Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Several new lawsuits filed this week relating to the Trump Administration, layoffs, and DOGE, (Mar 7, 2025)
By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
“As Mr. Musk and DOGE lawlessly seize power over large swaths of federal spending, decimate the federal workforce, and dismantle federal agencies,” claims one suit, “they are severely harming, and threatening further imminent harm, to everyday Americans.”
The month of the March has already seen several new lawsuits challenging actions by the Trump Administration. Among those are the ones listed below, which challenge actions impacting public employees as well as the structure of American government.
In Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk, case no. 1:25-cv-00643, filed in D.C. federal court on March 5, 2025, the complaint starts thus:
Defendant Elon Musk is not, legally, the President of the United States, nor is he a federal elected official of any kind. And Mr. Musk is not a Senate-confirmed officer of the United States. But he and his so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE)—not, in fact, a federal executive department—are lawlessly and unconstitutionally wielding sweeping power across the executive branch. As Mr. Musk and DOGE lawlessly seize power over large swaths of federal spending, decimate the federal workforce, and dismantle federal agencies, they are severely harming, and threatening further imminent harm, to everyday Americans.
“Mr. Musk and DOGE are running roughshod over the constitutional separation of powers. Further, Mr. Musk is exercising the authority of a principal officer of the United States without Senate confirmation—and, indeed, exercising authority even in excess of a principal officer. These actions are ultra vires, violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, and, as to Mr. Musk, also violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Mr. Musk and DOGE’s lawless actions threaten the bedrock of our democracy, and they are already causing severe harms in a wide array of areas of daily life.”
The lawsuit is brought by the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), all of which are “nonprofit membership organizations composed of everyday Americans” and, the complaint explains, “dedicated, in various ways, to the well-being of Americans, including to education, enjoyment of the outdoors, historical memory, scientific research, and creation of community[.]” They allege that they and their members are “profoundly harmed by Mr. Musk and DOGE’s lawless, unconstitutional actions, and face further severe harm unless and until these actions are stopped.” As noted in the second introductory paragraph, they claim that DOGE, Musk, and other defendants are acting ultra vires and that their actions violate separation of powers, the Appointments Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In Comans v. Department of Homeland Security, case no. 1:25-cv-00624, filed in D.C. federal district court on March 4, 2025, the plaintiff, a Senior Executive Service employee in FEMA, employed as FEMA’s Chief Financial Officer, alleges that her termination was without cause and without the due process required by law and the Constitution. She alleges that the defendants “failed to undertake any process to enable [her] to appropriately respond before unlawfully retrieving and publicly disclosing information from a Privacy Act System of Records concerning her termination.” She also alleges that the defendants have committed defamation, by having “falsely, deliberately and publicly portrayed [her] actions in such a manner that third parties have asserted her conduct to have been criminal, which is defamation per se, thereby further contributing to the damages she has suffered.” In her complaint, she includes social media posts by Elon Musk and others, stating she engaged in “[a] criminal action.” She includes causes of action under the Privacy Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
In National Education Association v. Department of Education, case no. 1:25-cv-00091, filed on March 5, 2025, in federal district court in New Hampshire, the plaintiffs, which are professional associations of educators, allege that a “Dear Colleague Letter” sent by the Department of Education on February 14, 2025, which threatened schools and colleges with the loss of federal funding based on DEI programs, “radically resets ED’s longstanding positions on civil rights laws that guarantee equality and inclusion and impermissibly infringes on the authority of states and school districts over public education as well as the First Amendment rights of educators and students.” They allege violations of the Fifth and First Amendments, as well as multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In Brehm v. Marocco, case no. 1:25-cv-00660, filed in D.C. federal district court on March 6, 2025, the plaintiff, who is the President and CEO of the United States African Development Foundation and who was duly appointed by the Board of Directors, as authorized by statute, alleges that DOGE and the other defendants are trying to “strongarm their way into USADF, no matter that USADF has a legally constituted Board and President,” and that the defendants’ actions are ultra vires and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The USADF, by statute, “shall have perpetual succession unless dissolved by an Act of Congress” yet, he alleges, the defendants, who include Marocco—identified by the complaint as the Acting Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning and for Management and Resources for USAID and Director of Foreign Assistance at the Department of State and purportedly the Chairman of the Board of the United States African Development Foundation—as well as DOGE, Trump, and others are “dead-set on shuttering the agency.” Plaintiff also seeks equitable and declaratory relief.
In Maryland v. United States Department of Agriculture, case no. 1:25-cv-00748, filed in federal district court in Maryland on March 6, 2025, a group of 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, have sued multiple federal agencies and agency heads over the mass termination of probationary federal employees, alleging they are being harmed. “In addition to the informational and procedural injuries resulting from the deprivation of notice to which they were entitled, the lack of notice has impeded the ability of many Plaintiff States to support affected employees and thereby mitigate the financial and other impacts on state services.” They cite increased administrative demands, decreased tax revenues, and increased demands for social services. They also allege that they have lost the “benefit of services provided by federal employees embedded within state agencies, without any time to prepare.” They allege violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as a claim based on their “non-statutory right of action to enjoin and declare unlawful official action that is ultra vires.”
News: AgencyNews LitigationNewsTrends WhiteHouseNews IndividualRights PublicEmployees Layoffs