WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is now defending his wave of executive orders and directives against dozens of lawsuits that say he’s vastly overstepped his constitutional authority.

The cases, brought by nonprofits, state attorneys general, civil rights groups and private citizens, challenge Trump’s directives to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding, shrink the federal workforce, allow access to citizens’ personal information and limit birthright citizenship, among others.

While they address different issues and legal specifics, most are asking the courts to decide a question fundamental to Trump’s second term: How much power can the president exercise without the approval of Congress? They also raise the question of whether the administration will abide by court decisions.

With more than 70 cases filed and more arriving daily, it’s impossible to know which will advance or set lasting precedent. Some, though, will certainly be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, where three Trump appointees are part of the 6-to-3 conservative majority. Here are seven we’re watching:

—Shuttering agencies

Docket: City of Baltimore v. CFPB; 1:25-cv-458Where: Greenbelt, MarylandJudge: Adam Abelson (Appointed by Joe Biden)

The case: Baltimore city officials say the Trump administration is trying to unilaterally abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to investigate complaints of unfair and illegal practices by financial institutions. Since then, Republicans have tried without success to shutter the agency. Now, according to the suit, the agency’s acting director, Russell Vought, is illegally trying to close the agency by transferring out its remaining reserves and asking for zero dollars for the next quarter.

The defense: The US Justice Department hasn’t filed a response yet.

Next steps: The Trump administration agreed to fund CFPB at least until Feb. 28 to give the judge time to rule on the merits of the case.

Bottom line: Trump’s fast and early moves to wind down operations at the bureau as well as at the U.S. Agency for International Development have offered a blueprint for how the administration may attempt to shutter other agencies it has signaled disapproval of, such as the Department of Education.

—Federal spending

Docket: New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-39Where: Providence, Rhode Island, Judge: John McConnell (Barack Obama)

The case: On Jan. 31, McConnell issued a temporary block on Trump’s government-wide funding freeze, to give the court time to weigh state attorneys generals’ claim that the White House had exceeded its authority.

The defense: The administration claims Trump has the power to pause spending to give his officials time to review whether the outflow of federal dollars aligns with his policies, and that McConnell’s efforts to block him violate the separation of powers.

Next steps: The states alleged that the government was continuing to withhold some funds, despite McConnell’s initial injunction, and on Feb. 10, the judge reiterated his order to unfreeze trillions of dollars in grants, loans and assistance. He will hear arguments on Feb. 21 on whether to block the freeze long-term. Meanwhile, all eyes are on the administration to see if it will keep funds flowing as the judge ordered.

Bottom line: This case is one of several that pits Congress’ constitutional power to allocate the national budget against the president’s power to enact his policy agenda. Administrations have long used their discretion to direct agency funding, but courts so far have questioned the sweep and speed of Trump’s actions. The Rhode Island case has also become a test of whether the White House will abide by court orders against it, and how judges enforce their role as a check on the executive branch.

—Elon Musk and DOGE

Docket: New York v. Trump; 1:25-cv-1144, Where: New York, New York, Judge: Jeannette Vargas (Biden)

The case: A group of states sued Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to block Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” team from accessing a trove of sensitive federal records, including social security and bank account numbers that the agency uses to deliver veterans benefits, tax credits and other payments to Americans. They argue that neither Trump nor Bessent has the authority to grant political appointees or “special government employees” like Musk access to such sensitive data.

The defense: The Justice Department argues that the president has the authority to demand politically accountable oversight of how agencies operate and carry out his agenda, and that if individual Americans want to sue the government for alleged privacy intrusions, they can go to court as needed.

Where the court stands: A court order restricts DOGE employees from accessing the payments data at issue pending a hearing on Feb. 14, but a judge later clarified that the limits didn’t apply to Bessent and certain other career employees and contractors. The Justice Department said in a court filing that it intends to seek dismissal of the case within 30 days of a ruling.

Bottom line: This case challenges the unusually powerful and central role that the world’s richest person — and the biggest donor to Trump’s 2024 campaign — occupies in the administration. Several lawsuits are challenging not only the legality of his team’s access to sensitive data but also whether he’s exercising an unconstitutional level of authority over the entire U.S. government.

—Birthright citizenship

Docket: Washington v. Trump; 2:25-cv-127, Where: Seattle, Washington, Judge: John Coughenour (Ronald Reagan)

The case: Led by Washington state, this is the fastest-moving of at least 10 cases challenging Trump’s attempt to block automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or people in the country on lawful but temporary visas. They all contend that Trump’s action violates the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution, which holds that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The defense: There is more than a century of U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing birthright citizenship, but this administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” limits its application.

Where the court stands: Coughenour issued an immediate halt to Trump’s order, calling the action “blatantly unconstitutional,” then extended it until the case is resolved. Judges in three other jurisdictions have also entered injunctions. The government is appealing Coughenour’s decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which has a majority of Democrat-appointed active judges but shifted more to the right under Trump.

Bottom line: The direct challenge to long-standing precedent affirming birthright citizenship means this issue will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court. District judges have so far moved quickly, but it’s unclear how swiftly the cases will move through the appeals process.

—Civil rights

The docket: Talbott v. Trump; 1:25-cv-240. Where: Washington, D.C., Judge: Ana Reyes (Biden)

The case: Six active duty members of the U.S. military and two who seek to enlist sued Trump over his executive order banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, saying it violates the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantees by discriminating based on sex and transgender status “without lawful justification.”

The defense: The administration says that Trump, as commander in chief, can determine the standards for military service, and that the lawsuit is premature, since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hasn’t released final guidance on how he plans to implement Trump’s directive.

Where the court stands: A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 18. During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court in 2019 allowed him to ban transgender people from military service while challenges worked their way through the lower courts; Joe Biden reversed the ban in 2020.

Bottom line: Trump campaigned on his opposition to “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives, with a special focus on rolling back protections for transgender people. Beyond the military fight, judges have temporarily blocked moves to transfer transgender women to men’s prisons and to halt federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care to young people.

—Agency independence

The docket: Wilcox v. Trump; 1:25-cv-334, Where: Washington, D.C., The judge: Beryl Howell (Obama)

The case: Gwynne Wilcox sued Trump after he fired her from her position on the National Labor Relations Board, saying he violated the National Labor Relations Act, which limits a president’s ability to fire board members of that agency to instances of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”

The defense: A senior Justice Department official notified Congress that the administration will no longer defend a 90-year-old legal precedent that has prevented the president from removing heads of independent agencies like the NLRB. Wilcox’s case offers a path to the U.S. Supreme Court, the only court with the power to overturn a precedent established in 1935.

Where the court stands: A judge will hear arguments on March 5 on Wilcox’s motion for summary judgment.

The bottom line: While Wilcox’s suit is specific to the NLRB, several officials at independent agencies are fighting Trump’s attempts to dismiss them. Agency inspectors general who have been fired have also sued, as have members of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Office of Special Counsel, which protects government whistle-blowers.

—Immigration enforcement

Docket: RAICES v. Noem; 1:25-cv-306. Where: Washington, D.C., Judge: Randolph Moss (Obama)

The case: Immigrant support groups are challenging Trump’s suspension of the asylum program and decision to send people back to countries where they say they are fleeing persecution and torture, arguing that immigration laws don’t allow the administration to override protections adopted by Congress.

The defense: Trump has statutory authority over immigration policy, the Justice Department said in its response to the suit, and justified the new policy as a response to “years of unprecedented levels of illegal border crossings into the United States.”

Where the court stands: The Justice Department has asked the judge to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs haven’t asked for emergency relief to date and no hearing is scheduled.

Bottom line: The asylum shutdown is part of a constellation of actions by Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to harden the borders. Several suits are now challenging Trump’s immigration policies, including the transfer of detained migrants to the US military installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a policy change to allow enforcement actions at houses of worship and schools and withholding federal funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.