Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

"America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without...immigrants," writes Ronald L. Hirsch. "So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem?"

Getty Images, Thanasis

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

Polls show that the issue of immigration—actually, it's just illegal immigration—has become a major concern to a majority of Americans. No doubt that is largely because of Trump's vilification of undocumented immigrants.

But illegal immigration has, in fact, been a major problem for many years. Why? Mainly because roughly 11 million undocumented individuals have been living here for years, working and paying taxes, yet they are outside the legal framework of our society. That is the problem.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less