Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Campaign Legal Center Sues Elon Musk and DOGE

Campaign Legal Center Sues Elon Musk and DOGE

A scale of justice.

Getty Images, seng kui Lim / 500px

On March 5, 2025, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) — on behalf of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) — sued Elon Musk and his so-called U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for acting beyond their power to slash federal funding, dismantle federal agencies and fire federal employees.

Decisions regarding how the federal government spends its money lie with Congress. Elon Musk’s unchecked power throughout the federal government is a lawless threat to our democracy.


Neither Musk nor DOGE have the lawful authority to exercise the sweeping power that they currently wield in the federal government. However, since President Trump created DOGE and placed Musk at its helm, Musk has exercised significant unconstitutional authority and taken control over our agencies and our funding systems. This illegal and reckless control over the federal government has upended the lives of countless individuals, both within the United States and abroad.

“Our system of checks and balances does not permit the president or an unelected megadonor to unilaterally control the federal budget. Americans must be protected from destructive, illegal and unconstitutional DOGE actions,” said Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center. “Elon Musk, the president’s biggest political donor, is recklessly interfering with the work of the federal government, threatening our safety and our well-being. For the sake of our clients and preserving democracy, we call for an immediate end to this unconstitutional power grab.”

“JACL joins this lawsuit to stop DOGE from making reckless cuts that will directly impact national historic sites under the National Park Service that are among those where over 125,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans were unjustly incarcerated during WWII. These sites honor those who were incarcerated and serve as a legacy to our children so that future generations of Americans will understand the unfortunate and preventable capacity for our government to act maliciously against a group of people such as ours,” stated JACL Executive Director, David Inoue. “We invest in our future through our children, and elimination and endangerment of education programs will directly impact many of our own members. Japanese Americans are especially fond of a saying in Japanese, ‘Kodomo no tame ni,’ which means ‘For the sake of the children.’ This is why we join this action today."

“The reckless budget cuts at the Department of Education are a direct assault on Pell Grant recipients, student organizations, and AANAPISI institutions that are vital to advancing educational equity,” said Thu Nguyen, Executive Director of OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates. “Education is the gateway to opportunity — the heart of the American Dream — and these cuts threaten to block that path for countless students. Instead of opening doors for students, DOGE’s action at the ED are slamming them shut, and putting the future of countless young people at risk.”

“American families are already feeling the effects of Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s careless and illegal cuts to our federal workforce. Firefighters and forest management staff have been dismissed as families remain on edge from the threats wildfires pose. Families wanting to enjoy our national parks, forests and monuments are being welcomed with closed signs, long lines and unmaintained trails — before the parks’ busiest season has yet to begin. Without the workers to staff and support our public lands, communities will face more dangerous and deadly fires, park visitors will face unsafe conditions, and local economies that rely on national parks will struggle. Only Trump and Musk would try to threaten America’s best idea. We are taking DOGE to court to defend Americans’ ability to safely and freely access the landscapes that unite us," said Ben Jealous, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

“When the rule of law is compromised and science is sidelined by an unelected billionaire donor, people get hurt. DOGE’s actions have interfered with life-saving research and scientific collaboration on cancer, vaccines, extreme weather and more,” said Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “They have pulled funding for job-boosting clean technology initiatives and fired civil servants who enforce laws that protect us from air, water and climate pollution. They have compromised websites and other communications channels, obstructing access to data that the U.S. public has paid for and depends on.”

Americans did not elect Elon Musk, and an unelected megadonor should not be able to pick and choose which critical agencies can continue to serve the public or which policy priorities Congress should fund. The courts must move to hold Musk and DOGE accountable. Musk’s activities as DOGE’s head are illegal and a threat to the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Founded in 2002, CLC fights for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less