Since taking office, President Donald Trump has signed dozens of executive orders that attempt to curtail federal funding streams and reshape everything from education policy to birthright citizenship. The legal responses have been swift, as Maine and other states turn to the courts to fight the changes.
On April 7, Maine filed its first solo suit against the administration — pushing back after the U.S. Department of Agriculture abruptly froze funds the state uses to feed schoolchildren and disabled adults. The freeze, which the attorney general’s office argues is illegal, comes as the Trump administration attempts to force Maine to change its policies around trans student athletes, which it claims violate Title IX.
“The President and his cabinet secretaries do not make the law and they are not above the law, and this action is necessary to remind the President that Maine will not be bullied into violating the law,” Attorney General Aaron Frey said in a statement.
Here’s a running list of the lawsuits Maine has joined challenging Trump’s orders.
Jump to a category: Citizenship | DOGE | Education | Environment | Funding Freezes | Guns | Health | Trade
Citizenship
Ending birthright citizenship
New Jersey v. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of 19 state attorneys general in suing the Trump administration over an executive order ending birthright citizenship, alleging that the order violates the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, says that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The executive order, signed the day Trump took office, declared that the amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and said that those born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or temporarily will not be automatically granted citizenship. In a statement, Attorney General Aaron Frey said, “The election did not change the Constitution and legal action is required to remind the President that his oath is to uphold that sacred document, not rewrite it.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 21. On Feb. 13, a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order. The administration has appealed the decision, but it has been upheld by three federal courts while litigation proceeds. The case is now before the Supreme Court, along with several other cases challenging the order.
Requiring proof of citizenship to vote
California v. Trump
Maine and 18 other states are suing the Trump administration over a March 25 executive order that would require prospective voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. The order would direct federal agencies to share data such as immigration and Social Security records with other federal agencies (including the Department of Government Efficiency), and grant them access to state voter rolls. The order would also withhold funding from states that count mail-in ballots after election day. In a statement, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said the order was an “unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions across the country.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 3, one of several legal challenges to the executive order.
DOGE
Can DOGE access sensitive data?
New York v. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of 19 state attorneys general in suing the Trump administration over DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system, which included bank account information and social security numbers. “In violation of clearly established law, President Trump has granted Elon Musk and an unknown group of associates a green light to blow through statutory confidentiality protections for personal identifying information held by the federal government,” said Attorney General Aaron Frey.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 7; a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the action on Feb. 21. The judge relaxed a ban on DOGE access April 11 by allowing one DOGE employee the access if he completes certain training and files a financial disclosure report.
Education
Dismantling the Education Department
New York v. McMahon
Maine joined a coalition of 21 state attorneys general in suing Education Secretary Linda McMahon over plans to reduce the Education Department by 50 percent, which they contend would prevent the department from fulfilling many of its core functions: “The Department of Education is essential. Plaintiff States rely on the Department for an extraordinary array of programs. The Department provides funds for low-income children and students with disabilities. It enforces the laws that prohibit discrimination in education. It administers federal student aid programs. These are just some of the key ways the congressional acts governing the existence and responsibilities of the Department are deeply intertwined with the education systems in Plaintiff States.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on March 13. On May 22, a judge blocked the executive order to dismantle the Education Department and ordered the agency to reinstate employees who were fired in mass layoffs.
Maine Monitor Coverage: How much federal education funding is at risk in Maine? Here are four charts that break it down.
Blocking school food program funds
Maine v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Maine sued the USDA over the Trump administration’s abrupt freezing of federal funds that are used to feed children in schools and child care centers as well as adults with disabilities in facilities. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said the department was withholding the funds because the state is violating Title IX by allowing transgender girls to compete on girls’ sports teams — the latest in a series of federal actions taken on this issue. In a statement, Attorney General Aaron Frey said, “This is just another example where no law or consequence appears to restrain the administration as it seeks capitulation to its lawlessness.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 7. This April 9 filing lists the impacted programs. On April 11 a federal judge temporarily blocked the USDA from interfering with the funding. On May 2, Maine agreed to dismiss the lawsuit after the Trump administration signed a settlement saying it would “refrain from freezing, terminating, or otherwise interfering with the state of Maine’s access to United States Department of Agriculture funds allocated to any official, agency, or department of the state of Maine based on alleged violations of Title IX.”
Clawing back pandemic relief funds for schools
New York v. U.S. Department of Education
Maine joined 15 other states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over an abrupt cut to more than $1 billion in unspent pandemic relief aid to schools, which the Biden administration had granted schools extensions to spend. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said states had been given “ample time” to use the funds, but that officials would consider extensions on a case-by-case basis. According to the complaint, Maine had more than $10 million in unliquidated education stabilization funds remaining as of March 28.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 10. A federal judge ordered the Trump administration May 7 to unblock the funds.
Cutting mental health programs in schools
Washington v. U.S. Department of Education
Maine joined 15 other states in suing the U.S. Department of Education over $1 billion in funding cuts to mental health programs in K-12 schools, which the Trump administration said were necessary because of concerns with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the contracts. According to the Maine Attorney General’s Office, the cuts mean Maine would lose over $3 million in grant funding used for mental health professionals in schools, which served over 5,000 students last year. “I cannot think of a more worthy priority than ensuring children receive mental health services they need,” said Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey in a statement. “These funds were Congressionally designated, with bipartisan support, for this critical service in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy. Withholding these funds is not only cruel, it is illegal.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on June 30.
Environment
Blocking clean energy financing
California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank v. Citibank, N.A.
Efficiency Maine Trust joined California, Illinois, and Minnesota state green banks in suing Citibank and the EPA over the Trump administration’s efforts to block the disbursement of Congressionally authorized funds intended to support public and quasi-public agencies that finance clean energy projects. “Efficiency Maine Trust continues to be unable to access the more than $25 million in funds held in its Citibank account,” according to the suit. “Without the ability to access these grant and loan funds, Efficiency Maine cannot support the full scope of programs that it otherwise could, nor can it supply financing to as many energy improvement projects for Maine residents and small businesses as it otherwise would.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on March 19.
Efforts to block wind projects
New York v. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of 17 states and Washington, D.C., in suing the Trump administration over its efforts to block onshore and offshore wind energy projects. In the lawsuit, Maine and other states claim the halt of federal approvals for wind projects “harms the States’ efforts to secure reliable, diversified, and affordable sources of energy to meet the ever-increasing demand for electricity; their billions of dollars in investments in supply chains, workforce development, and wind-industry-related infrastructure, including transmission upgrades; and their statutory- and policy-based efforts to protect public health and welfare from harmful air pollutants like nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, as well as greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on May 5. A federal judge said June 18 he tentatively plans to deny a motion by the Trump administration to dismiss the lawsuit, though the judge tentatively plans to dismiss Trump and all cabinet members except Interior Secretary Doug Burgum as defendants.
Challenging Trump’s energy emergency
Washington v. Trump
Maine joined 14 other states in suing the Trump administration over its Jan. 20 executive order, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” which maintained that energy production is not meeting country’s needs. The order directed federal agencies to speed up generation of domestic energy resources, including oil and gas drilling and coal mining, but excluded wind and solar energy projects. The lawsuit argues that the order is unlawful, that there is no energy emergency and that it commands federal agencies to ignore the law and their own regulations in order to fast-track activities that will damage the environment.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on May 9.
Canceling a marsh restoration grant in Downeast Maine
Maine v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Maine sued the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce over the cancellation of a $9 million grant to the Maine Department of Marine Resources. The grant was being used to restore tidal salt marsh habitat and protect coastal infrastructure from flooding in two Washington County towns. NOAA terminated the grant in April as part of the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures. In its lawsuit, the state said this cut was part of the administration’s continued push to punish Maine for allowing transgender students to participate on girls’ sports teams.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on June 17.
Funding Freezes
Freezing all federal grants
New York v. Trump
Maine joined 22 other states in suing President Trump and the Office of Management and Budget over a directive to freeze funding for essential federal agency grants, loans and other programs. “I believe it was unlawful for the Trump Administration to freeze certain Congressionally-appropriated funds that flow to Maine,” said Attorney General Frey. “This order ensures that these dollars will continue to come to Maine in the interim while my colleagues and I fight in court to insist that the rule of law is followed.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on January 28. A federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze, and that block was extended. On March 26, a federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn the block.
Maine Monitor Coverage: ‘Do we hit pause? Do we pull the plug?’: In Maine, questions follow federal funding freeze
Cutting research grants
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health
Maine joined a coalition of 22 state attorneys general in suing the National Institutes of Health over plans to cut $4 billion in funding, including a new 14 percent cap on overhead for federal research grants, alleging that it violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Attorney General Aaron Frey said in a statement that the cuts threaten critical public health research in Maine and around the nation.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on February 10. On March 5, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Trump administration from making funding cuts as the case proceeds.
Maine Monitor Coverage: Maine research organizations face uncertainty as Trump administration vows to cut “wasteful spending”
Eliminating funding for libraries, museums and more
Rhode Island v. Trump
Maine joined 20 other states in suing the Trump administration over its March 14 executive order to dismantle federal agencies that support public libraries and museums, promote minority-owned businesses and resolve labor disputes — part of the administration’s ongoing effort to cut excess bureaucracy. The Institute for Museum and Library Services, one of the impacted agencies, provides grants to Maine libraries; its elimination could affect their ability to offer free internet, among other things.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 4.
Dismantling AmeriCorps
Maryland v. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of two dozen states and the District of Columbia to sue the Trump administration over its efforts to dismantle AmeriCorps, a federal agency that oversees volunteer work across the country. The lawsuit alleges the Department of Government Efficiency’s cost cutting measures and efforts to reduce AmeriCorps staff are illegal, as that power lies with Congress.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 29. A judge ruled June 5 that the Trump administration must restore hundreds of millions of dollars in AmeriCorps grant funding and thousands of service workers.
Maine Monitor Coverage: AmeriCorps cuts threaten climate resilience, conservation across Maine
Tying disaster relief funds to immigration enforcement
Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
Maine joined 19 other states in suing the Trump administration for threatening to withhold emergency relief funds unless states agree to participate in certain federal immigration enforcement actions. The lawsuit argues that the administration’s approach “violates two key principles that underlie the American system of checks and balances: agencies in the Executive Branch cannot act contrary to the authority conferred on them by Congress, and the federal government cannot use the spending power to coerce States into adopting its preferred policies.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on May 13.
Tying transportation funds to immigration enforcement
California v. U.S. Department of Transportation
Maine joined a coalition of 20 states in suing the U.S. Department of Transportation for threatening to cut billions in transportation funds unless states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit follows an April 24 directive from Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy saying that states must participate in federal immigration enforcement to continue getting funding. The lawsuit argues that this will put essential infrastructure at risk and violates the separation of powers in the Constitution.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on May 13. A judge on June 19 blocked the Trump administration from withholding transportation funds from states that don’t agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions.
The administration’s power to terminate grants
New Jersey v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Maine joined a coalition of 21 states in suing the Trump administration to challenge billions in funding cuts that were made by using a particular clause in federal regulation, called the agency priorities clause. The lawsuit argues this clause is meant to be limited in scope but is being used by the administration to broadly cut grants that don’t align with its priorities. According to the lawsuit, “The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause — ‘no longer effectuates … agency priorities’ — provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on June 24.
Guns
Returning seized rapid-fire gun devices
New Jersey v. Pamela J. Bondi
Maine joined a coalition of 15 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over its efforts to distribute thousands of gun parts that had previously been seized by the government. The lawsuit comes after the Trump administration reversed course from a Biden-era policy to once again permit the sale and possession of forced reset triggers, or devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to shoot as fast as machine guns. The states argue that these devices should be considered illegal machine guns and that their redistribution could lead to mass shootings.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed June 9.
Health
Cutting public health funding
Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Maine joined 22 other states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over its decision to cancel at least $11 billion in federal grants. In a statement, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said the cuts “threaten the urgent public health needs of states around the country at a time when emerging disease threats, such as measles and bird flu, are on the rise.” The administration claimed the funding was no longer necessary because the government’s pandemic emergency declaration officially expired nearly two years ago.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 1. On April 3, a federal judge temporarily blocked the funding cuts.
Cuts to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
New York v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Maine and 18 other states, plus Washington, D.C., sued the Trump administration over cuts to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, pointing to the layoffs of tens of thousands of employees and the closure of regional offices. The administration has said it is trying to make the department more efficient, but the states argue this restructuring is illegal and dangerous, stifling states’ ability to respond to the measles outbreak, among other things.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on May 5. A federal judge ruled July 1 the layoffs were likely unlawful and halted the plans.
Sharing of protected health information
California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Maine and 19 other states are suing DHHS and the Department of Homeland Security over the sharing data on millions of people enrolled in Medicaid, including addresses, names, social security numbers and immigration status. The lawsuit alleges that the release of the data by the Trump administration violates federal health privacy protection laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed July 1.
Trade
Are Trump’s tariffs legal?
Oregon v. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of 12 states in suing the Trump administration over its tariff policy, which the lawsuit says has “brought chaos to the American economy.” The lawsuit challenges Trump’s claim that he can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, saying that only Congress has the power to set tariffs unless there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on April 23. A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump on May 28 from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law. An appeals court ruled May 29 the White House can continue collecting tariffs while the federal government’s appeal plays out.
Last updated: July 2, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. Reporting from the Associated Press is used throughout.
