Access to federal property <\/p>\n
The White House has used its power over access to federal property to single out certain organizations for punishment, prompting legal action. For instance, the Trump administration barred The Associated Press from certain press events because it uses the name Gulf of Mexico in its articles, rather than \u201cGulf of America.\u201d <\/p>\n
Latest action: Oral argument, Nov. 24, 2025<\/p>\n
November 24, 2025 <\/p>\n
Associated Press v. Budowich <\/p>\n
In February 2025, the Trump administration barred The Associated Press from certain events for its use of the term \u201cGulf of Mexico.\u201d A federal judge said the administration\u2019s move amounted to a violation of the First Amendment. An appeals court later ruled that the president could, for now, block the news outlet from small places such as the Oval Office or Air Force One. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Feb. 21, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Latest action: Appealed, July 2, 2025<\/p>\n July 2, 2025 <\/p>\n Perkins Coie v. D.O.J. <\/p>\n Perkins Coie was among a small number of law firms that refused to strike a deal to do free legal work for the Trump administration\u2019s favored causes. Instead, it chose to face an executive order that seeks to strip lawyers of their security clearances and bar them from working for the federal government. District court judges have ruled against the legality of Mr. Trump\u2019s order, and the administration has filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed March 11, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 4, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed June 16, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed May 5, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n + Show all 10 cases Alien Enemies Act <\/p>\n In March, Mr. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, in an effort to round up and deport scores of immigrants who he claimed were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Federal courts around the country have been divided on whether he has properly used the law. <\/p>\n Latest action: Oral argument, Jan. 22<\/p>\n January 22 <\/p>\n W.M.M. v. Trump <\/p>\n This case is expected to be the decisive legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime law used by Mr. Trump to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang. The Supreme Court has already made a preliminary ruling that the immigrants did not receive sufficient notice of their deportations, but has not ruled on the overall legality of Mr. Trump\u2019s proclamation. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has rejected the administration\u2019s claim that Venezuelans in the U.S. amounted to an \u201cinvasion,\u201d and the case will now be considered by the full court in an \u201cen banc\u201d rehearing. <\/p>\n Orig. filed April 16, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Supreme Court action<\/p>\n Orig. filed May 21, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed May 17, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed May 10, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed May 5, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 14 cases Birthright citizenship <\/p>\n On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to stop treating as U.S. citizens any children born in the United States after a certain date whose parents are undocumented or who are in the country legally but temporarily. <\/p>\n The Supreme Court has not ruled on the adminstration\u2019s directive, but it did decide in June that several district court judges had exceeded their authority in blocking the policy across the country. A new lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U. is now challenging the policy. <\/p>\n Latest action: Appealed, Oct. 7, 2025<\/p>\n October 7, 2025 <\/p>\n CASA v. Trump <\/p>\n With an executive order, Mr. Trump tried to reframe the long-settled historical understanding of birthright citizenship to exclude babies born to undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the order\u2019s constitutionality, but it did limit the authority of lower-court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide. The district-court judge then certified this case as a class-action suit and again blocked the new policy. The case is now on hold as it awaits a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump\u2019s order from another case, Barbara v. Trump. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 21, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Supreme Court action<\/p>\n Latest action: Appealed, Sept. 10, 2025<\/p>\n September 10, 2025 <\/p>\n Barbara v. Trump <\/p>\n This class-action lawsuit will most likely yield a decisive ruling from the Supreme Court on whether Mr. Trump\u2019s attempt to limit birthright citizenship for the babies of undocumented immigrants violates the 14th Amendment\u2019s grant of citizenship to \u201call persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.\u201d In a preliminary ruling, a district-court judge found that Mr. Trump\u2019s executive order was most likely unconstitutional, rejecting the administration\u2019s argument that U.S. citizenship flows from a person\u2019s \u201clawful domicile\u201d as opposed to their birthplace. <\/p>\n Orig. filed June 27, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed Feb. 13, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 30, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 30, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 10 cases Climate and environment <\/p>\n Upon returning to office, Mr. Trump said he was revoking several Biden-era environmental policies, including protections against drilling in certain areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic. <\/p>\n Latest action: Plaintiffs won, Dec. 8, 2025<\/p>\n December 8, 2025 <\/p>\n New York v. Trump <\/p>\n On the first day of his second term, Mr. Trump issued a memorandum that would halt all leasing of federal lands and waters for new wind farms pending a government review, and would direct federal agencies to stop issuing permits for all wind farms. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the order was outside the president\u2019s authority and contrary to existing laws such as the Clean Air Act. In December 2025, a district judge ruled that the wind order was contrary to the law. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed May 5, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 28<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Vineyard Wind 1 v. U.S. Department of the Interior Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 15<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Ack for Whales v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 9<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 9<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 39 cases DOGE <\/p>\n In the first few months of Mr. Trump\u2019s second term, Elon Musk\u2019s Department of Government Efficiency moved to enact a series of sweeping cuts across the government including eliminating government agencies like the U.S. Institute of Peace and firing broad swaths of federal workers. <\/p>\n Latest action: Oral argument, Nov. 21, 2025<\/p>\n November 21, 2025 <\/p>\n U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson <\/p>\n The Trump administration took over and gutted the U.S. Institute of Peace, an independent nonprofit created by Congress to seek diplomatic solutions to global conflicts. The administration\u2019s action resulted in a series of events that included a dramatic confrontation among agency staff, DOGE representatives, private security and law enforcement authorities. A federal judge ordered the reinstatement of officials ejected by the White House, but an appeals court stayed the order, yielding control of the institute back to Mr. Trump while the case proceeded. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed March 18, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed July 28, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed July 1, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n American Association of Physics Teachers v. National Science Foundation Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed June 18, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n National Job Corps Association v. Department of Labor Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed June 3, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n + Show all 32 cases Firings <\/p>\n In his second term, Mr. Trump has tried to fire a number of government officials, including agency watchdogs and a governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Several federal judges have said that Mr. Trump did not have the power to fire the officials in question. The Supreme Court has sided with the president in some cases, but has not yet ruled on a lawsuit brought by Lisa Cook, who has continued to sit on the Fed\u2019s Board of Governors. <\/p>\n Latest action: On hold, Oct. 8, 2025<\/p>\n October 8, 2025 <\/p>\n Boyle v. Trump <\/p>\n In May, President Trump fired three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a five-member group that monitors the safety of products like toys, cribs and electronics. A federal law allows them to be terminated for only \u201cneglect of duty or malfeasance,\u201d but the president gave no reasons for the firings. A federal judge initially reinstated the commission members, but in July 2025 the Supreme Court released an order allowing Mr. Trump to enforce the firing. An appeals court put the case on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Slaughter v. Trump. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed May 21, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Supreme Court action<\/p>\n Latest action: SCOTUS ruling, Sept. 22, 2025<\/p>\n September 22, 2025 <\/p>\n Slaughter v. Trump <\/p>\n In March 2025, Mr. Trump fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Federal Trade commissioner, and her colleague Alvaro Bedoya as he asserted control over agencies that regulate companies and workplaces. The move challenged longstanding legal precedent that members of the F.T.C. could be fired for only a narrow set of reasons. A federal court ruled that Mr. Trump\u2019s firing of Slaughter was illegal. Bedoya\u2019s claim was dismissed in July after he resigned from the commission in June. That September, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s ruling, removing Slaughter from her role temporarily until the case could be argued in front of the Supreme Court before the end of 2025. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed March 27, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Supreme Court action<\/p>\n Supreme Court action pending<\/p>\n Latest action: Appellate ruling, Sept. 15, 2025<\/p>\n September 15, 2025 <\/p>\n Cook v. Trump <\/p>\n The Supreme Court is now considering the legality of Mr. Trump\u2019s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because of the administration\u2019s claim that she engaged in mortgage fraud, despite never having been charged or convicted of a crime. Both a district court judge and an appellate panel have issued temporary rulings that block the firing, and Ms. Cook remains active in her role at the Fed, for now. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Aug. 28, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Supreme Court action pending<\/p>\n Dellinger v. Bessent <\/p>\n President Trump moved to fire Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger sued, saying his removal was unlawful. In a subsequent appeal, judges sided with the Trump administration, effectively removing Dellinger from his position. He later dropped his case. <\/p>\n Orig. filed Feb. 10, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Dismissed March 31, 2025<\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 21<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 67 cases Funding cuts <\/p>\n Mr. Trump has moved to freeze or terminate billions of dollars in federal funding for scientific research, mental health services, art programs, educational programs, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, school lunches, disaster preparedness, foreign assistance and transportation infrastructure. <\/p>\n Latest action: Appealed, Dec. 1, 2025<\/p>\n December 1, 2025 <\/p>\n Illinois v. FEMA <\/p>\n The Department of Homeland Security issued new rules requiring states and cities that receive grants for disaster preparation and recovery to adhere to the Trump administration\u2019s immigration agenda or face the possibility of losing billions of dollars. A coalition of 20 state attorneys general sued the department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, saying the requirements were illegal and would cause irreparable harm. In September 2025, a district judge ruled in favor of the state attorneys, ordering the distribution of disaster relief funds despite individual state immigration policies. <\/p>\n Orig. filed May 13, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Latest action: Oral argument, Nov. 12, 2025<\/p>\n November 12, 2025 <\/p>\n New York v. Trump <\/p>\n After the Trump administration sought to enact a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states, more than 20 sued the Office of Management and Budget, saying the freeze was unlawful. A judge later found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unfreeze the funds. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 28, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Latest action: Plaintiffs won, Nov. 4, 2025<\/p>\n November 4, 2025 <\/p>\n California v. U.S. Department of Transportation <\/p>\n The Department of Transportation announced that it would require states that receive its grants to adhere to the Trump administration\u2019s immigration policies. Twenty states sued, saying that the administration\u2019s requirements were unconstitutional and that \u201cmore people will die\u201d if billions in federal transportation funding were withheld. In June 2025, a federal judge blocked the administration\u2019s move, concluding that the requirement was unconstitutional. <\/p>\n Orig. filed May 13, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 23<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n New York v. Administration for Children and Families Docket\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 8<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n + Show all 147 cases Immigration <\/p>\n A number of lawsuits challenge the administration\u2019s immigration policies, including its efforts to authorize immigration agents to enter houses of worship, speed up and broaden the scope of deportations, withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities and make it harder for refugees to claim asylum in the United States. <\/p>\n One of the most closely watched cases concerns a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who in March was deported to a prison in El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration has accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of having ties to the MS-13 gang. <\/p>\n Latest action: Hearing, Jan. 9<\/p>\n January 9 <\/p>\n Doe v. Noem <\/p>\n On May 30, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration, for now, to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian program intended to give temporary residency to more than 500,000 immigrants from countries facing war and political turmoil. The ruling exposes some migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti to possible deportation. Earlier in the month, the justices allowed the administration, for now, to remove deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to remain in the United States under a program known as Temporary Protected Status. <\/p>\n Orig. filed Feb. 28, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Supreme Court action<\/p>\n Latest action: Hearing, Dec. 22, 2025<\/p>\n December 22, 2025 <\/p>\n Abrego Garcia v. Noem <\/p>\n The administration detained Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the immigrant who was wrongfully expelled to El Salvador, for a second time in August 2025. The administration has indicated that it plans to re-deport him to Uganda. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Aug. 25, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Latest action: Preliminary injunction, Dec. 8, 2025<\/p>\n December 8, 2025 <\/p>\n Ozturk v. Hyde <\/p>\n In March, a Turkish graduate student who co-wrote an essay criticizing Israel in a student newspaper was arrested outside her Massachusetts home by masked federal agents. The student, Rumeysa Ozturk, sued, saying the government had detained her in unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. After Ms. Ozturk spent six weeks in detention, a judge ordered her to be released while her case continues. <\/p>\n Orig. filed Aug. 21, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Latest action: Oral argument, Oct. 21, 2025<\/p>\n October 21, 2025 <\/p>\n Khalil v. Joyce <\/p>\n The administration has been fighting in court to again detain and then deport Mahmoud Khalil \u2014 a legal permanent resident, Columbia University graduate, and prominent figure in the pro-Palestinian movement \u2014 after jailing him for months last year. The administration has claimed that Mr. Khalil\u2019s presence in the U.S. contributed to the spread of antisemitism, and later claimed he omitted key facts from his permanent residency application. Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers have denied the allegations of antisemitism and protested his detention as unconstitutional retaliation for free speech. He was released on bail in June 2025. In January, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit opened the possibility that he could be rearrested, but he remains free while that ruling is appealed. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed March 19, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security <\/p>\n In May 2025, the Trump administration said it would halt Harvard University\u2019s ability to enroll international students, taking aim at a crucial funding source for the nation\u2019s oldest and wealthiest college. The move was a major escalation of the administration\u2019s efforts to pressure the school to fall in line with the president\u2019s agenda. Less than 24 hours later, the university sued the administration, accusing it of a \u201ccampaign of retribution.\u201d That June, a federal judge in Boston sided with Harvard and blocked a Trump administration effort to rescind the school\u2019s right to host international students. The administration has appealed the decision. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed May 23, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n + Show all 112 cases Tariffs <\/p>\n State officials, small businesses and political groups have sued the Trump administration over its tariff policy, contending that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. <\/p>\n Latest action: SCOTUS pending, Sept. 10, 2025<\/p>\n September 10, 2025 <\/p>\n V.O.S. Selections v. Trump <\/p>\n A majority of Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical during November oral arguments over the legality of tariffs that Mr. Trump has sought to impose on more than 100 countries using a 1977 emergency law. The administration\u2019s tariff capability remains in place for now. If the justices agree with the lower courts and strike it down, that would release billions of dollars in refunds as well as the likelihood of further litigation, should the administration use a new statute, or statutes, to claim unilateral tariff powers. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed April 14, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Plaintiff won<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 23, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 22, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 22, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 21, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 68 cases Trans rights <\/p>\n Several lawsuits challenge the Trump administration\u2019s moves to prohibit recognizing transgender people according to their gender identity. Cases have included placing transgender women who are federal prisoners in men\u2019s housing and witholding federal funding from hospitals that offer gender-related treatment to patients younger than 19. <\/p>\n Latest action: Preliminary injunction, Nov. 17, 2025<\/p>\n November 17, 2025 <\/p>\n Doe v. Bondi <\/p>\n Mr. Trump issued an executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to house transgender women with male inmates and stop medical treatment related to gender transitions. Three transgender women in prison sued, saying they had a right to essential medical care and to be kept safe while incarcerated. A judge temporarily blocked the order, and the Trump administration has appealed the case. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 30, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Latest action: Appealed, March 24, 2025<\/p>\n March 24, 2025 <\/p>\n PFLAG v. Trump <\/p>\n With their parents and advocacy groups, six transgender people between the ages of 12 and 18 sued to block Mr. Trump\u2019s executive order that sought to restrict medical treatments for trans youths, arguing that it violated the Constitution. A judge temporarily ordered the administration to continue federal funding for hospitals that offer transition care for people under the age of 19, a decision the Trump administration has appealed. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed Feb. 4, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 23, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 22, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Nov. 20, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 26 cases Other suits <\/p>\n Dozens of other suits have been filed against the Trump administration. They are about issues like the government\u2019s attempt to block New York City\u2019s congestion pricing program, a law that would have prevented some Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Medicaid reimbursements and the removal of books about race and gender from Department of Defense schools. <\/p>\n Latest action: Supreme Court ruling, Dec. 23, 2025<\/p>\n December 23, 2025 <\/p>\n Illinois v. Trump <\/p>\n A block on Mr. Trump\u2019s attempt to deploy the National Guard in Illinois over the objections of state and local officials remains in place after the Supreme Court rejected the administration\u2019s arguments that the deployment was legal. The Supreme Court\u2019s ruling was on the emergency docket, so the issue could be considered again on the court\u2019s merits docket. Mr. Trump has said he might invoke the Insurrection Act, which would potentially offer a separate legal basis for Guard deployments, and touch off more lawsuits. <\/p>\n Orig. filed Oct. 6, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Supreme Court action<\/p>\n Latest action: Preliminary injunction, Dec. 10, 2025<\/p>\n December 10, 2025 <\/p>\n Newsom v. Trump <\/p>\n After the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops in Los Angeles to respond to protests, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration had illegally taken control of the state\u2019s troops. He ordered them to return to taking orders from Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. An appeals court subsequently stayed that decision, which means the National Guard forces will stay subject to Mr. Trump\u2019s control for now. Read more\u00a0\u203a<\/a> <\/p>\n Orig. filed June 9, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active, policy halted<\/p>\n Appealed<\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 22<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Jan. 11<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n Orig. filed Dec. 22, 2025<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n Active<\/p>\n + Show all 96 cases <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Access to federal property The White House has used its power over access to federal property to single…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":119142,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[18077,52336,1452,36019,17074,36018,9,11,10,17076,24434,11771,1069],"class_list":{"0":"post-119141","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-york","8":"tag-18077","9":"tag-citizenship-and-naturalization","10":"tag-donald-j","11":"tag-elon","12":"tag-federal-courts-us","13":"tag-musk","14":"tag-new-york","15":"tag-new-york-headlines","16":"tag-new-york-news","17":"tag-presidential-power-us","18":"tag-storming-of-the-us-capitol-jan","19":"tag-suits-and-litigation-civil","20":"tag-trump"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119141\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/119142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}