Status Report: Michigan's Federal Lawsuits Against The Trump Administration

Michigan Advance

December 30, 2025

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has taken a strong stance against many of the Trump administration’s policies since President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, ranging from food assistance to birthright citizenship to data access across federal departments.

According to the Department of the Attorney General website, there are 40 lawsuits that Nessel has been a part of in 2025 — not including amicus briefs — that are suing the federal government in some capacity. Here’s where they all stand.

Agency dismantling: Rhode Island, et al. v. Trump, IMLS, et al.

This lawsuit was filed to challenge the dismantling of multiple federal agencies — the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.

A preliminary injunction was granted to the states in May, and in November, the district court granted the states summary judgment and permanently halted the dismantling of these particular agencies. The U.S. Department of Justice had filed an appeal to the preliminary injunction, but voluntarily dismissed that appeal four days after the court order in favor of the states.

Wind energy: New York, et al. v. Trump, USA, Dept. of Interior, et al.

This lawsuit challenged policies by the U.S. Department of the Interior that would halt projects intended to develop wind energy around the U.S., including federal approvals for those projects.

The states won their case on Dec. 8, after a judge vacated the orders that had been issued by the federal government that were halting the approvals, allowing those approvals to begin again.

Department of Transportation grant stipulations: California, et al. v. U.S. DOT, Duffy, et al.

This case challenged new stipulations added to funding from the Department of Transportation that would impose immigration enforcement actions on grants that otherwise had nothing to do with immigration.

A preliminary injunction was issued in June, and the issue was closed in November after the U.S. Department of Transportation was permanently enjoined from conditioning federal transportation funding on acceptance of immigration enforcement terms.

Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program: Washington, et al. v. FEMA, et al.

This lawsuit challenged the decision to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC), which was designed to preemptively assist communities in preparing for natural disasters.

The court issued a preliminary injunction in August, and in December, the court ruled in favor of the states and stopped FEMA from ending the BRIC program.

Department of Energy funding support: New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Wright, et al.

This case sued the U.S. Department of Energy for a policy shift that would eliminate funding supports for states to cover administrative costs and staffing, which had historically been covered by funding programs.

The court ruled in November to permanently enjoin the government from implementing those funding rules, and vacated the policy that had sent them in place.

Mental health programs in schools: Washington, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al.

This lawsuit challenged the decision by the U.S. Department of Education to cut congressionally approved funding for mental health programs in K-12 schools.

The court issued a preliminary injunction in October, and the Department of Education filed an appeal of that injunction in November. On Dec. 22, U.S. District Court Judge Kymberly Evanson of the Western District of Washington granted the states’ summary judgment motion and ordered the two sides to meet and agree on a timeline for the Department to make lawful continuation decisions.

Public health grants: Colorado, et al. v. HHS, RFK Jr., et al.

This lawsuit was filed to challenge over $11 billion in cuts by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including over $379 million that would go to Michigan.

A temporary restraining order was issued by a judge in April, and a preliminary injunction was issued in May, halting the federal government’s action. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed an appeal in July, but voluntarily rescinded that appeal shortly after.

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund: New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al.

This lawsuit was filed to prevent the U.S. Department of Education from rescinding an extended deadline for states to access money from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, which was created during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Preliminary injunctions were granted to the states in May and again in June, after the department again tried to move the deadline back. The Department of Education filed for a stay on those injunctions, which was denied, and the department’s appeal was voluntarily dismissed in August.

AmeriCorps: Maryland, et al. v. AmeriCorps, et al

This case challenged the layoffs and cancellations of the majority of AmeriCorps staff and positions, including all of the AmeriCorps positions in Michigan.

A preliminary injunction in favor of the states was issued in June, which reinstated many of the programs. However, the Office of Management and Budget withheld funding until the OMB was added as an additional defendant in the case. After the states filed for a second injunction against the OMB, the office agreed to fully release previously withheld funds, and states withdrew their second injunction request.

Immigration requirements for safety net: New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, et al.

This lawsuit challenged new requirements within the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which would require verification of citizenship or immigration status for individuals before they can access dozens of state safety net programs.

A preliminary injunction was granted in the case in September — the government appealed that decision, but withdrew the appeal later. Briefings for the court’s final ruling will happen throughout spring 2026.

SNAP data sharing: California, et al. v. USDA, et al.

This case involves proposed data sharing requirements from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, giving data to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, looking for information on SNAP recipients for purposes of immigration enforcement.

The court granted a preliminary injunction that blocked the Department of Agriculture’s demand from states from sharing data on SNAP with DHS and ICE and prevented the department from withholding funding from states that did not comply.

Sexual health education funding: Washington, et al. v. HHS, RFK Jr., et al.

This lawsuit challenged the attempt by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to remove funding from states for teen reproductive and sexual health education programs unless the states removed language that was inclusive of gender identity from the curriculum.

A preliminary injunction was granted in October, and briefings for the final decision will be scheduled throughout spring 2026.

SNAP funding: Massachusetts, et al. v. USDA

This case challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to use contingency funding and other funding sources to continue providing SNAP benefits for the month of November to recipients during the 2025 government shutdown, which stretched from October to mid-November.

On Nov. 12, the court issued a temporary restraining order and prevented the USDA from taking action against states that had provided full SNAP benefits to recipients in November. Shortly after this, the shutdown ended and SNAP benefits were released.

HUD Continuum of Care: Washington, et al. v. HUD

This case challenged changes to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care grant program, which reduced funding for permanent housing options and imposed ideological barriers on grant recipients, such as barring recipients from acknowledging gender identity.

A preliminary injunction was granted on Dec. 19, after HUD rescinded the Notice of Funding Opportunity that the states were challenging.

SNAP eligibility: New York, et al. v. USDA

This case sought to overturn a policy from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would essentially eliminate access to SNAP food assistance benefits for all non-citizens, even certain legal residents who had previously been eligible, such as those with refugee status.

The court granted a preliminary injunction to the states on Dec. 15, halting the policy.

Federal funding to states: New York, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.

This case was filed to stop a directive from the Office of Management and Budget that sought to halt all disbursement of federal funding to states — which included money for programs like Medicaid as well as public schools and law enforcement. A preliminary injunction was issued on March 6, but a month later, it was ruled that the federal government had not been complying with that injunction, specifically in terms of FEMA disaster relief funding.

The decision on FEMA funding has been appealed, and a decision is forthcoming in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Medical research funding: Massachusetts, et al. v. NIH

This lawsuit was filed to challenge the decision to halt billions of dollars in medical research funding at the National Institutes of Health. This included research being conducted at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University.

A preliminary injunction was issued in March, and in April the federal government appealed that decision. Oral arguments have been held in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Election executive action: California, et al. v. Trump, Bondi, et al.

This lawsuit challenged an executive order issued by Trump that would institute sweeping voting restrictions, including proof of citizenship measures and new requirements on ballot counting.

A preliminary injunction was granted by federal district court in June, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal in July. A motion to dismiss by the federal government was denied by the court in September, and the case is still ongoing.

Dismantling the Department of Health and Human Services: New York, et al. v. RFK Jr., HHS, et al.

The lawsuit challenged the decision by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to fire around 10,000 federal employees and consolidate agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services.

The states were granted a preliminary injunction in July. The Department of Health and Human Services first attempted to vacate the injunction in district court and then appealed the injunction in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but after the appellate court denied a stay, they withdrew their appeal. However, the department’s motion to dismiss is still open in district court.

FEMA grant stipulations: Illinois, et al. v. FEMA, Homeland Security, et al.

This case challenged new stipulations added to funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that would impose immigration enforcement actions on grants that otherwise had nothing to do with immigration.

The district court issued a permanent injunction in September, barring the federal government from enforcing the immigration enforcement term in the agencies’ grants. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security filed an appeal of that decision in November, which is pending.

Medicaid data transfer: California, et al. v. HHS, RFK Jr., et al.

This case involves proposed data transfer from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. DHS and ICE sought records of Medicaid beneficiaries for purposes of immigration enforcement.

A preliminary injunction was granted in August. However, HHS and DHS announced in November that they intended to attempt again to transfer this data, and the states moved for a second injunction against that action. The court extended the first injunction through Jan. 5, 2026, to allow for consideration of that new motion.

Planned Parenthood funding: California, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al.

This lawsuit challenged the “Defund Provision” of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that passed this summer, which would block Medicaid reimbursements for services such as cancer screenings, birth control and STI testing at Planned Parenthood health centers.

A preliminary injunction was granted to the states on Dec. 2, but the government filed a motion to stay the injunction pending appeal six days later, which was immediately granted by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which will rule on the motion further.

Birthright citizenship: New Jersey, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.

First filed the day after Trump’s inauguration, this lawsuit is challenging an executive order that sought to overturn birthright citizenship. The case alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship.

While a preliminary injunction was initially granted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that federal district courts were limited in their ability to issue a nationwide injunction. The injunction is under appeal, but those proceedings are paused as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a related case on birthright citizenship, Barbara v. Trump, sometime in 2026.

Consumer protection: New York, et al. v. Russell T. Vought, et al.

This case seeks to stop the complete defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose current acting director, Russel Vought, is refusing to request any funding from the Federal Reserve, which plaintiffs argue will virtually guarantee the agency runs out of money in January 2026.

The case was filed Dec. 22, 2025 in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon.

Title VI: New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al.

This case is challenging the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically in regards to its interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

The case was filed in April, and briefings are scheduled through spring 2026 with a hearing set on June 4, 2026.

Energy emergency: Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al.

This lawsuit is challenging the Trump administration’s declaration of an “energy emergency,” which has dictated energy policy and prioritized the use of energy sources like coal, oil and gas as opposed to wind, solar and batteries.

The case was filed in May and remains open.

Agency priorities: New Jersey, et al. v. OMB, et al

This case called into question the legality of the Office of Management and Budget, along with other federal agencies, cancelling grants to states based on shifts in “agency priorities.”

The case is still in court, and briefings were completed on Dec. 5.

Affordable Care Act marketplace: California, et al. v. RFK Jr., et al.

This lawsuit alleged that a new rule established by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the enrollment for the Affordable Care Act “truncates and eliminates enrollment periods, makes enrollment more difficult, [and] adds eligibility verification requirements,” and as such is against the law.

The states filed for a preliminary injunction, which was denied in October. Briefings for the final ruling on the case will go through spring 2026.

Transgender youth health care: Massachusetts, et al. v. Trump, et al.

This case sued the Trump administration for attempting to restrict access to necessary health care for transgender, intersex, and nonbinary youth, including through threats of criminal prosecution for parents and doctors.

The case was filed in August.

Electric vehicle infrastructure: Washington, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, et al.

This lawsuit challenged the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration policy to suspend the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, which provided federal funding to states to develop their electric vehicle infrastructure.

Michigan joined the case on Aug. 1, and oral arguments are expected Jan. 13, 2026.

Solar for All program: Maryland Clean Energy Center v. USA; Arizona, et al. v. EPA

These two lawsuits, one in the Court of Federal Claims and one in U.S. District Court, challenged the cancellation of the Solar For All program, which was intended to provide solar energy to more than 900,000 households in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

Both cases were filed in October, and in district court, a hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2026.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness program: Massachusetts, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education

This lawsuit challenged new restrictions on eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which forgives student loans for government and nonprofit employees after ten years of service. The restrictions would eliminate eligibility for any nonprofit organization that the government deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”

The case was filed in November, and briefings are expected through spring 2026.

FEMA grants: Michigan, et al. v. Noem

This lawsuit challenged new funding terms for the Emergency Management Performance Grant and the Homeland Security Grant Program, both intended to be used for disaster response and preparedness, to limit direct access to funding by state and local police and emergency personnel — who are the people usually using the money from FEMA.

The lawsuit was filed in November, and a hearing was held on Dec. 17 on a motion for summary judgment.

H-1B Visas: California, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

This lawsuit argued that a new policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions is illegal, which are visas for highly specialized workers such as doctors and researchers.

The lawsuit was filed in December.

DOGE: New Mexico, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al.

This case challenged Elon Musk’s authority, in his role heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to stop federal funding for various programs and eliminate the actions of a number of government agencies. Specifically, the case challenged it on grounds of the constitutional powers of Congress to appropriate money.

The states voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on Dec. 15. Though there is not an official reason in the court filings, Bloomberg reported that it was because Musk had left the agency and its work had essentially stopped.

Federal employee layoffs: Maryland, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al.

This lawsuit was brought after the decision to institute “Reduction in Force,” or RIF, layoffs in a number of federal agencies that laid off thousands of government employees. The lawsuit stated that, because this would increase unemployment, states would now be required to pay out significantly higher amounts of unemployment benefits and Medicaid.

The case was dismissed after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the states did not have standing and did not prove a significant enough harm.

Education Department reduction: New York, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al.

This lawsuit was filed to challenge what the states alleged to be an attempt to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education by the Trump administration under Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

The case was initially granted a preliminary injunction in May, but in July, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a brief and unsigned order, to overturn that injunction, which eventually led to dismissal of the states’ appeal of that decision and the injunction being vacated in October.

Machine gun conversion devices: New Jersey, et al. v. Bondi, ATF, et al.

This case called into question the policy of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that included plans to distribute thousands of machine gun conversion devices, which turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons.

The states withdrew their motions after the ATF expressly confirmed to a judge that it would not follow through on that policy.

Education funding freeze: California, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al.

The lawsuit challenged the Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding to six longstanding programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education, which totalled over $6 billion to go to states for education programs.

Weeks after the case was filed, the administration released the frozen funding. Both sides of the case filed to dismiss the case, after an agreement that the remaining funding for the fiscal year would be released on time, which the court agreed to.

Victims of Crime Act funds: New Jersey, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bondi, et al.

This case challenged new stipulations added to funding intended to be used for the Victims of Crime Act that would impose immigration enforcement actions on grants that otherwise had nothing to do with immigration.

After this case was filed, the Department of Justice dropped these plans to enact such policies.

Victims of Crime Act grants: New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bondi, et al.

This lawsuit challenged new policies on funding from the Victims of Crime Act and the Violence Against Women Act that would restrict the use of grant funds to provide some legal services for certain immigrants.

The case was dismissed after the Department of Justice said that it would not impose the restrictions on grants in question.

The Michigan Advance, a hard-hitting, nonprofit news site, covers politics and policy across the state of Michigan through in-depth stories, blog posts, and social media updates, as well as top-notch progressive commentary. The Advance is part of States Newsroom, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and a coalition of donors and readers.