[1] 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.”[2]
  • 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.”[3] 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.”[4]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.[5] Here, the Refugee Act “reflects Congress’s intent that refugee admission decisions involve both political branches, not unilateral executive action.”[6] 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.”[7] 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.”[8] 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.”[9] 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).[10] 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.[11]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • 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.[12] 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.[13]
    • 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.[14] 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.[15]
    • 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.[16] Furthermore, the Court found that Executive Order 14163 exceeds the President’s authority to temporarily limit refugee entry by banning entry altogether indefinitely.[17] 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.[18]
    • 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.[19]
    • On March 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, in which they alleged that the government violated the preliminary injunction.[20] 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.[21]
    • On March 24, 2025, the Court kept in place the original preliminary injunction granted on February 28, 2025.[22] 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.”[23] 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.[24]
    • On March 25, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel partially denied the Trump Administration’s Mar. 3 motion to stay the temporary injunction.[25] 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.”[26] 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.[27]
  • 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.[28] 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.[29] Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and a decision has not been issued yet.

Last Updated: 4/17

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.[1] 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.”[2] 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.”[3]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.[4] 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.[5]
• 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.”[6] This decision “effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes” (but many states subsequently rewrote their death penalty statutes to address the issues identified in Furman).[7]
    • 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.[8]
    • 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.[9]
  • Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
    • Executive Order 14164 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

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.[1]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.”[2] 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? [3]
  • 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.[4] 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.[5]
    • 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.”[6] 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.[7]
    • On February 18, 2025, the Court granted a preliminary injunction on the same grounds as the temporary restraining order.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] On February 7, the Court transferred the case to the District Court for the district where the Plaintiff is presently confined.[11]
  • 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.

Last Updated: 4/17

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?
  • 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”[1], 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.”[2]
• 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?
  • Executive Order 14170 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

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.”[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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,”[4] 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.”[5] Title VII also only covers employers with more than 15 employees, but there are also state laws that may have more expansive antidiscrimination protections.[6]
• 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.[7] Certain labor laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, may also protect employees who discuss compensation in some situations.[8]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • 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.”[9]
    • 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.[10]
    • 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.[11]
  • 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.”[12] 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.”[13] The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.[14]

Last Updated: 4/17

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.”[1] 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.”[2]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.”[3]
    • 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.”[4] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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.”^[7] 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.^[8] Notably, the Supreme Court explained that an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech is the right to receive information and ideas.^[9] 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.^[10] 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.^[11]
    • 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.^[12]

• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • 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.”[13] 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.”[14]
  • On March 10, 2025, the states’ motion for a temporary restraining order was granted.[15] 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.[16]

Last Updated: 4/17

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.[1]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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.[2]
• 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.[3]
    • 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.[4]
  • Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
    • Executive Order 14191 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

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.[1] 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?
  • 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.”[2] 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.”[3]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • Executive Order 14206 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 4/17

Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14151 directs federal agencies to end “illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear,” without defining those terms.[1] By asserting there is “illegal DEI” without defining exactly what the Trump Administration views as “illegal,” the extent to which Executive Order 14151 departs from, modifies, expands, or contradicts existing laws or regulations is not yet clear.
  • Executive Order 14151 directs the Office of Management and Budget to terminate all DEI-related grants and federal funding, which could contradict current federal funding requirements depending how the Trump Administration chooses to apply the Executive Order.[2]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • 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,”[3] is still in effect and “likely would cover the vast majority of [employment discrimination] actions related to recipients of federal grants and funding, except a[n employment] transfer that did not result in any harm to the employee.”[4] Title VII also only covers employers with more than 15 employees, but there are also state laws that may have more expansive antidiscrimination protections.[5] Notably, Title VII also applies to the federal government as an employer.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • During the first Trump Administration, a group of nonprofits providing certain healthcare services to the LGBTQ+ community challenged Executive Order 13950, which targeted federal contractors who were given DEI trainings, stating that federal dollars would not support “divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.”[6] Plaintiffs argued Executive Order 13950 was unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments because it “impermissibly chill[ed] the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected speech based on the content and viewpoint of their speech,” infringed on Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected right to free speech, and provided inadequate notice of the conduct it purports to prohibit.[7] Plaintiffs sought, and were granted, a nationwide preliminary injunction, although the scope of the preliminary injunction was limited to the provisions of the Executive Order that applied to federal contractors and grantees.[8] Similar claims have been made in litigation that Executive Order 14151 is so vague that it is unclear what conduct the order actually prohibits or criminalizes.[9]
  • In Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, a political advocacy group challenged the Department of Treasury, related to a Bush Administration executive order that delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to designate certain people and organizations as terrorists, and prohibited providing services to people and organizations who were “otherwise associated” with terrorists, which plaintiffs argued was unconstitutionally vague.[10]
    • The Ninth Circuit found that the challenged executive order was “neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad, on its face or as applied.”[11] However, this executive order included examples for the allegedly vague terminology, which the Ninth Circuit found persuasive and distinctive.[12] On the other hand, Executive Order 14151 does not provide examples of what the Trump Administration may consider illegal (but more clarifying examples may be provided in subsequent guidance from the Administration).
  • Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?[13]
    • Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., 1:25-cv-00333-ABA (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2025)
      • On February 3, 2025, organizations representing diversity officers and education professionals sued the Trump Administration arguing that, along with Executive Order 14173, Executive Order 14151 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” and (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.”[14] The court noted that Executive Order 14151 was vaguely drafted such that it creates a “very real possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement—both between and within executive agencies.”[15]
      • On February 21, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment claims, enjoining the Trump Administration from pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, cancelling, or terminating any awards, contracts, or obligations on the basis of Executive Order 14151’s instruction to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts.[16]
      • 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.[17]
    • National Urban League v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00471 (D.D.C. February 19, 2025)
      • On February 19, 2025, three nonprofits that identify as “committed to principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” sued the Trump Administration challenging Executive Orders 14151 “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing,” 14168 “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”[18] Plaintiffs argued that the three 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[s] to provide reasonable and adequate notice as to which speech, advocacy, and activities may or may not be permitted,” the Equal Protection Clause, and that the Executive Orders “usurp” Congress’ legislative authority “by unilaterally terminating or modifying federal grants and contracts without congressional authorization for such actions.”[19] The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.[20]
    • Doe v. U.S. Office of the Director for National Intelligence, 1:25-cv-00300 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2025)
      • On February 17, 2025, group of civil servant employees of the Office of the Director for National Intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency sued their employers over Executive Order 14151, alleging that they were unlawfully placed on leave because of their “temporary assignments to personnel functions involving DEIA.”[21] Ultimately, plaintiffs’ arguments did not challenge the underlying merits of Executive Order 14151, but rather its application against them as career intelligence officials rather than “career DEIA officials.”[22]
    • San Francisco AIDS Foundation et al v. Trump, 3:25-cv-1824 (D.D.C. February 20, 2025)
      • On February 20, 2025, a group of nonprofits who promote LGBTQ+ policies and interests sued the Trump Administration over Executive Orders 14151, 14168, and 14173, arguing that the three Executive Orders (1) violate the First Amendment, (2) violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, (3) are ultra vires and beyond the President’s power, and (4) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[23] Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of all three Executive Orders.[24] As of the date of this memorandum, the court has not yet ruled on the matter.

Last Updated: 5/7

Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14154 revokes Carter-era Executive Order 11991, “Relating to protection and enhancement of environmental quality.”[1] In place since May 1977, Executive Order 11991 directed the Council on Environmental Quality to issue regulations to federal agencies for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 including “procedures (1) for the early preparation of environmental impact statements, and (2) for the referral to the Council of conflicts between agencies concerning the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.”[2] Executive Order 14154 instructs the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality to “propose rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations” within 30 days of January 20, 2025.[3]
  • Executive Order 14154 instructs all agencies to “adhere to only the relevant legislated requirements for environmental considerations and any considerations beyond these requirements are eliminated,” “strictly use the most robust methodologies of assessment at their disposal[,] and [to] not use methodologies that are arbitrary or ideologically motivated.”[4]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • While Executive Order 14154 instructs “[a]ll agencies [to] immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58),” on January 21, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget has clarified that “[a]gency heads may disburse funds as they deem necessary after consulting with the Office of Management and Budget.”[5]
  • Executive Order 14154 “does not impact the $270bn in tax credits that make up the bulk of the funding that is available through the IRA” because the President is “unable to reform the tax credits or repeal the act without approval from Congress.”[6]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • In January, a federal judge entered a temporary restraining order instructing the Trump Administration to “not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.”[7]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • Butterbee Farms v. USDA, Case No. 125-cv-0737 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025)
    • On March 13, 2025, a group of organizations that do environmental-related work sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14154 (1) exceeds the President’s authority by “directing agencies to withhold federal funding based on factors that are impermissible and arbitrary under the governing statutes”; (2) violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution “[b]y freezing funding appropriated by Congress in the IRA and lawfully obligated to Plaintiffs without regard to statutes, regulations, and terms governing that funding”; (3) violates the Administrative Procedure Act by “refus[ing] to disburse those funds, implementing a categorical freeze on obligated funds appropriated by the [Inflation Reduction Act] regarding violation of statutes, regulation, and terms governing that funding”; and (4) violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the Trump Administration’s “refusal to disburse obligated funds is arbitrary and capricious” because the Administration “provided no reasoned basis for halting the payment of obligated funds to grant recipients without considering the consequences of those actions.”[8]

Last Updated: 5/7

Executive Order 14235: Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Executive Order 14235 primarily seeks to narrow the scope of eligibility within the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and eligibility.[1] The PSLF program was established under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007[2] and the Department of Education has issued regulations to carry out PSLF that, among other things, define “borrower eligibility” and qualifying employers.”[3] The order directs the Secretary of Education to “propose revisions” to the regulations related to PSLF, and the Department of Education has said that Executive Order 14235 will “restore the PSLF program to its statutory basis.”[4]
  • Executive Order 14235 directs the Secretary of Education to propose amendments to the existing PSLF regulations “that ensure the definition of ‘public service’ excludes organizations that engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose.”[5] PSLF currently defines eligible borrowers as those who work in fields such as law enforcement, education or social services, and those who work for nonprofits with 501(c)(3) status.[6] Until Secretary of Education Linda McMahon proposes such amendments, it is not clear to what extent the Order will depart from, modify, expand, or contradict existing federal laws or regulations, including the PSLF. The Department of Education has not yet made any changes to PSLF and its existing guidance states that “[t]here are no changes to PSLF currently.”[7]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • Executive Order 14235 does not immediately change the PSLF program but instead initiates an often-lengthy rulemaking process, and “any new regulation that started this year would usually not take effect until 2027” at the earliest.[8]
• 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?
  • Executive Order 14235 is not currently facing legal challenges.[9]

Last Updated: 5/7

Executive Order 14238: Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • Each of the seven federal entities identified in Executive Order 14238 were created by federal statute.[1] Executive Order 14238 says that the “non-statutory components and functions of the following governmental entities shall be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, and such entities shall reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.”[2] On its face, Executive Order 14238 does not contradict existing federal law because it seeks to reduce the seven government entities to the minimum that is required by law, but the Executive Order seeks to eliminate or remove non-statutory aspects of these entities, which could include existing federal regulations implementing the statutes establishing these entities.
  • Executive Order 14238 is written such that the agency reductions occur within the boundaries of “applicable law.”[3] While statutes authorize the creation and existence of these entities, there is generally flexibility in the scope and operations of the entities, and the Executive Order appears to capitalize on that flexibility in directing the reduction of operations, but not outright elimination of the agencies.
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • Executive Order 14238 is written to such that the agency reductions occur within the boundaries of “applicable law,” however, the execution of the Order may raise questions if statutorily required functions of the entities are eliminated.
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • In 2017, during the first Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which President Obama established through executive action in 2012.[4] The case progressed to the Supreme Court, where the Court held that the method of recession of DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.[5] The Court noted that DHS could rescind DACA, but the issue lied in how it chose to rescind DACA, which was through memoranda that did not adequately justify the Department’s actions.[6] Here, the Supreme Court said that an “agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted.”[7]
    • The opinion in Regents may serve as relevant precedent relating to the implementation of Executive Order 14238 if the non-statutorily mandated programs and activities that have been rescinded under the Executive Order were done in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious.
  • Lawsuits challenging other executive orders issued by President Trump, which seek to eliminate or reduce responsibilities of federal agencies or entities, are pending against many of these actions, and depending on their outcomes, may serve as other relevant precedent related to the enforcement of Executive Order 14238.[8]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • State of Rhode Island, et al. v. Trump et al., 1:25CV00128 (D. R.I. Apr. 4, 2024)
    • On April 4, 2024, twenty-one states attorneys general sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14238 violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the Executive Order on “its face directs the agencies to engage in arbitrary and capricious actions by requiring them to eliminate discretionary functions and reduce to the minimum their statutory functions” and the agencies’ actions implementing the Executive Order are invalid because they did not follow notice and comment procedures.[9] Plaintiffs also argued that the Trump Administration violated the Appropriations Clause because “Defendants’ unilateral executive action to decline to expend [congressionally] appropriated funds . . . infringes on Congress’s appropriations power and is unconstitutional,” the separation of powers because “where Congress has created the Defendant Agencies and the programs they administer, the Executive cannot do away with the Agencies or effectively incapacitate their ability to administer appropriated grants or carry out statutorily assigned duties,” and the Take Care Clause because “[b]y dismantling the Defendant Agencies and the programs they administer, which are creatures of Congress, the Executive has failed to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress in violation of the Take Care Clause.”[10]
      • For example, plaintiffs described the grant program run by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which operates on a five-year cycle.[11] Every state and D.C. receives grants from IMLS, which support state libraries and related operations.[12] Plaintiffs argued that their millions of dollars of grants were suspended with the winddown of the agencies, which state and local libraries rely on to operate.[13]
  • American Library Ass’n v. Sonderling, 2025 WL 1062669 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2025)
    • On April 7, 2025, a group of nonprofits promoting library services sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14238 violates the Constitution’s Take Care Clause and separation of powers protections because it eliminated the IMLS through unilateral executive branch action in violation of Congress’ mandate that the organizations exist and be funded.[14] Plaintiffs further argued that Executive Order 14238 violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, the Impoundment Control Act, the Appropriations Act, and the statute which established IMLS as an independent agency.[15]

Last Updated: 5/7

Executive Order 14241: Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • The Secretary of Energy has the power to designate “any mineral, element, substance, or material” as a “critical mineral” (with some exceptions).[1] Executive Order 14241 does not expand 30 U.S.C. § 1606(a)(3)—because the Secretary of Energy has the authority to designate “critical minerals” under the statute—but does expand the list of what was considered a “critical mineral” under the Biden Administration to include uranium, copper, potash, and gold.[2]
    • Executive Order 14241 also gives the Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council the power to designate “any other element, compound or material” as a critical mineral.[3] While coal is not yet included on this list, the White House’s fact sheet related to Executive Order 14241 suggests the definition of “critical mineral” may be expanded to include coal in the future.[4]
  • Executive Order 14241 “waive[s] the requirements of 50 U.S.C. 4533(a)(1) through (a)(6)” to “address the national emergency declared pursuant to Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025 (Declaring a National Energy Emergency).”[5] Among other things, Executive Order 14241 waives:
    • Section 4533(a)(5), which says President cannot “execute a contract under this subsection unless the President, on a non-delegable basis, determines, with appropriate explanatory material and in writing, that[] (A) the industrial resource, material, or critical technology item is essential to the national defense; (B) without Presidential action under this section, United States industry cannot reasonably be expected to provide the capability for the needed industrial resource, material, or critical technology item in a timely manner; and (C) purchases, purchase commitments, or other action pursuant to this section are the most cost effective, expedient, and practical alternative method for meeting the need.”[6]
    • Section 4533(a)(6), which says the President must provide written notice to Congress “of a domestic industrial base shortfall prior to taking action under this subsection to remedy the shortfall” except during a period of national emergency declared by Congress or the President or if the President determines that the “action is necessary to avert an industrial resource or critical technology item shortfall that would severely impair national defense capability.”[7]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • Executive Order 14241 also sets aggressive timelines as part of the implementation of the Executive Order, so enforcement will depend in part on whether and the speed at which these timelines are met.[8]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • No apparent legal precedents identified that could affect enforceability.
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • Executive Order 14241 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 5/7

Executive Order 14242: Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • The Department of Education was established when President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, which was signed into law on October 17, 1979.[1] Per the purpose of the Act, “Congress declares that the establishment of a Department of Education is in the public interest, will promote the general welfare of the United States, will help ensure that education issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level, and will enable the Federal Government to coordinate its education activities more effectively.”[2] Executive Order 14242 instructs the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education” but caveats that this should be done “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”[3] At a high level, congressional action would be needed to eliminate the Department of Education.[4]
  • Under existing law, there are limits to what the Secretary of Education can do to shut down parts of the agency unilaterally.[5] For example:
    • The Department of Education Organization Act established “officers, positions, and offices” at the Department of Education (e.g., the Secretary of Education, Deputy Secretary of Education, Assistant Secretary positions), which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as well as “U.S. Department of Education: Background and Statutorily Established Officers, Positions, and Offices.”[6] Office and positions that were established by statute “can only be eliminated or have their functions delegated to other agencies through an act of Congress.”[7]
    • The statute also permits the Secretary of Education to “allocate or reallocate functions among the officers of the Department, and to establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue such organizational entities within the Department as may be necessary or appropriate.”[8] However, the statute says that this authority of the Secretary of Education “does not extend to . . . the abolition of organizational entities established by this chapter.”[9]
    • The Secretary of Education also cannot move funding or programs to other agencies where they have been established by statute.[10] For example, Section 301(2) of the Department of Education Act “authorizes the Secretary of the Education Department to administer the ESEA, including Title I-A [of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act],” so the Department or Secretary could not move this funding to another agency (such as the Department of Heath and Human Services) without congressional action.[11]
    • While bills aimed at shutting down the Department of Education have been introduced by the current Congress, these would require 60 votes in the Senate and are likely to pass given the Republican’s current 53-vote majority.[12]

• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • While the federal government plays a role in education (e.g., “the federal government does provide roughly a tenth of public school funding”), K-12 school administration is largely handled at the state and local levels, including school boards that are funded through state legislatures and local taxes.[13]
  • The Department of Education’s operations will also likely be affected by the agency’s significant funding and personnel cuts.[14]
• Are there any legal precedents that could affect its enforceability?
  • In 2024, the Supreme Court held that “[t]he Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”[15]
  • Current Supreme Court precedent limits the President’s ability to remove heads of independent agencies.[16] However, the Trump Administration has fired independent agency officials and these actions are currently being challenged.[17]
• Is this executive order currently facing legal challenges?
  • Executive Order 14242 is not currently facing legal challenges.

Last Updated: 5/7

Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

• Does this executive order depart from, modify, expand, or contradict any existing federal laws or regulations?
  • In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which directs states to establish procedures for voter registration.[1] Under the NVRA, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)—which is an independent, bipartisan federal agency established by the 2002 Help America Vote Act[2]—must consult with chief election officers of states to “develop a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office.”[3] Under the NVRA, the EAC must develop a mail voter registration form for Federal elections (known as the “Federal Form”) and must do so in consult with state officials.[4]
    • The NVRA also says that the form “may require only such identifying information . . . and other information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.”[5] The NVRA also mandates other requirements of the Form, including “a statement that—(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship); (B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and (C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury.”[6]
    • Executive Order 14248 directs the EAC to “require” documentary proof of United States citizenship in its national mail voter registration form within 30 days of March 25, 2025.[7] Lawsuits challenging Executive Order 14248 argue that the President “has no authority to give the EAC, an independent agency” directive to require documentary proof of citizenship and “no authority to direct any EAC Commissioner, much less three EAC Commissioners, to disregard the procedural and substantive restrictions on their authority to promulgate the Federal Form or their responsibility to engage in independent analysis and decision-making in doing so.”[8] Executive Order 14248 could also contradict or depart from the NVRA if changes to the Federal Form related to documentary proof of citizenship are not made “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.”[9]
  • In 1986, Congress passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which “protects the voting rights of members of the Uniformed Services (on active duty), members of the Merchant Marine and their eligible dependents, Commissioner Corps of the Public Health Service, Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. citizens residing outside the U.S.”[10] The Federal Voting Assistance Program, under the Department of Defense, administers the UOCAVA program.[11] “UOCAVA voters rely on two essential federally prescribed forms: The Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) and The Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB).”[12] These forms must be furnished under the requirements of the UOCAVA statute.[13]
    • The UOCAVA statute does not require the FPCA form to require proof of eligibility. At least one lawsuit has argued that Executive Order 14248 unlawfully expands the UOCAVA statute because “Congress has specifically instructed the President’s designee to design and administer a post card that standing alone can be sufficient to both register to vote and apply for an absentee ballot” and Executive Order 14248 may require voters to submit documents to determine proof of eligibility.[14]
    • The UOCAVA statute also requires the President’s designee (who is responsible for carrying out the program) to “consult State and local officials in carrying out [the statute]” so Executive Order 14248 could contract the statute to the extent the changes to UOCAVA voting procedure that are made as part of implementing are done without consulting state and local officials, as at least one lawsuit has argued.[15]
• Are there any non-legal challenges to enforcement?
  • The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate most elections.[16] Executive Order 14248 “would consolidate a great deal of power over elections within the executive branch and diminish the legal role held by Congress and the states in election administration,” including in areas where Congress has already regulated (e.g., the NVRA).[17]
  • The EAC—which has responsibility for certain voting-related procedures, as explained above—is an independent federal agency which means that, even though the EAC is within the Executive Branch, the President “cannot currently compel compliance” with the directives to the EAC in Executive Order 14248.[18]
    • As at least one lawsuit points out, the EAC previously rejected attempts by certain states to “modify the state-specific instruction for the Federal Form to require documentary proof of citizenship.”[19]
  • Executive Order 14248 also “threatens to withhold federal funding from state and local election offices that do not comply with changes” which potentially conflicts with the “Tenth Amendment prohibit[ion on] the federal government from coercing states, including by withholding federal funding.”[20]

• 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?
  • League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Executive Office of the President et al., 1:25-cv-00946 (D.D.C. March 31, 2025)
    • On March 31, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and two other nonprofits sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14248:
      • (1) exceeds the bounds of the President’s authority by, among other things, unlawfully instructing the Election Assistance Commission’s activity because it is an independent agency, commanding state and locals officials to use documentary proof of citizenship to complete the NVRA’s Federal Form, and compelling the heads of Federal voter registration agencies to assess citizenship prior to providing a Federal voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs;
      • (2) the separation of powers by because “[t]he President has no legal authority to condition the receipt of funds that Congress has appropriated for distribution to States by the EAC on compliance with the unlawfully-imposed documentary proof of citizenship requirement or the unlawfully-imposed Election Day ballot receipt deadline;
      • (3) the Electors and Elections Clause because “[t]he President has no legal authority to forbid the counting of ballots validly cast under State law, nor to direct the Attorney General to take any action with respect to such validly cast votes”;
      • (4) unlawfully “gut[s] a core and longstanding requirement of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act” because “[n]either the President nor the Secretary of Defense, his designee in the maintenance of the post card, has any legal authority to disregard UOCAVA’s statutory requirement to make such a post card available to military and overseas voters”; and
      • (5) the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully “imposing the proof of citizenship requirements as set forth in the Order on use of the Federal Form” and unlawfully making changes to the Federal Post Card Application.[21]
    • Plaintiffs asked the court to either “declare that Sections 2, 3(d), 4(a), and 7 of the Order are unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, and further declare that nothing in 2 U.S.C. § 7 or 3 U.S.C. § 1 requires states to discard mail-in and absentee ballots validly cast and received in accordance with state law” or otherwise enjoin the Administration from implementing Sections 2, 3(d), 4(a), and 7, direct the Administration to rescind guidance or direction related to these sections, and enjoin the DOJ and Attorney General from taking any action that would seek to prohibit the counting of mail-in and absentee ballots validly cast under state law.[22]
    • On April 3, this case was consolidated with two other cases challenging Executive Order 14248 (Democratic National Committee v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00952 (D.D.C. Mar. 31. 2025) and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00955 (D.D.C. April 1, 2025)), and the consolidated case will proceed under this case.
  • State of California v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10810 (D. Mass. April 3, 2025)
    • On April 3, 2025, nineteen states sued the Trump Administration arguing that Executive Order 14248:
      • (1) exceeds the President’s Article II powers and unconstitutionally infringes upon Congress’s powers because Section 2(a), which instructs the EAC to amend the Federal Form to require documentary proof of citizenship[,] violates the separation of powers because “[by] directing the [EAC] and imposing duties on it that are not contained in federal law, the Elections EO attempts to amend, repeal, rescind, or circumvent duly enacted federal statutes based on the President’s own policy preferences”;
      • (2) exceeds the President’s Article II powers, unconstitutionally infringes on Congress’s powers, and unconstitutionally attempts to amend federal legislation by amending the Federal Form to require documentary proof of evidence despite the National Voter Registration Act “require[ing] only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process”;
      • (3) exceeds the President’s Article II powers, unconstitutionally infringes on Congress’s powers, and unconstitutionally attempts to amend federal legislation by “command[ing] the Secretary of Defense to update the federal post card application provided under UOCAVA to require documentary proof of citizenship and proof of eligibility to vote in state elections”;
      • (4) exceeding the President’s constitutional authority by
        “order[ing] the Commission to condition federal funding to States on their acceptance of the Federal Form as unlawfully amended to require documentary proof of citizenship”;
      • (5) exceeding the President’s constitutional authority by directing the Attorney General to enforce federal statutes setting the date of federal elections against states that count vote-by-mail ballots after Election Day because “[t]he President has no constitutional authority to interfere with State and Congressional regulations of the times, places, and manner of elections, including voter registration”;
      • (6) exceeding the President’s constitutional authority by “require[ing] the Commission to condition federal funding on Plaintiff States’ acquiescence to an incorrect interpretation of federal Election Day statutes that would preclude Plaintiff States from counting ballots that arrive after Election Day” because “[t]he President has no constitutional authority to interfere with State and Congressional regulations of the times, places, and manner of elections, including voter registration”; and
      • (7) by violating the separation of powers by intruding on the state’s election powers granted by Article I and Article II.[23]
    • Plaintiffs asked the court to declare the “Challenged Provisions” (Sections 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii), 2(d), 3(d), 4(a), 7(a), and 7(b)) of Executive Order 14248 unconstitutional and void and enjoin the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the Challenged Provisions of Executive Order 14248.[24]

Last Updated: 5/7