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

The Trump administration has been defying court orders, however, putting the nation on the brink of a constitutional crisis that threatens the rule of law and separation of powers among the three branches of government.

It remains unclear how the courts will respond to this unprecedented situation. Judges can levy fines and hold parties in contempt for disobeying their orders but rarely do so. And enforcement of court orders relies on the U.S. Marshals Service, which is part of the executive branch.

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.

Mass firings of federal workers

What’s at stake?: Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown is leading a coalition of 20 states suing over the Trump administration’s mass firings of probationary federal employees. Thousands of people have lost their jobs or are expected to soon as part of Trump’s effort to massively shrink the federal government, according to a recent forecast from state budget experts.

What did the courts do?: A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers in a temporary restraining order that will last for two weeks. The judge will also consider extending the order during that period.

Key quote: “These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos,” the attorneys general wrote in the complaint. “They are also against the law.”

What’s next?: The states are expected to ask for a longer-term order keeping federal workers in their jobs while the lawsuit proceeds. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

Federal funding freeze

What’s at stake?: 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. A second federal judge extended that decision with a preliminary injunction on Feb. 22.

Key quote: “Giving a private citizen unauthorized access to our nation’s central banking system endangers sensitive information that the State relies on in providing crucial services for Marylanders,” Brown said in a news release. “I am happy that this preliminary injunction is in place so that we can put a stop to this reckless risk to our State and the people it serves.”

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?: A judge on Feb. 18 denied a request from the states for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked Musk and DOGE from firing employees and accessing data systems at several federal agencies. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan wrote that the state attorneys general did not show that they were at risk of imminent, irreparable harm.

Key quote: “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight,” Chutkan wrote. “In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority.”

What’s next?: The case is ongoing. 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 issued a nationwide injunction that temporarily blocks this plan.

Key quote: “It is impossible to accurately measure or compensate humans who lose their lives from a pause in research,” U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley wrote. “It is impossible to measure the value of discovery from scientists who choose to leave, or of the potential students who now never become scientists at all. Even for those harms than can be measured in dollars and cents, the losses are compounding and will result in even greater disruption to ongoing research and clinical trials.”

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.

Funding for teacher prep programs

What’s at stake?: The U.S. Department of Education terminated about $600 million in grants intended to address nationwide teacher shortages last month, according to the lawsuit filed by Brown and seven other attorneys general.

What did the courts decide?: A Massachusetts judge issued a temporary restraining order on March 11, blocking the cuts.

Key quote: “Dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted,” U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, a Biden appointee, wrote in his decision.

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

Department of Education cuts

What’s at stake?: The Trump administration has said it intends to dismantle the Department of Education, a federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in schools and administers federal student aid programs, among other duties. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said that major layoffs are a first step toward shutting down the department.

Brown and 20 other attorneys general are suing to prevent the shutdown, arguing that the administration does not have the authority to abolish a department that was created by Congress.

What did the courts do?: Nothing yet. The lawsuit was just filed.

Key quote: “President Trump’s attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education threatens to strip Maryland schools of critical resources, leading to larger class sizes, fewer services for students with disabilities, and deepening inequities between well-funded and struggling districts,” Brown said in a statement. “The impacts wouldn’t just affect grade school students; young adults’ may not be able to pay for college with federal student loans and grants, forcing them to change their hopes and dreams.”

What’s next?: A judge has not scheduled a hearing yet in the case. 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?: A Baltimore federal judge first granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration, blocking federal officials from changing or canceling contracts considered to be diversity-related. But a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to put the preliminary injunction on hold, handing a win to the administration.

Key quote: “The White House and Attorney General have made clear, through their ongoing implementation of various aspects of the [executive] order, that viewpoints and speech considered to be in favor of or supportive of DEI or DEIA are viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish,” U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson wrote. “And, as the Supreme Court has made clear time and time again, the government cannot rely on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ to suppress disfavored speech.”

What’s next?: 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?: A judge declined to issue a temporary order blocking the Trump administration from defunding the CFPB, finding that the plaintiffs did not show there was an “immediate threat” to the agency. The case is still ongoing.

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 lawsuit is continuing, though there is not a temporary order in place blocking the administration from cutting the agency’s resources while the case proceeds. Read the complaint here. The case is docketed here.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.