It was a busy year for the federal government and the federal court system. As an early Christmas present, MeriTalk wrapped up some of the year’s biggest lawsuits and where they stand.
Federal workforce
After President Donald Trump offered federal employees likely to be impacted by his reductions in force (RIFs) – also known as layoffs – to partake in the “deferred resignation” program, unions filed suit to determine the program’s legality. A federal judge in Massachusetts placed that program on hold, but later lifted that hold. More than 75,000 employees accepted the program’s offer.
Meanwhile, five federal employee unions filed a suit challenging Trump’s RIF executive order, saying it violated the separation of powers principle and the Administrative Procedure Act. A District of Columbia judge denied the unions’ request for an emergency restraining order, and the litigation has continued as a procedural challenge.
A second suit, pushed by another coalition of unions, filed a similar complaint focused on probationary employees in California, which was granted a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court later lifted that order.
Probationary employees were also offered protection from Trump’s order after the independent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) stayed the firing of some workers. MSPB has had its own trials after Trump attempted to fire MSPB Chair Cathy Harris.
A federal judge blocked that attempt with a permanent injunction, citing an existing law that prevents Trump from removing Harris “absent inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The Trump administration then removed Harris from her position again after the administration was able to stay that injunction, but it was then forced to reinstate her again after an appeals court overturned the stay.
The Supreme Court ultimately granted an emergency request from the government to temporarily block those lower court rulings, removing her as MSPB chair for the third time.
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel further ruled that firing Harris without cause was lawful. But the Supreme Court is soon expected to hear arguments on whether a 90-year legal precedent could be overturned that would expand Trump’s ability to shape independent agencies.
In other decisions supporting the administration, an appeals court overturned a preliminary injunction to block an executive order from Trump that aimed to strip union rights from federal workers. Most recently, lawyers from both sides have asked the court to decide the merits of the dispute.
The Supreme Court also temporarily blocked an order from a California federal judge who said that the Trump administration could not conduct mass firings across federal agencies. While the Supreme Court said the president issuing the order itself was legal, it did not determine whether the plans were legal. That final decision requires documents from the administration on their RIF plans, which it has refused to hand over.
Most recently, the Trump administration has been in court for the RIFs it conducted during the 43-day government shutdown. Some of those layoffs were blocked by a preliminary injunction.
DOGE’s data access
After Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which embedded teams across federal agencies to cut waste and modernize government technology, lawsuits came knocking on courthouse doors.
One suit filed in the District of Columbia alleged that the Treasury Department shared confidential data with DOGE and violated federal laws that protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure. A federal judge rejected an early bid to block the department’s alleged data-sharing, but the lawsuit remains pending after a March 2025 ruling denying emergency relief.
Even though that case failed to block DOGE’s access to Treasury systems, a coalition of states that filed in New York was initially successful in blocking DOGE’s access through an ongoing injunction. However, modifications to that injunction allow DOGE employees with proper training access to that data.
Meanwhile, another suit filed by a coalition of major labor unions attempted to block DOGE’s access to sensitive data at the Department of Labor and other agencies. Most recently, a judge denied a preliminary injunction to block that access in June 2025, and the government is now seeking summary judgment.
At the Department of Education, a D.C. federal judge declined a request from the University of California Student Association (UCSA) to block DOGE’s access to confidential information systems. The student association later dropped the suit.
A coalition of 14 states and civil rights groups challenged Elon Musk’s role leading DOGE and its authority to access sensitive data systems, arguing that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, but a federal judge denied their emergency request for a restraining order. The judge did order Musk and DOGE to hand over records detailing their cost-cutting plans at agencies, but that order was later blocked by an appeals court.
The case has since been dismissed after the coalition dropped its complaint earlier this month.
DOGE, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and a group of labor unions and retirees took their data access battle to the Supreme Court, which ultimately granted DOGE unlimited access to sensitive Social Security data.
That decision came after a Maryland federal judge prevented SSA from giving DOGE access to its records and required the removal of any access already given. An appeals court refused the government’s bid to lift that court order, which led the case to the Supreme Court.
At the Office of Personnel Management, a federal judge temporarily blocked the government from sharing federal workers’ personal records with DOGE staff. That lawsuit is still moving forward while the court decides whether those disclosures were illegal.
Federal funding
After the Trump administration attempted to freeze trillions in congressionally approved grant and loan funding, a federal judge in Rhode Island approved a preliminary injunction blocking that action, ruling that the executive branch lacked legal authority to impose a sweeping funding pause.
That injunction is ongoing, but Trump has vowed to attempt once again to freeze federal funding after a Supreme Court ruling this summer that limited lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders.