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 & Data | Education | Environment | Funding Freezes | Health | Policies | Trade
Citizenship & Data
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.
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. The judge determined May 27 that any DOGE staffer that underwent specific training and vetting procedures may access the data, and determined the federal government had complied with earlier requests to demonstrate it is equipped to screen and train employees before granting them access.
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. The judge issued a issued a preliminary injunction June 13 blocking the administration from enforcing key parts of the executive order, and later amended that injunction July 18 following a ruling by SCOTUS that limits the use of nationwide injunctions. On July 31, the federal government appealed the amended preliminary injunction order.
Collecting SNAP recipients’ data
California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Maine joined a coalition of 20 states in suing the Trump administration for its request that states turn over the personal data of people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said it needs to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse, threatening to pull funding if states do not comply. State attorneys general are requesting an injunction, arguing they will not disclose private information such as a recipient’s immigration status because they believe it would violate privacy laws and could be used to aid in deportation efforts.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on July 28.
Opposing National Guard deployment
Oregon v. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of 20 other states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over his attempt to deploy the National Guard to Oregon without the consent of the state’s governor. The lawsuit alleges the action “is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic,” and infringes on state sovereignty and police powers. On Sept. 28, Trump announced he would deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, in response to protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, calling the protestors “domestic terrorists.” On October 6, a federal judge temporarily blocked that deployment.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on October 8.
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. The judge’s injunction was stayed July 14 by the U.S. Supreme Court, paving the way for McMahon to continue with layoff plans.
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. The states requested an injunction July 8. A judge preliminarily ruled October 27 the Trump administration must release the funds.
Withholding funding for teacher training, after-school programs and more
California v. McMahon
Maine joined a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump Administration over its decision to withhold about $6.8 billion in funding for schools that was approved by Congress. The programs impacted by the freeze include initiatives related to English language learning, teacher training, after-school programs, adult education and more. The lawsuit claims the Department of Education was required to release these funds by July 1. The Office of Management and Budget has cited an ongoing review of education funding and concern about “a radical leftwing agenda” as reasons the grant funding is being withheld.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on July 14. After the Trump Administration released the funding in late July, the states’ request for an injunction was withdrawn.
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 and was shortly thereafter consolidated into Climate United Fund v. Citibank, along with other similar lawsuits. A federal district court granted a preliminary injunction on April 16, which was then administratively stayed in part. Oral argument was held May 19. In July, the Justice Department and the plaintiffs filed letters on the impact of Trump’s budget bill on the case.
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.
Cutting disaster resilience funding
Washington v. FEMA
Maine joined a coalition of 20 state attorneys general in suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency over its shutdown of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which is designed to protect communities from natural disasters before they strike. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects to receive roughly $4.5 billion in BRIC funding nationwide; roughly $133 million of that has gone to Maine. The program’s most recent applications included $5 million for more than 30 separate resilience projects at the state, tribal and municipal level in Maine that have been awarded BRIC grants or identified for further consideration by FEMA.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on July 16. A judge on August 5 temporarily blocked the Trump administration from reallocating the funds, though did not release the funds to the states.
Maine Monitor coverage: How a cut FEMA grant could impact Maine & Maine resilience projects face yet another funding setback
Opposing terminated solar energy funds
Arizona v. Environmental Protection Agency
Maine joined a coalition of attorneys general from 187 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over its cancellation of $7 billion in funding for solar energy projects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August terminated the funding for the Solar for All program that was intended to pay for residential solar projects for more than 900,000 lower-income U.S. households. The program was first introduced in 2022 under the Biden administration.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on October 16.
Denial of disaster relief grants
Michigan v. Noem
Maine joined a coalition of twelve states in suing the Trump administration over new restrictions on disaster relief grants administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. Distribution of the funds has been placed on hold by the administration until states provide their populations as of Sept. 30, 2025; the states argue they do not have such up-to-date census information. The states allege the administration did not follow proper procedures to put these new requirements in place, and say much of the funding is already accounted for in their budgets, meaning the pause could jeopardize their ability to respond to emergencies.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed November 5.
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. On April 28, the Trump Administration filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
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. On April 8, the Trump Administration filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 April 4. A preliminary injunction was issued May 6 and the states filed an amended complaint June 12.
Dismantling AmeriCorps
Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service
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. The judge amended the preliminary injunction July 10 to comply with a SCOTUS ruling against nationwide injunctions. The states filed an amended complaint July 24. Maine AG Aaron Frey announced a settlement agreement August 29 that allowed the states to keep their AmeriCorps funding.
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. Both the plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment in July. Summary judgment was granted Sept. 24 in a ruling that determined the Trump administration violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by conditioning disaster preparedness and anti-terrorism funds on states’ agreement to assist in federal immigration enforcement.
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. An amended complaint was filed July 8 to include D.C. and the Governor of Kentucky as plaintiffs.
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.
Restricting public benefits
New York v. U.S. Department of Justice
Maine joined 20 other states in suing several federal agencies over the Trump administration’s changes to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The changes restrict the provision of federal public benefits such as Head Start, Title X family planning, adult education and mental health care. The new interpretation of the rules restrict states from using federal funds to provide services to individuals who cannot verify immigration status, which complainants say is a major shift from long-standing federal practice.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on July 21.
Requiring immigration enforcement assistance for crime victim funds
New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Justice
Maine joined a coalition of 20 states and Washington, D.C., in suing the U.S. Department of Justice for requiring cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts as a condition for receiving federal funds that go to crime victims. The lawsuit argues that the department is exceeding its authority and that the requirements could hamper policies aimed at ensuring witnesses and victims can report crimes without fearing they will be deported.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on August 18.
Sex education funding
Washington v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Maine joined a coalition of sixteen states and the District of Columbia in suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the Trump administration’s threats to pull federal funding for sexual education programs because of materials that mention diverse gender identities. The department told states this summer that they needed to remove references to “gender ideology” or risk losing funding, saying in a statement, “federal funds will not be used to poison the minds of the next generation.” In the lawsuit, the states argue that this request marks “the latest attempt from the current administration to target and harm transgender and gender-diverse youth” and “will harm the very at-risk adolescents and public health goals these programs are designed to protect.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on September 26.
Federal funding for victims of violent crime
New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Justice
Maine joined a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia in suing the U.S. Department of Justice over its plans to restrict more than $1 billion in federal funding for survivors of violent crimes to exclude undocumented immigrants. “Victims of crime are human beings, deserving of care and support,” Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said in a statement. “When the Trump administration attempts to predicate aid on one’s immigration status, it discourages victims from seeking help and pushes already vulnerable people further into danger.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed October 1. On October 6, the Maine Attorney General’s Office announced that the Department of Justice dropped its plan to impose the restrictions.
SNAP benefits lapse
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Maine joined a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over its decision to let Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits run out during the government shutdown despite having “access to billions of dollars in contingency funds that Congress specifically appropriated to keep benefits flowing during funding lapses,” according to New York’s attorney general. The states argue the U.S. Department of Agriculture has an obligation under federal law to furnish SNAP benefits, that the agency cannot simply suspend all benefits indefinitely and that it has historically funded SNAP benefits during prior lapses in appropriations.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on October 28. Two federal judges ruled October 31, in this case and a related case, that the administration must continue to fund SNAP by using contingency funds. In a related case, a federal judge ruled November 6 the administration must fully fund SNAP. The administration asked an appeals court November 7 to block the ruling from the related case, arguing adhering to the ruling would require the administration to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund. The U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, at the administration’s request, to place the ruling on hold after the appeals court did not immediately block the ruling. The appeals court ruled against the administration November 9. The administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court on November 10 and SCOTUS extended its order blocking the lower court rulings November 11.
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. On May 16, a court order blocked the cuts. Robert F. Kennedy appealed the decision on July 15. The appeal was dismissed on July 30.
Cuts to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
New York v. Kennedy
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. The judge denied a motion to vacate the injunction on July 18. The Trump Administration filed an appeal with the First Circuit on August 13.
Sharing of protected health information
California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
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.
Changes to the health insurance marketplace
California v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Maine joined more than a dozen states in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s changes to the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and asking a judge to prevent them from taking effect on August 25, 2025. The administration estimates that 1.8 million people nationwide will lose their health care coverage because of the changes, which they say are necessary to prevent fraudulent enrollment by insurance brokers and agents. The changes would also end coverage of gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit. In a statement, Attorney General Aaron Frey called the rule “a cruel attack on the structures that keep citizens well” and said it “is intentionally designed to create more red tape and make enrollment harder.”
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on July 17. A judge denied a preliminary injunction for the states on October 1.
Halting Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood
California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Maine joined 23 states in suing the Trump administration for efforts to block Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health care providers. Federal funds, by law, cannot be used for abortion. The lawsuit targets a recent tax bill that aims to extend this by prohibiting Medicaid payments from going to large nonprofit health clinics where the primary service is abortions — regardless of the medical service in question. The lawsuit argues that the defund provision is unconstitutional and would jeopardize care for many Americans.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on July 29. A U.S. appeals court ruled Sept. 11, in a related case, to allow the Trump administration to block Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood while legal challenges continue.
Providing transition-related care to minors
Massachusetts v. Donald J. Trump
Maine joined a coalition of 16 states and Washington, D.C., in suing the Trump administration for investigating hospitals and doctors that provide transgender minors with transition-related care. The suit argues that this policy is an attempt to impose a national ban on such treatment for transgender minors, even though one has not been enacted by Congress. The Trump administration has said it is investigating providers for fraud, and later boasted that hospitals have started halting treatments. At least eight major hospitals in states where these services are permitted by law have announced they are ending or restricting such care, according to the Associated Press.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed August 1.
Policies
Returning seized rapid-fire gun devices
New Jersey v. 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. An amended complaint was filed July 7 to add California as a plaintiff and all plaintiffs and defendants stipulated the dismissal of the non-federal defendants.
New Public Service Loan Forgiveness rules
Massachusetts v. Department of Education
Maine joined a coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration for overstepping its authority when creating new eligibility rules for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The new rules would block nonprofit and government workers from a student loan forgiveness program if federal officials determine their employer has a “substantial illegal purpose,” which is aimed at organizations doing work that involves immigrants, transgender youth or diversity initiatives.
Timeline: The lawsuit was filed on November 3.
Trade
Are Trump’s tariffs legal?
Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
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. In a related case, 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 in a related plays out. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled August 29, in a related case, that Trump overstepped his authority under an emergency powers law in regards to sweeping tariffs, though allowed the tariffs to remain in place pending an appeal to SCOTUS.
Reporting from the Associated Press is used throughout.
