Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Administration Faces Record 530 Lawsuits in 2025 — Far Exceeding Biden, Obama, and Bush

With 530 lawsuits filed in 2025, Trump faces historic legal battles, Supreme Court rulings, and challenges to executive power.

News

Trump Administration Faces Record 530 Lawsuits in 2025 — Far Exceeding Biden, Obama, and Bush

An analysis of the 530 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 2025, how they compare to past presidents, key Supreme Court rulings, and what unresolved cases could mean for constitutional checks and balances.

Getty Images, Roberto Schmidt

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


On April 22 of this year, I wrote a column in The Fulcrum entitled Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration when there were over 186 legal actions filed against the Trump administration. At the time, these lawsuits challenged various executive orders and actions, including immigration policies and the use of the Alien Enemies Act.


As of November 16, 2025, roughly 530 cases have been filed against the Trump administration. These filings include challenges to executive orders on a variety of subjects, including civil liberties, immigration, federal employment, and prison conditions.

How does this number of 530 cases against an administration compare to previous Presidents?

In the first 10 months of their terms, presidents typically face dozens of lawsuits. Still, the Trump administration in 2025 has been significantly higher than the past three Presidents. The 530 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration are significantly more than the 133 multistate lawsuits against Biden across his entire term, and 30 to 40 against Obama in his first year, and fewer than 20 against George W. Bush in his first year.

How many of the 530 legal actions have been fully adjudicated, and how many are in favor of the Trump administration and how many are against it?

Out of the 530 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 2025, about 32 have been fully adjudicated. Of those, eight were decided in favor of the Trump administration, while 24 were decided against it. The vast majority — nearly 500 cases — remain pending, blocked, or awaiting rulings

How many Supreme Court rulings have gone for and against the Trump administration in 2025?

So far in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued at least six significant rulings directly involving Trump administration policies. Of these, four rulings favored the Trump administration, while two went against it.

Are there any estimates at this point on how many current cases will go to the Supreme Court, and if so, when?

Legal analysts estimate that 20 to 30 of the 530 current lawsuits against the Trump administration are likely to reach the Supreme Court within the next year, with several already scheduled for review in the Court’s 2025–2026 term. The first major case (Trump’s global tariffs under IEEPA) is already being argued, and additional cases on immigration, executive removal power, and civil liberties are expected to be heard in early to mid-2026.

What happens if the President defies a ruling of the Supreme Court?

If a president defies a Supreme Court ruling, it can trigger a constitutional crisis. The judiciary relies on the executive branch to enforce its rulings, as the courts themselves lack enforcement power. In the event of defiance, several outcomes could unfold:

  • Political Pushback: Congress or other political bodies may intervene, potentially through impeachment proceedings if the defiance is deemed an abuse of power.
  • Public Opinion: Pressure from the public and media can influence the administration to comply, as ignoring the judiciary undermines the rule of law.
  • Legal Challenges: Individuals, states, or organizations affected by the defiance can file lawsuits to compel compliance or address the consequences.
Supreme Court ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia. While rare, defiance poses risks to the balance of power and the integrity of democratic governance.

David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


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