Lawsuits against the new Trump administration are flying almost as quickly as the executive orders they seek to challenge. This tracker can help you keep up.

The lawsuits challenge President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grant money and his handing over control of critical government operations to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency.”

State attorneys general, private organizations and advocacy groups have seen some early success in blocking these moves in the courts. There are also signs that the Trump administration is not complying with unfavorable court orders, pushing the nation toward a constitutional crisis over the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

This list is not exhaustive but will include major lawsuits brought by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, the City of Baltimore, and other government entities in Maryland as they arise.

Because of the number of lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, this list incorporates judges’ decisions in cases filed by other groups, such as nonprofits or advocacy organizations, over the same issues. This page will be updated when major developments occur but may not include every judicial decision in every case. You can also check the court dockets, linked below, for the most updated information.

Federal funding freeze

What’s at stake?: Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown joined 22 other states in suing after Trump’s Office of Budget and Management paused trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, creating chaos in state and local governments and other organizations that rely on the money.

What did the courts do?: A federal judge put the freeze on hold, at least temporarily, and also found that the administration had not reinstated all of the funding as required by the court order.

Key quote: “The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” Rhode Island U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. wrote in a recent order in which he found that the Trump administration did not unfreeze all federal funds as required.

What’s next?: The case is ongoing. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

Access to personal information

What’s at stake?: Brown’s office also joined 18 other states that sued last week to block the disclosure of Americans’ personal information to Elon Musk and DOGE, which is not a government department and operates with questionable legal authority. The lawsuit claims that the Trump administration improperly granted DOGE access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system and with it access to Americans’ bank account information and Social Security numbers.

What did the courts decide?: A judge temporarily halted DOGE’s access, prompting outrage from Musk and other members of Trump’s administration.

Key quote: “Beyond affording Mr. Musk and his associates the ability to block [Bureau of Fiscal Services] payments, Defendants’ new expanded access policy poses huge cybersecurity risks, including risks to States and States’ residents, that their information will be used and processed, unchecked, in a manner not permitted by federal law,” lawyers for the states wrote in the complaint.

What’s next?: The case is ongoing. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

Elon Musk

What’s at stake?: A lawsuit challenges Trump’s delegation of executive power to Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, who is acting as a “special government employee” as he tears through government agencies in search of savings. Critics argue that Musk’s unilateral cuts to congressionally funded programs are unlawful, and that Musk is dismantling agencies that otherwise would have regulated his businesses.

What did the courts decide?: Nothing yet. The case was filed Feb. 13.

Key quote: “Musk’s seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen, or click of a mouse, is unprecedented,” lawyers for the 13 states that sued wrote in the complaint. “The sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure.”

What’s next?: The case is just getting started. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

Medical research funding

What’s at stake?: Brown and 21 other attorneys general sued over the Trump administration’s effort to halt billions of dollars in medical research funding that flows through the National Institutes of Health. The move to slash “indirect cost” reimbursements jeopardized hundreds of clinical trials at Johns Hopkins, for example.

What did the courts decide?: A federal judge temporarily blocked this plan.

Key quote: “Effectively halting research to cure and treat human disease will directly impact the well-being of the Plaintiff states’ citizens, who are the beneficiaries of research creating treatments, such as modern gene editing, vaccines such as flu vaccines, and cures for diseases like cancer, infectious diseases, and addiction,” lawyers for the states wrote in the complaint.

What’s next?: The case is ongoing. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

Birthright citizenship

What’s at stake?: Brown and 18 other attorneys general also sued to challenge Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, the long-recognized constitutional guarantee of United States citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

What did the courts decide?: Multiple lawsuits challenging the executive order are pending, and at least three federal judges have blocked the order. A preliminary injunction blocking the order was issued Feb. 13 in the lawsuit brought by state attorneys general.

Key quote: “President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” Brown said after the preliminary injunction was issued.

What’s next?: Trump is appealing. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

DEIA programs

What’s at stake?: The city of Baltimore sued the Trump administration on Feb. 3 over executive orders that cut off federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the government.

Trump quickly moved to end programs that sought to make the federal workforce more diverse and to right historical wrongs caused by bias and disinvestment. The administration also warned that federal grant recipients would need to certify that they do not operate programs supporting diversity and inclusion efforts.

The change threatens hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money that Baltimore factors into its budget and raises constitutional concerns about the separation of powers and free speech, the lawsuit claims.

What did the courts decide?: No decision yet.

Key quote: “In his crusade to erase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility from our country, President Trump cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions,” lawyers for the city and other plaintiffs wrote.

What’s next?: The case is filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

Defunding a consumer protection agency

What’s at stake?: Baltimore sued on Feb. 12 to stop the administration’s effort to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent government agency that serves as a watchdog against unfair practices by banks, credit card companies and other large financial institutions.

The lawsuit claims that Baltimore will be harmed if the bureau’s protections for consumers disappear.

What did the courts decide?: No decision yet. The government agreed not to pull funding for the CFPB until at least Feb. 28 as part of an agreement with the city, according to a new court filing.

Key quote: “Without CFPB, people in Baltimore would be more at risk of being tricked and trapped by shady financial practices, and the city would be forced to divert resources from other essential functions just to provide the same level of protection that residents enjoy now,” the city’s lawyers wrote.

What’s next?: The case is filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.