Tracking AG Keith Ellison"s suits against the Trump administration
design and development by David Braunger and Tom Nehil
In the first 100 days of his second term, President Donald Trump has sought to enact drastic policy changes from ending birthright citizenship for children of immigrants to dismantling the Department of Education — primarily by executive order. The burst of major policy changes from the executive branch and efforts to slash the federal budget have inspired a flurry of legal challenges from Democratic state attorneys general, including Minnesota's Keith Ellison. Here, we're tracking every lawsuit Minnesota has joined, on everything from probationary worker firings to cuts for public health funding. This tracker will be updated weekly on Fridays.
Tracking 23 suits sorted by most recently updated.
Suing to stop Trump tariffs
Trump administration action
Since taking office in January, Trump has imposed sweeping 10% tariffs on imports from every nation. On "Liberation Day" in early April, he imposed steeper "reciprocal" tariffs – some as high as 50%. He quickly backed off the higher tariffs, but left the 10% baseline in place. He also imposed a 145% tariff on Chinese goods.
What the suit says
A dozen state attorneys general, including Ellison, are suing the Trump administration, saying the president doesn"t have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs without Congress. According to the lawsuit, Trump has relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. But the attorneys general argue that law was meant to restrain the executive branch"s power to impose tariffs, not enhance it. They say the law allows the president to regulate trade in response to an emergency that poses an "unusual and extraordinary threat." Even so, they argue it doesn"t expressly grant the president the authority to impose tariffs.
The latest
May 28 — A panel of U.S. Court of International Trade judges issued an order permanently halting many of Trump"s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The administration quickly appealed and was granted a stay blocking the lower court order – at least temporarily.
Read more
Challenging Elon Musk"s role in the federal government
Trump administration action
After being a key ally during the 2024 presidential election, tech billionaire Elon Musk was tapped by Trump to head the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, though the White House has contradicted itself as to who oversees the office. Though DOGE was charged, through executive order, with modernizing the federal government"s technology and software, it has worked to slash federal agency spending and jobs.
What the suit says
Ellison and 13 other attorneys general are suing over Musk"s place in Trump"s administration. The lawsuit says Musk has been given "virtually unchecked authority" despite not being vetted for a post in the federal government.
Musk"s appointment is unconstitutional because only Congress can create new governmental agencies, according to the lawsuit. It also argues the Trump administration violated the Constitution by appointing Musk without Senate confirmation.
The latest
May 27 — A U.S. District Court judge denied the federal government"s attempt to dismiss the case, but dismissed President Donald Trump as a defendant. The next day, Musk announced he would leave the Trump administration.
Read more
Challenging DOGE access to Treasury data
Trump administration action
Employees of Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency were given access to the U.S. Treasury Department"s central payment system, which includes personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers and banking information, Ellison and other attorneys general claimed in a lawsuit.
What the suit says
A coalition of 19 states is suing the federal government over what they say is unlawful access to sensitive government data by DOGE. According to the lawsuit, a Feb. 2 policy change allowed DOGE to access the payment system. Previously, it was limited to staff with security clearances. The plaintiffs believe the policy was changed "to allow DOGE to advance a stated goal to block federal funds from reaching beneficiaries who do not align with the president"s political agenda."
The lawsuit argues that granting DOGE access to the data violated federal laws protecting sensitive data and the constitutional separation of powers.
The latest
May 27 — A district court judge denied the federal government's attempt to overturn a preliminary injunction prohibiting DOGE officials from accessing Treasury data. The judge, however, modified the preliminary injunction to allow DOGE officials who have been properly vetted access to information.
Read more
Keeping the Department of Education intact
Trump administration action
The U.S. Department of Education on March 11 announced plans to cut more than 1,300 workers. Combined with the more than 600 employees who had already taken voluntary buyouts, the cuts would represent cutting the staff in half. During an appearance on Fox News, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the move represented the first step toward shutting down the Department of Education.
What the suit says
A coalition of attorneys general, including Ellison, are suing the Trump administration in an attempt to block the "effective dismantling of the department." The Department of Education, the attorneys general argue, is a federal agency established by Congress, and the Trump administration is violating the constitutional separation of powers in trying to dismantle it by executive order.
The latest
May 22 — U.S. District Court Judge Myong J. Joun issued a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Education from reducing the staff of the agency and ordering officials to reinstate terminated employees. The same day, the federal government appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and sought to set aside the preliminary injunction while the appeal is pending with the higher court. Joun denied their motion to set aside the injunction.
Read more
Restoring access to education funds
Trump administration action
In late March, the U.S. Department of Education notified state education agencies that it would end access to grants established by the American Rescue Plan Act, which was signed into law during the COVID-19 pandemic and was meant to help schools and children recover from the pandemic.
What the suit says
Attorneys general from 15 states, the governor of Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit saying that while the pandemic has ended, the Department of Education had extended access to the funds until 2026. Shortly after Trump came into office, the lawsuit says, the agency "abruptly and arbitrarily reversed course."
The lawsuit says the department"s decision violates the Administrative Procedures Act by violating congressional intent for the funds.
The latest
May 20 — U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the federal government to appear in June and demonstrate why the judge shouldn"t enter a permanent injunction, ordering the Department of Education to restore funds.
Read more
Challenging immigration conditions on funding
Trump administration action
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed her department, including its sub-agency the Federal Emergency Management Administration, to cut off funding for states that don"t cooperate with the administration"s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy directed his agency to do the same. Both federal departments now include a requirement in their terms and conditions for grant funding that states and cities cooperate with federal immigration officials.
What the suit says
Ellison and 18 other attorneys general filed two lawsuits – one against DHS and another against DOT – challenging Noem and Duffy"s orders along similar grounds. The cases argue that tying funds appropriated by Congress for emergency management and transportation to immigration enforcement exceed the executive branch"s authority and violate the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
The latest
May 19 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to restore funding.
Read more
Protecting AmeriCorps
Trump administration action
The Trump administration in April fired the vast majority of workers and canceled grants administered by AmeriCorps. The cuts follow the arrival at AmeriCorps of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, an effort led by Elon Musk to slash federal spending. AmeriCorps provides grants to local and national organizations to support community service. Minnesota received notice April 25 that its AmeriCorps grants, which support 14,000 volunteers across the state, were terminated.
What the suit says
Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration, arguing it violated the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution by dismantling an agency created by Congress.
The latest
May 19 — The court held a hearing on plaintiffs" motion for a preliminary injunction filed earlier in the month that said sudden termination of grants harmed hurricane relief, a food pantry, children"s literature programming and other resources.
Read more
Protecting funds for libraries and minority businesses
Trump administration action
In March, Trump issued an executive order eliminating any "non-statutory components" of seven federal agencies – the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, United States Agency for Global Media, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Museum and Library Services, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund and Minority Business Development Agency.
The order said the agencies "shall be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law" and reduce their work and personnel "to the minimum presence and function required by law."
What the suit says
Along with 20 other states, Minnesota is suing the Trump administration to restore the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, saying their elimination overrides Congress" power of the purse. The lawsuit says the president is free to seek legislation abolishing the agencies, which were established by Congress, but cannot "shutter the agencies himself in defiance of the administrative procedures that Congress required to be followed."
The latest
May 19 — The administration appealed a preliminary injunction ordering the Trump administration to stop its attempt to dismantle the agencies.
Read more
Protecting public health funds
Trump administration action
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services eliminated $11 billion in grants to combat infectious diseases, ensure access to vaccines, provide mental health services, ensure emergency preparedness and advance other public health priorities. According to a lawsuit against the HHS, the agency reasoned that the grants were established by laws passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has since ended.
What the suit says
Ellison and attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia argue the grant terminations were not "for cause," but arbitrary. In approving the funding, the lawsuit says, Congress did not limit grants to the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. The lawsuit says the cuts violate the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution and overstep executive authority.
The latest
May 16 — U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy issued a preliminary injunction, nullifying the Trump administration"s terminations of $11 billion in federal funding.
Read more
Continuing development of wind energy
Trump administration action
Upon returning to office, Trump issued a memo pausing federal approval of wind leases and permits for wind energy projects, both on and offshore.
What the suit says
A coalition of attorneys general argue Trump"s categorical halt on wind energy harms states" ability to "secure reliable, diversified and affordable sources of energy," pursue economic development and protect the public from harmful air pollutants and greenhouse-gas emissions. They say the unilateral action exceeds Trump"s authority and runs afoul of federal laws promoting clean air and protecting endangered species.
The latest
May 15 — The states filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on the motion is set for June.
Read more
Protecting birthright citizenship
Trump administration action
Hours after taking office, Trump issued an executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship for those born after mid-February. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents" immigration status, is a U.S. citizen.
What the suit says
Minnesota, along with 20 other states and the city of San Francisco, are suing the Trump administration, arguing he doesn"t have the authority to end birthright citizenship as it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It also argues that the order violates the separation of powers by usurping Congress" authority to pass laws.
The latest
May 15 — The U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to lower courts" orders prohibiting the Trump administration from enacting its policy on birthright citizenship. Ellison said in a statement that Trump"s executive order is "patently unconstitutional."
Read more
Challenging the "energy emergency"
Trump administration action
On the first day of his second term, Trump declared a "national energy emergency," which the lawsuit says has resulted in agencies shortening environmental review and permitting processes required by federal laws meant to protect clean water and endangered species.
What the suit says
The lawsuit says Trump"s order doesn"t respond to a true emergency, but instead uses the National Emergencies Act to overstep the president"s authority. It says the order requires agencies to disregard federal law and regulation.
The latest
May 9 — Ellison and 14 other attorneys general filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Washington.
Read more
Stopping the "dismantling" of HHS
Trump administration action
Swiftly after Trump took office in January, the acting director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services froze public communications and suspended travel. Trump fired the agency"s inspector general and 16 deputies. Like other federal agencies, the department fired probationary workers and offered buyouts. In March, U.S. Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a plan to restructure the department, consolidating agencies, firing another 10,000 workers and shuttering regional offices.
What the suit says
In a lawsuit, 19 attorneys general allege the cuts were intended to "dismantle" the agency in violation of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit accuses the executive branch of overstepping its authority. Citing Kennedy"s admission that the department fired some employees in error, the lawsuit says the agency failed to consider the consequences of its actions.
The latest
May 9 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to halt the mass terminations and restructurings at HHS, saying they will cause harm to states by depriving them of essential public health resources.
Read more
Challenging proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting
Trump administration action
Trump issued an executive order on March 25 instructing the Election Assistance Commission to require "documentary proof of citizenship," such as a passport or U.S. birth certificate, when someone registers to vote. It threatens to withhold funding from states that don"t comply.
Trump"s order would also require that states only count mail ballots received by Election Day. Many states count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward.
What the suit says
In a lawsuit, Minnesota and 18 other states say Trump has overstepped his authority as state governments are responsible for regulating elections. Congress can enact laws concerning federal elections, the lawsuit says, but the president has no independent power to modify states" election procedures.
The latest
May 9 — The court denied the Trump administration"s request to consolidate the case with another pending in Washington, D.C.
Read more
Blocking restrictions on gender-affirming care
Trump administration action
A week after taking office, Trump issued an executive order targeting gender-affirming care for minors. The order aims to cut off federal grants for institutions that provide gender-affirming care, including prescription of puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
The order also prohibits Tricare, the health insurance offered to military families, from covering medical costs related to gender-affirming care.
What the suit says
Attorneys general from Minnesota, Oregon and Washington – along with physicians – are suing the Trump administration over its executive order targeting gender-affirming care for minors, saying it limits physicians" ability to treat patients.
The lawsuit claims Trump"s order oversteps the authority of the executive branch "by usurping Congress" legislative powers and exclusive power of the purse." Trump"s order, the lawsuit says, also violates the Fifth Amendment "because it singles out one vulnerable group for mistreatment," and the 10th Amendment because regulating the medical profession is typically done by the states.
The latest
May 9 — Plaintiff states and the federal government jointly asked the court to pause proceedings while the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a case stemming from a Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors.
Read more
Restoring issuance of National Institutes of Health funds
Trump administration action
A lawsuit filed by several states alleges the National Institutes of Health have deliberately delayed reviews of grant applications and terminated already issued funds. The states are awaiting decisions on billions of dollars for research.
The lawsuit says the NIH sent letters to public research institutions saying their grants "no longer effectuate agency priorities." The letters, according to the lawsuit, say the grants have been terminated because of connections to "DEI," "transgender issues" or "vaccine hesitancy."
What the suit says
Minnesota's Ellison and attorneys general in 15 other states allege in a lawsuit that the National Institutes of Health have violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution. Delaying the grants, the lawsuit says, defies Congress, which has appropriated funds to the NIH. The lawsuit says the delays have been "devastating" for research institutions.
The latest
May 8 — The court held a hearing on plaintiffs" motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the NIH from enacting directives to slow or halt grants for research not favored by the Trump administration.
Read more
Protecting incentives for electric vehicles
Trump administration action
Trump halted all spending under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, via executive order in January. The order stopped the flow of funds under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, or NEVI, which provides funds for states to develop EV charging networks.
What the suit says
The lawsuit says the funding pause impedes states" ability to build EV charging infrastructure and oversteps the president"s authority by withholding Congressionally-appropriated funds.
The latest
May 7 — Ellison and fellow attorneys general sued in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and are seeking a preliminary injunction.
Read more
Restoring fired federal workers
Trump administration action
When Trump took office in January, the federal Office of Management and Budget instructed agencies to submit lists of their employees who were in probationary periods – typically workers who have been recently hired or promoted. In February, Trump issued an order directing agencies to promptly begin firing those probationary workers.
What the suit says
Attorneys general from 20 states, including Minnesota, are suing Trump"s administration over mass layoffs of probationary employees. They argue the Trump administration failed to follow regulations for "reductions in force," which require federal agencies to give 60 days" notice to state governments before laying off employees so that the states can assist fired workers.
The latest
May 6 — An appeals court heard oral arguments in the Trump administration"s challenge to a preliminary injunction the district court issued ordering the federal government to rehire fired probationary workers.
Read more
Fighting federal funding freeze
Trump administration action
The Office of Management and Budget in a Jan. 27 directive instructed federal agencies to review all assistance programs that may be affected by a series of Trump executive orders on everything from climate spending to immigration. It instructed agency heads to temporarily pause funding that might be implicated by the orders.
What the suit says
Ellison, along with 22 attorneys general, are arguing that the directive would allow the government to rescind dollars allocated to states for health care, law enforcement, roads, natural disasters and other services.
The lawsuit says the order violates federal law and the constitutional separation of powers, which gives Congress the exclusive power to appropriate federal money. In freezing spending, the lawsuit argues, the executive branch has overstepped its authority and overridden Congress" power.
The latest
April 28 — The federal government appealed a district court enforcement order finding it did not comply with a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration"s funding freezes. It is already appealing the underlying preliminary injunction.
Read more
Suing to keep federal education funding
Trump administration action
In April, the US Department of Education informed state and local agencies that they must certify they are complying with a Trump administration directive to stop diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or risk losing federal education funds, according to the lawsuit.
What the suit says
Ellison is part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general filing a preemptive lawsuit to try and block the U.S. Department of Education from withholding or clawing back any funding to states based on these "unlawful conditions," reads the lawsuit.
The latest
April 25 — The attorneys general filed the case in the U.S. District court of Massachusetts.
Read more
Challenging Trump orders on trans kids
Trump administration action
Trump issued two executive orders in his first days in office banning trans children from participating in school sports that align with their gender identity, and defining two sexes – male and female – that the order says are "not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."
The administration, according to Minnesota"s lawsuit, has threatened to sue the state and withhold federal funds if it doesn"t comply with the orders.
What the suit says
Ellison"s lawsuit claims that Trump"s executive order, by threatening to withhold grants from Minnesota, usurps Congress" role to legislate and control federal spending. It also argues that the administration"s policy violates Title IX, which protects students from discrimination on the basis of sex, and the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The latest
April 22 — Ellison filed the lawsuit pre-emptively after the Trump administration threatened to sue Minnesota.
Read more
States with green banks sue over cuts to federal funds
Trump administration action
When he took office in January, Trump issued an executive order "terminating the Green New Deal" meant to freeze funding appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, both passed by Congress.
What the suit says
Since some funding appropriated for climate programs was deposited at Citibank, the administration, the lawsuit argues, strong-armed the bank into refusing to disburse the funds. Attorneys general for four states with "green banks" are suing the Trump administration and Citibank, alleging the two engaged in a "highly irregular and illegal campaign" to hold up funds appropriated by Congress. The green banks were established to stimulate development of clean energy and projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The lawsuit says the actions violated the constitutional separation of powers and federal laws and regulations on the executive branch"s management of funds approved by Congress.
The latest
April 18 — The federal government requested the court set aside a preliminary injunction issued earlier in April that ordered the EPA to stop holding up funds or preventing Citibank from making disbursements. Attorneys for the government argued the preliminary injunction conflicts with a Supreme Court order in another federal funding case.
Read more
Preventing cuts to scientific research
Trump administration action
The National Institutes of Health in February announced it would cut reimbursements for "indirect costs" for scientific research, which Ellison"s office says cover items like lab, faculty, infrastructure and utility costs. According to the lawsuit, the indirect cost reimbursement was previously negotiated between research institutions and the federal government.
What the suit says
Ellison, along with 21 other attorneys general, are suing the Trump administration over the "unilateral" cuts by the National Institutes of Health to indirect research cost reimbursements. The lawsuit claims the NIH move violates federal law and regulations governing the funding and a 2018 directive by Congress meant to ward off changes in indirect cost reimbursement rates.
The latest
April 8 — The federal government appealed the district court"s decision to issue a permanent injunction barring the Trump administration from enacting its policy to stop reimbursing indirect research costs.
