As of Feb. 7, approximately 35 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s 46 executive orders, according to lists compiled by Just Security and the Federal Register. Some of the complaints target Trump’s efforts to unwind government aid for transgender procedures, his immigration policy, and his efforts to roll back major federal programs that the administration argues has contributed to excessive spending of taxpayer dollars.

The Biden administration previously encountered similar legal hurdles, as executive actions often become entangled in nationwide litigation. Joe Biden signed 60 executive actions in his first 100 days as president, 24 of which were direct reversals of Trump’s policies from his first term.

Now, Trump appears poised to rival the pace of executive actions his predecessor took in his own first 100 days, even if it means inviting a fight in federal courts.

Below is a list of the top executive orders being challenged.

Limiting birthright citizenship becomes the steepest battle thus far

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday became the second in the nation to issue a preliminary injunction against Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship. Later in the evening, the Trump administration filed an appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, teeing up the first appeals court review over an executive order since Trump took office.

On Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order known as “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aiming to curtail birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants.

A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, issued a temporary restraining order on Jan. 23 blocking the executive order’s implementation.

Coughenor held a hearing on Thursday that elevated his restraining order into a preliminary injunction at the request of plaintiffs. The judge notably used the hearing to elevate his concerns that Trump is “ignoring” the law and seeking to enact the policy without regard to federal court’s long-standing precedent surrounding 14th Amendment rights.

“It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” Coughenour said as he announced his ruling.

Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups and five pregnant women also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on Feb. 5 stating that the order was “likely to be found unconstitutional.”

The dispute is one to watch closely as it progresses in court, as legal experts across the ideological spectrum say the Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in at some point ovn the legality of ending birthright citizenship.

Transgender policies face mounting scrutiny

Trump has so far signed four orders targeting transgender policies previously supported by the Biden administration and backed by Democrats.

One order signed on Jan. 27 bars individuals from enlisting or serving openly in the military while expressing “a false ‘gender identity’ divergent” from biological sex. Civil rights groups GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed for a temporary restraining order to maintain existing policies and prevent the removal of transgender troops. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes has said she will “entertain” a motion for a temporary restraining order “should any action be taken against Plaintiffs before the preliminary injunction hearing” on Feb. 18.

Another order that came the following day cuts off federal funding to hospitals providing gender-affirming care to individuals under 19 in an effort to protect children from “chemical and surgical mutilation,” while barring federal health benefits from providing “pediatric transgender surgeries or hormone treatments.” Legal challenges have been initiated against the order restricting federal funding for so-called gender-affirming care for minors. As of now, there have been no court rulings, and hearings are pending.

Trump’s transgender prison order instructs the Bureau of Prisons to house inmates in facilities corresponding to their birth sex and ends gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated people. Across two separate lawsuits filed so far, judges have temporarily shielded four biologically male transgender inmates from being transferred from where they are currently housed in a women’s facilities, and barred the BOP from relocating transgender inmates.

More lawsuits are likely to come in response to an order signed by Trump on Wednesday barring biological men from competing in girls and women’s sports, as there have been similar legal actions against states that have enacted similar measures.

Efforts to roll back DEI challenged by Baltimore mayor

Trump has issued several orders that aim to bring back fairness and promote meritocracy over diversity, equity, and inclusion policies promoted under Biden.

The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, along with other plaintiffs including Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, filed a lawsuit on Feb. 3 targeting two orders, including one directing federal agencies to terminate all equity-related grants and contracts and another that threatens to impose civil investigations and financial penalties to “deter DEI programs or principles.”

The plaintiffs say the orders infringe upon their First Amendment rights and that the orders constitute a direct attack on local communities and institutions that rely on federal funding. The case is currently pending in federal court, with no judge assigned yet.

Federal funding freeze and the OMB memo

On Jan. 27, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo that ordered a temporary pause on the disbursement of federal grants and loans to review their alignment with presidential priorities.

Nonprofit organizations, including Democracy Forward and the National Council of Nonprofits, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 4 preventing the funding freeze from taking effect.  

AliKhan’s order restricts OMB from “implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name” the memo. However, it does not rule out the possibility that the Trump administration could require funding pauses under some executive orders, as Justice Department lawyers have argued.

Prior to AliKhan’s decision, a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. granted a temporary restraining order on Jan. 31 blocking the funding freeze, stating that “no federal law would authorize the executive’s unilateral action here.”  

Turning away asylum-seekers

A day-one Trump order allows border officials to turn away asylum-seekers without a hearing, a move Trump made to reinforce the use of his “Remain in Mexico” policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the asylum restrictions in federal court, claiming that the order is unlawful and unprecedented. The case is pending, with no court rulings to date.

A separate directive offers guidance to the Justice Department instructing action against “sanctuary cities” that prevent the arrest of undocumented immigrants, which Attorney General Pam Bondi did on Thursday with the administration’s first lawsuit against Chicago.

In response to that directive, a group of Chicago-based immigrant organizations filed a lawsuit on Jan. 25 stating that the guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. No court decisions have been issued yet, and hearings are forthcoming.

Deadline for deferred resignation offer temporarily halted

U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., a Clinton appointee, issued a temporary restraining order Thursday, halting the Trump administration’s “Fork in the Road” program that allowed federal workers the opportunity to quit voluntarily in exchange for several months of payments.

The judge said he would revisit the issue in a hearing Monday afternoon to decide whether to extend the order, or whether the program can move forward during litigation.

“I enjoined the defendants from taking any action to implement the so-called directive pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues,” O’Toole said during a remote hearing. “I believe that’s as far as I want to go today.” Justice Department attorneys vowed to notify every federal worker affected by the delay.

The Office of Personnel Management’s offer, modeled after DOGE chief Elon Musk’s restructuring of Twitter, had set a midnight Thursday deadline for more than 2 million federal workers to resign in exchange for continued pay through Sept. 30. Three major unions representing 800,000 federal employees sued to block the program, arguing it violates federal law and pressures workers into resigning under the threat of future layoffs.

The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward, argues that the offer is unlawful, arbitrarily short, and a pretext for purging workers on ideological grounds. It also questions whether the Office of Personnel Management exceeded its authority in promising pay and benefits beyond the March 14 federal funding deadline, potentially violating the Antideficiency Act.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

With confusion and concerns over the offer’s legality, about 60,000 workers, roughly 3% of the federal workforce, had accepted the offers as of Thursday, according to several news outlets. The administration had expected a last-minute surge before Thursday’s deadline became null. The offer was extended until now at least Feb. 10.

The Washington Examiner contacted representatives with the White House but did not immediately receive a response.