Tracking Trump's Losses: Here are some of the biggest legal setbacks for the administration
With hundreds of ongoing cases, the Trump administration is fielding challenges on issues from immigration to tariffs to constitutional violations.
The Trump administration is no stranger to a lawsuit. There have been more than 650 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration during his second term. Historically, there have been more lawsuits filed against the administration in its first ten months than in the past three presidencies combined. Not only is the administration being sued often, but it is also losing pretty often. Here are some of the cases that the Trump administration has lost. There are a lot of lawsuits and ongoing litigation. We will continue to update this list as we learn more.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump - (loss)
The original lawsuit was filed on April 22, 2025, in the District Court in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court agreed to take it up on June 17, 2025, with oral arguments taking place on Nov. 5, 2025.
At the heart of the lawsuit was the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump enacted as part of his economic agenda. The plaintiff argued that the tariffs imposed were a tax, not a regulation. The argument against the tariffs was that they go against the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). IEEPA allows the president broad authority to “regulate” and “prohibit” certain imports. But placing a broad tariff on most imports went outside of that scope of power.
The Supreme Court sided with the family-owned toy company and ruled on Feb. 20, 2026, that the tariffs were illegal. It was a major blow to the Trump administration and a major win for American consumers. The tariffs serve as a tax that is passed down to the consumer, causing the affordability crisis to get worse.
The Supreme Court ruled that the president didn’t have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs. Additionally, the court stated that unilaterally imposing a tax without congressional approval usurped the power vested in Congress. Congress, per the Constitution, is the body responsible for imposing taxes.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
United States v. California - (ongoing)
This is an ongoing case brought against California by the Department of Justice (DOJ) due to the No Vigilantes Act (SB 805). The law requires all local, state, and federal law enforcement agents to identify themselves with names and badges when conducting official business. It also prohibits bounty hunters from conducting immigration enforcement in the state. The DOJ sued California, claiming that the law is unconstitutional since California is trying to regulate federal operations. Additionally, the DOJ argues that the law puts federal agents in danger by exposing them to doxxing.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled against the Trump administration on Feb. 9. The judge stated that the law is constitutional since it did not discriminate between local, state, and federal law enforcement. A stay was put on the law until Feb. 19 to give the administration time to appeal, which it did.
The case currently sits in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which placed a temporary administrative injunction on the law while it is reviewed. Oral arguments at the appellate court are set to begin on March 3.
Barbara v. Trump - (ongoing)
Formally called Trump v Barbara, this lawsuit is sitting before the Supreme Court. Barbara v Trump is a nationwide class action lawsuit against the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship. As of February 2026, the Trump administration has lost every lower court case in this lawsuit. The first loss came on July 10, 2025, when a federal judge in New Hampshire issued an injunction on the executive order. Furthermore, the judge allowed for a class action lawsuit against the federal government for all babies born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, and might be targeted by the order.
The federal government is arguing that the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted. Representatives for the government argue that the children of undocumented people or those on visas are not granted citizenship. The federal government is pushing a narrative that birthright citizenship is only passed down from parents with “immediate allegiance” to the United States.
On Dec. 5, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in a rare move to bypass the appeals process. Due to injunctions, the executive order is not enforceable, and all children born in the United States must be recognized as citizens. Oral arguments are set for April 1, 2026, with a final decision expected in June or July 2026.
New York v. Trump - (loss)
Immediately after taking office, President Trump ordered the freeze of all federal funding that did not align with the administration’s policy priorities. New York led a coalition of states to file suit against the administration to block the order. A federal judge agreed, claiming that blocking funding likely violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The order threatened $410 billion in funding for projects in dozens of states. The funding was appropriated for things like public health grants, green energy projects, and social safety nets like child care.
The First Circuit Court refused the administration's request for an emergency stay on the injunction from the lower court in March 2025. The administration appealed to the appellate court, and as of February 2026, the case is still active on the docket as the court reviews the appeal’s merit.
Trump v. Illinois - (loss)
The Trump administration attempted to federalize the Illinois National Guard against Chicago last year in its sweeping immigration raids. Brutal immigration raids are central to the Trump administration’s image. Whenever there has been mass organization against the raids, President Trump has federalized National Guard troops to quell protests.
A lower court blocked the action immediately after it was announced. Hoping to rely on a friendly Supreme Court, the Trump administration asked for a stay on the ruling. The Supreme Court rejected the request in a Dec. 23, 2025, ruling. In response, President Trump withdrew troops from multiple cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland.