Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—New lawsuits related to Trump administration actions, (May 6, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

While the terminations and reorganizations were swift, “the consequences are severe, complicated, and potentially irreversible,” alleges one group of plaintiffs.

Even as the first 100-days of the second Trump administration ended, new lawsuits against President Trump and/or members of his administration continued to roll in. Many have been filed in the last week that are of interest to the labor and employment community. They include:

Jewell v. Jagadesan. In this lawsuit, brought in D.C. federal court by the former Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer at the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, the employee alleges that although her office did not exclusively focus on DEIA initiatives and programs, she and her deputy were placed on administrative leave within days after Trump took office and were terminated. She did not receive reduction in force severance pay. She alleges that the employer’s actions violate the APA, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The case is No. 1:25-cv-01322.

Federal Education Association v. Trump. In this lawsuit, brought in D.C. federal court, the Federal Education Association and other labor organizations representing PreK-12 educators working in schools operated by the Department of Defense Education Activity have filed suit challenging Executive Order 14251, which takes away their and their members’ statutory contractual collective bargaining rights, purportedly on national security grounds. They allege the EO is unconstitutional—it violates separation of powers, is ultra vires, and violates the First and Fifth Amendments. They also allege that Secretary Hegseth’s failure to exercise his delegated authority under the Executive Order to suspend its application to DODEA is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law and therefore violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is No. 1:25-cv-1362.

Iverson v. Trump. In this lawsuit, brought in D.C. federal court, the plaintiff, a prosecutor in the International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, alleges that his First Amendment right to expression—in this case his practice of law under the ICC’s OTP, has been violated. He alleges that Trump’s actions are also ultra vires. The case is No. 1:25-cv-01353.

State of New York v. Kennedy. In this lawsuit, brought in Rhode Island federal court, a group of 20 states are challenging the dismantling of the Department of Health and Human Services, noting the termination of 10,000 employees and the shuttering of dozens of agencies. They allege that the layoffs affected every type of HHS worker, but not every department, and allege that it targeted disfavored work and programs. “Abandoning the Department’s core functions was not an unintended side effect,” they allege, “but rather, the intended result of the March 27 Directive.” They note that the Secretary did not “undertake this restructuring legally or carefully.” And while the terminations and reorganizations were swift, “the consequences are severe, complicated, and potentially irreversible.” They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the unconstitutional and illegal dismantling of DHHS. The case is No. 1:25-cv-00196.

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President. In this lawsuit, Mark S. Zaid, Esq., an attorney who specializes in national security law, brought suit based on the summary revocation of his security clearance in a presidential memorandum, which was done, he alleged, on the basis of “improper political retribution.” The immediate effect of this, he alleges, is that he can no longer represent clients in matters when doing so requires access to classified information. He alleges that there was no process given. “Instead,” he alleges, “the Rescinding Security Clearances Memorandum is a dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation by the President of the United States against his perceived political enemies as well as his actual legal adversaries which eschews any semblance of due process.” His complaint includes counts for violations of the APA and the First and Fifth Amendments. The case is No. 1:25-cv-01365.

American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald. In this lawsuit, brought in New York federal court last week, the plaintiffs challenge the recent dismantling of the National Endowment of the Humanities, claiming that it “is unlawful many times over.” Specifically, they claim that this is an ultra vires act and that the Constitution grants Congress, rather than the President, the power to create and prescribe the duties of federal agencies, as well as the power of the purse. They also contend that this action violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The case is No. 1:25-cv-03657.

MainStory: TopStory LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews PublicEmployees EconomicNews IndividualRights Retaliation WhiteHouseNews DOGE FedTracker LaborEmployment Discrimination LaborNews Labor Procedure GCNNews