Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
Oregon is involved in dozens of multistate lawsuits against the administration of Donald Trump, far more than in his first term. Here is a rundown of the cases.
Update: On Aug. 18, shortly after this article published, Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed his 37th lawsuit against the Trump administration.
As of Aug. 15, less than eight months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, the state of Oregon has filed 36 lawsuits against his administration.
That’s an average of five lawsuits per month since Trump took office in January, and it’s nearly six times as many as the state filed during the first year of his initial term in 2017.
The contrast between the two presidencies reflects a new era for states challenging what they see as federal overreach, legal experts say.
Oregon is partnering with dozens of other Democratic-led states to lead the legal resistance against Trump. The state is expected to join more lawsuits, and many of those cases will take years to resolve.
“If they keep skirting the law, we are going to keep suing them,” Dustin Buehler, special counsel to Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, told the Capital Chronicle. “If the rights of Oregonians are at risk, or there are federal actions that are impinging on Oregon’s values, we will sue.”
Among the lawsuits, the state of Oregon is arguing Trump is unconstitutionally:
- imposing tariffs,
- blocking federal funding for Planned Parenthood,
- sharing Oregon residents’ Medicaid records with federal immigration enforcement officials,
- demanding that states turn over personal data about residents receiving food assistance.
Oregon partners with other states
Oregon’s first lawsuit of Trump’s second term came just one day after he took office and signed an executive order to revoke birthright citizenship. Oregon sued on Jan. 21.
Buehler called the lawsuit a “no-brainer.”
“The president shouldn’t be allowed to take words out of the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear that Americans are entitled to birthright citizenship,” he said. “We were ready for that because, say what you will about President Trump, but he does what he says he’s going to do.”
Buehler is the liaison between the Oregon Department of Justice and a coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia who meet daily to share updates on the dozens of multistate lawsuits they’ve filed since Trump returned to office.
There isn’t a limit to how many times Oregon can sue the federal government. By joining multistate efforts, the state splits the costs of litigation. And the outcomes of suing outweigh the costs, Buehler said.
“These lawsuits have saved Oregon over $3.3 billion in federal grants and federal funding to our state agencies or state universities,” Buehler said. “It does cost taxpayers money to file these lawsuits, but it’s well worth it because of how much money is saved. The cost is just an infinitesimally small part compared to the benefit to Oregon.”
The difference now
Former Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who served as the state’s top legal officer from 2012 to 2024, said that she’s proud of lawsuits her staff was a part of during Trump’s first term.
By the end of Trump’s first term, the state of Oregon had filed 50 lawsuits. This includes suing the Trump administration to overturn a travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries, to remove a rule restricting doctors’ ability to provide referrals for abortion services and to retain the program allowing the 11,000 immigrants in Oregon who were brought to the U.S. as children to legally work.
“To one degree or another we won all of these,” said Rosenblum, who now serves as a senior judge.
But things are different now, she said.
“There were more limits on the president’s executive power by way of Congress, the courts and even the president’s own advisers,” she said. “Much of that is changed, including some case law that has dramatically changed the legal landscape nationally.”
She cited several U.S. Supreme Court court decisions from recent years that have altered the balance of government power — including its decision to overturn the national right to abortion, a ruling that made it harder for federal agencies to create and enforce regulations and its decision that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.
“That’s case law that’s pretty significant,” Rosenblum said. “Those are just three examples of cases, but there are many others that have not been favorable to, certainly to the work that I did as attorney general.”
Buehler said he also recognizes that the composition of the courts is different than it was eight years ago.
“That’s in large part because President Trump confirmed a lot of judges during his first term to the federal courts,” Buehler said. “So it’s a more challenging environment in some ways, and yet for us doing nothing is not an option. We still feel like we need to defend the rights and values of Oregonians.”
Oregon cases against the Trump administration
Here is a list of all of the state’s cases, listed by the date filed, from most recent to oldest.
Case Allegation Status, as of Aug. 15 New York. v. U.S. Department of Energy Oregon and 18 other states and Washington D.C. sued to block the U.S. Department of Energy from imposing a new funding cap slashing support for state-run energy programs. On Aug. 15, the plaintiff states filed their complaint. California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Oregon and 22 other states are challenging the federal reconciliation law’s provision defunding Planned Parenthood. On July 29, the plaintiff states filed their complaint. California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture Oregon and 19 other states and Washington D.C. are suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture challenging the agency’s demand that states share sensitive SNAP user data with the federal government. On July 28, the plaintiff states filed their complaint and preliminary injunction motion. New York v. U.S. Department of Justice Oregon and 19 other states and Washington D.C. seek to prevent the Trump administration from reinterpreting the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act to restrict the provision of critical federal public benefits, such as Head Start, Title X family planning, adult education and mental health care, to undocumented immigrants. On July 21, the plaintiff states filed their complaint and preliminary injunction motion. California v. Kennedy Oregon and 20 other states are challenging a rule imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that would impose barriers to obtaining healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act and would exclude coverage of gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit under the act. On July 17, the plaintiff states filed their complaint and preliminary injunction motion. The court has set a briefing schedule and will hold a PI hearing on Aug. 13. Washington v. FEMA Oregon and 20 other states sued the Trump administration over its decision to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, designed to protect communities from natural disasters before they strike. On Aug. 5, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order barring the government from reallocating BRIC grant funds for other purposes. California v. McMahon Oregon and 20 other states sued the Trump administration over its decision to freeze funding for six longstanding programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education just weeks before the school year in many parts of Oregon is set to start. On July 14, the plaintiff states filed their complaint and preliminary injunction motion. California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Oregon and 14 other states are suing the federal government for sharing residents’ Medicaid records with federal immigration enforcement, arguing it violates federal administrative procedure laws and federal privacy laws. On July 11, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Washington v. U.S. Department of Education Oregon and 15 other states are challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s termination of congressionally approved funding for mental health programs in K-12 schools. On July 8, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The court has set a hearing on that motion for Sept. 9. New Jersey v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget Oregon and 21 other states and the District of Columbia seeks the court’s ruling that a change in “agency priorities” is not sufficient under 2 C.F.R. 200.340(a)(4) to terminate grants. On June 24, the plaintiff states filed their complaint. California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Oregon and 18 states, Washington D.C. and the cities of Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are challenging a rule changing the legal framework to allow lower fuel economy standards. On June 20, the plaintiff states filed their petition for review. California v. United States Oregon and nine other states are suing to push back against a recent move by federal lawmakers to undo environmental protections that California, and states like Oregon, use to cut air pollution from cars and trucks. On June 12, the plaintiff states filed their complaint. New Jersey v. Bondi Oregon and 14 other states and Washington D.C. are suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other agencies over the federal government’s plans to distribute thousands of machine gun conversion devices. On June 10, the plaintiff states filed a motion for preliminary injunction. New York v. National Science Foundation Oregon and 15 other states are suing to stop the Trump administration from cutting National Science Foundation programs and funding. On Aug. 1, the district court denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. Illinois v. FEMA Oregon and 19 other states and Washington D.C. are challenging new terms and conditions for grants that coerce states to perform federal immigration enforcement functions by threatening essential emergency services funding. On July 2, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a summary judgment motion. Briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment is pending in the district court. California v. U.S. Department of Transportation Oregon and 19 other states are suing the U.S. Department of Transportation from a “grant funding hostage scheme” that requires detaining unauthorized immigrants who don’t commit crimes in order to receive key federal grants and aid. On June 19, the court issued a preliminary injunction and denied defendants’ stay motion. On July 8, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 10, plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the preliminary injunction. Washington v. Trump Oregon and 14 other states are challenging the Trump’s “energy emergency” executive order and federal agencies’ reliance on that order to loosen reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the Historic National Preservation Act. On May 9, the plaintiff states filed their complaint. Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation Oregon and 15 other states and Washington D.C. are challenging the federal administration’s termination of billions of dollars of congressionally approved funding for electric vehicle infrastructure. On June 24, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order, barring the government from terminating the funding. New York v. Kennedy Oregon and 19 other states are suing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after the firing of thousands of federal health workers. On July 1, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order. New York v. Trump Oregon and 16 other states and Washington D.C. are challenging the federal administration’s attempt to freeze the development of wind energy. On July 3, the court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss on some claims and granting the motion on other claims. Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service Oregon and 22 other states are challenging efforts to dismantle AmeriCorps, which affects programs and funding here in Oregon and in other states. On July 10, the court issued an order modifying the preliminary injunction. New York v. U.S. Department of Education Oregon and 18 other states are challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s threat to withhold federal funding from state and local education agencies that refuse to certify compliance with the federal administration’s new interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On June 30, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint. Oregon v. Trump Oregon and 10 other states allege Trump is misusing emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose widescale tariffs. The court heard oral argument on the merits on July 31. Washington v. Trump Oregon and the state of Washington are challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing the independent Election Assistance Commission to change the national mail voter registration form to require that applicants show a document proving U.S. citizenship before they can be registered to vote. The motion is currently being briefed before the district court. Rhode Island v. Trump Oregon and 20 other states challenging the Trump administration to stop the dismantling of three federal agencies that provide services and funding supporting public libraries and museums, workers and minority-owned businesses nationwide. On June 5, the district court denied defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is pending in the First Circuit. Massachusetts v. Kennedy Oregon and 15 other states are challenging National Institutes of Health grant terminations, delays and the “unpublishing” of notices of funding opportunities. The government’s motion for a stay pending appeal is pending before the First Circuit. Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Oregon and 22 other states and Washington D.C. are suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for abruptly terminating nearly $12 billion in critical public health grants to the states. On July 15, defendants appealed to the First Circuit. New York v. McMahon Oregon and 18 other states and Washington D.C. are suing the U.S. Department of Education and President Donald Trump for their efforts to dismantle the department. The states are requesting a halt to the agency’s planned reduction in workforce. On July 14, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. New Mexico v. Musk Oregon and 13 other states challenge Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation pursuant to the Appointments Clause. On May 27, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss. New York v. U.S. Department of Education Oregon and 25 other states and Washington D.C. are challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s termination of funding that supports schools, teachers and vulnerable students recover from COVID-19. On June 20, the Second Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture Oregon and 18 other states and Washington D.C. are suing more than a dozen federal agencies challenging mass layoffs of probationary employees. Oral arguments held on May 6. States are suing more than a dozen federal agencies challenging mass layoffs of probationary employees. Oregon and 18 other states are challenging access to sensitive personal and financial information granted by the Treasury Department to DOGE-affiliated individuals. On May 27, the court issued an order modifying the preliminary injunction. Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health Oregon and 21 other states are challenging the National Institutes of Health’s guidance imposing a 15% reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research. The appeal is currently being briefed in the First Circuit. Washington v. Trump Oregon, Washington, Minnesota and three physicians are suing the Trump administration over the President’s executive order on Jan. 28 ordering restrictions on grant funding for medical institutions providing gender-affirming care and its call for enforcement against providers. The appeal is being briefed in the Ninth Circuit New York v. Trump Oregon and 20 other states and Washington D.C., sued the Office of Management and Budget’s funding freeze memo, alleging that policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment The appeal is being briefed in the First Circuit. Washington v. Trump Oregon, alongside the state of Washington, Arizona and Illinois, sued the President over his executive order revoking birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants. On July 24, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction, ruling that the states have standing; that Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order is unlawful and a universal block is appropriate
