Since President Trump returned to office in January 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed more than 130 lawsuits against his administration, and by its own count about two-thirds of those cases have blocked, weakened, or delayed the policies at issue.1ACLU. ACLU v. Trump: 2025 Report The ACLU’s lawsuits against Trump span birthright citizenship, mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, voting rules, immigration detention conditions, transgender healthcare and passports, police records, and secret legal memos justifying lethal strikes. The organization now has 550 attorneys across all 50 states and spent more than $116 million on its legal program in the fiscal year ending March 2025.2ACLU Foundation. Consolidated Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2025
Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court
The most consequential case is Barbara v. Donald J. Trump. On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the country to parents without permanent legal status. The ACLU argues the order contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and federal statute.3ACLU. Supreme Court Arguments Wrap in Landmark Challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
The complaint was filed on June 27, 2025, in the District of New Hampshire. Within two weeks, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order and provisionally certifying a nationwide class of affected babies and their parents.4ACLU of New Hampshire. Barbara v. Donald J. Trump The Supreme Court bypassed the First Circuit and took the case directly on December 5, 2025. Oral arguments concluded on April 1, 2026, with ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang arguing for the plaintiffs. A decision is expected by late June or early July 2026, and the outcome will affect the more than 200,000 children born to immigrant parents each year.5ACLU. Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
Alien Enemies Act Deportations
The Trump administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act through Proclamation No. 10903 to speed the removal of Venezuelan nationals it alleged were members of Tren de Aragua. ACLU challenges have already reached the Supreme Court twice.
In J.G.G. v. Trump, the ACLU won temporary restraining orders in March 2025 from a federal judge in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court vacated them on April 7, 2025, but on narrow grounds: habeas challenges must be filed where a detainee is held, not in D.C. The Court affirmed that people facing removal under the Act are entitled to judicial review and to Fifth Amendment due process, including meaningful notice and a chance to seek habeas relief.6Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. J.G.G.
The parallel case, WMM v. Trump, was filed in the Northern District of Texas. In May 2025 the Supreme Court ruled that 24 hours’ notice before deportation was not enough and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit to decide whether the Act authorizes the removals at all.7ACLU. WMM v. Trump A Fifth Circuit panel blocked the deportations 2-1 in September 2025, rejecting the government’s claim that an “invasion or predatory incursion” justified the Act’s use. The full Fifth Circuit granted rehearing in January 2026, and the case is pending.
Voting Rights and Redistricting
Proof-of-Citizenship Registration
In League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, the ACLU challenged a March 2025 executive order directing the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, for federal voter registration. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the requirement in April 2025 and permanently struck it down on October 31, 2025, holding that the president lacks authority under the Constitution or the National Voter Registration Act to change election procedures on his own.8ACLU. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump9League of Women Voters. Court Strikes Down Key Part of Trump’s Unlawful Voting Executive Order
USPS Mail-Ballot Order
On March 31, 2026, Trump signed a new executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to build a list of “approved” mail voters and refuse to deliver ballots from anyone not on it. The ACLU filed League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump two days later, arguing the order violates separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and the Privacy Act.10ACLU. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump At a June 2, 2026, hearing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani expressed concern about the order’s constitutionality and emphasized the need for a ruling ahead of the November 2026 midterms.11Democracy Docket. Trump Order Targeting Mail Voting Leaves Judge Very Concerned
Tennessee Congressional Map
On May 11, 2026, the ACLU and the ACLU of Tennessee filed Sherman v. Hargett on behalf of Memphis voters and civil rights groups, challenging a redrawn congressional map that eliminates Tennessee’s only majority-Black congressional district. The map, enacted during a three-day special legislative session, splits Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white districts. The suit alleges intentional racial discrimination and First Amendment retaliation against Black voters.12ACLU. Tennessee Voters Sue to Block Redrawn Congressional Map The case has been consolidated with two other federal challenges before Chief U.S. District Judge William Campbell Jr.13Tennessee Lookout. Three Federal Challenges to Tennessee Redistricting Consolidated Into One Case The court denied a temporary restraining order on May 26, 2026, leaving the map in place for the August 2026 primary.14ACLU. Sherman v. Hargett
The Callais Setback
The redistricting fight suffered a major reversal at the Supreme Court on April 29, 2026, when the justices ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana’s congressional map, redrawn to include a second majority-Black district in response to a Voting Rights Act challenge, was itself an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Alito’s majority opinion held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the additional district and imposed new requirements making it harder to prove racial vote dilution, including a directive that challengers “disentangle race from politics” and show that racial bloc voting is not explained by partisanship.15Congressional Research Service. Louisiana v. Callais State legislatures have already begun considering the elimination of majority-minority districts ahead of the 2026 elections.16Harvard Kennedy School. What Louisiana v. Callais Means for the Voting Rights Act
Immigration Enforcement and Detention
California City Detention Conditions
In November 2025, the ACLU and partners filed Gomez Ruiz v. ICE on behalf of detainees at the California City Detention Facility, a 2,560-bed center in Kern County run by CoreCivic. The complaint described inadequate medical care for cancer and heart disease, frigid temperatures without adequate clothing, excessive solitary confinement, confiscation of religious items, and restricted attorney access.17ACLU. Immigrants Sue Trump Administration Over Inhumane Conditions at California’s Largest Immigration Detention Center
On February 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification covering more than 1,000 detainees, ordering ICE to provide basic healthcare, a court-appointed monitor, attorney access with contact visits, and appropriate clothing and blankets.18ACLU. District Court Grants Preliminary Order Prohibiting Abhorrent Conditions at California City Detention Facility CoreCivic intervened to appeal, saying compliance would be too costly. In May 2026, a federal court denied its request to stay the injunction.19Courthouse News Service. CoreCivic Can’t Stay Challenge to ICE Detention Conditions
Excessive Force by an ICE Agent
In December 2025, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed Zapata Rivera v. Jackson on behalf of Carlos Zapata Rivera, an Ecuadorian national authorized to work in the United States. The complaint alleges that during a November 6, 2025, vehicle stop in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, ICE supervisory officer David Jackson climbed into the vehicle and pressed his thumbs into Zapata Rivera’s carotid arteries, causing him to lose consciousness and experience seizure-like movements. Agents allegedly refused to let emergency medical personnel evaluate him at the scene.20ACLU of Massachusetts. Fitchburg Resident Sues ICE Agent for Unlawful Use of Excessive Force
The Department of Homeland Security publicly accused Zapata Rivera of “faking a seizure and refusing medical care.” After his lawyers requested evidence preservation, ICE sent him a “call-in letter” demanding he report to the Burlington office, which the complaint characterizes as retaliation.21ACLU of Massachusetts. Zapata Rivera v. Jackson The government sought to keep the officer’s identity secret, but U.S. District Judge Margaret Guzman denied that motion in March 2026.22Worcester Telegram and Gazette. ICE Agent Fitchburg Secrecy
Denying Bond Hearings to Interior Arrestees
In September 2025, the ACLU filed Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz in the District of Massachusetts. The class action alleges that the government reclassified people arrested by ICE inside the United States under a statute meant for people stopped at the border, denying them bond hearings and violating due process.23ACLU of Massachusetts. Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz A preliminary injunction issued on October 3, 2025, class certification followed on October 30, and in December 2025 the court declared the policy unlawful. The government’s appeal was before the First Circuit as of March 2026.
Tennessee’s State Immigration Crime
On June 4, 2026, the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, and the National Immigration Law Center filed Lucy v. Skrmetti, challenging Tennessee HB 1704. The law makes it a Class A misdemeanor for noncitizens to remain in the state more than 90 days after receiving a final deportation order, with penalties of up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.24Tennessee Lookout. Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Tennessee Law Making Illegal Immigration a State Crime The plaintiffs include a DACA recipient and a domestic violence survivor with a pending federal relief application. They argue the law violates the Supremacy Clause because immigration enforcement is a federal power, and they are seeking to block it before its July 1, 2026, effective date.25ACLU. Groups File Federal Lawsuit Over Tennessee’s New Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
Transgender Rights
The Anti-Trans Healthcare Order
In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from medical providers offering gender-affirming care to patients under 19. The ACLU and Lambda Legal sued in the District of Maryland. Judge Brendan Hurson issued a temporary restraining order on February 13, 2025, and upgraded it to a preliminary injunction on March 4, 2025.26ACLU. Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Trump’s Anti-Trans Healthcare Order The government’s appeal to the Fourth Circuit was pending as of June 2026.27ACLU. PFLAG v. Trump
Passport Sex Designations
Orr v. Trump, filed in February 2025 in the District of Massachusetts, challenged a policy requiring passports to reflect the holder’s sex assigned at birth and eliminating the “X” marker. Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025 and expanded it in June to cover two certified classes, ordering the State Department to issue accurate passports to transgender, intersex, and nonbinary applicants.28Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Orr v. Trump On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction while the case proceeds, holding that the administration was likely to succeed because “displaying a passport holder’s sex at birth is a historical fact.” The case remains before the First Circuit.29ACLU. Orr v. Trump
Police Records and Secret Legal Memos
Phoenix Use-of-Force Records
In June 2026, the ACLU filed Poder in Action v. City of Phoenix Police Department after the department refused for nearly a year to release use-of-force records requested under Arizona public records law. The ACLU is seeking 100 use-of-force reports covering firearms, tasers, deadly neck restraints, strikes, and chemical agents. The request followed the Trump administration’s May 2025 retraction of a 2024 Department of Justice report that had found widespread police misconduct, excessive force, and racial targeting in Phoenix. With federal oversight ended, the ACLU argues public access to the records is the only remaining way to monitor the department.30ACLU. The Public Deserves to Know Whether They Can Trust
FOIA Suit Over Lethal Boat Strikes
On December 9, 2025, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in the Southern District of New York to force release of a secret Office of Legal Counsel opinion. The memo reportedly provides the legal justification for the Trump administration’s lethal strikes against civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. According to the ACLU, the memo claims the strikes occur within an “armed conflict” with drug cartels and purports to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to the personnel involved. The complaint states the strikes have killed nearly 90 people.31New York Times. ACLU Lawsuit Justice Department Boat Strikes32ACLU. FOIA Case Seeking Legality of Trump Admin’s Boat Strikes
The Resources Behind the Docket
The ACLU Foundation reported nearly $333 million in operating revenue for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, up from $210 million the year before. Legal program spending reached $116 million, with another $105 million supporting affiliates in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Net assets stood at $779 million.2ACLU Foundation. Consolidated Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2025 The ACLU accepts no government funding, relying on member dues, private contributions, and foundation grants, and reports a base of seven million activists and members.33ACLU. ACLU 2025 Annual Report