Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

Roundup: Trump-Era Agency Policy in the Courts

The Institute for Policy Integrity 1 tracks the outcomes of litigation over the Trump administration's use of agencies to deregulate as well as to implement its other policy priorities. 2 This Roundup includes litigation over agency actions such as regulations, guidance documents, and agency memoranda. 3

  • Unsuccessful
    An outcome is considered unsuccessful for the Trump administration if (1) a court ruled against the agency or (2) the relevant agency withdrew the action after being sued. 4 If there are different rulings on the same agency action, the entry is assigned an "X" as long as one court ruled against the agency. 5

  • Successful
    An outcome is considered successful for the Trump administration if the agency won the lawsuit without having to withdraw the challenged action. 6

Results based on chosen filters.
Overall record is Successful, Unsuccessful.

Last updated July 8, 2020. Download PDF.

94 outcomes total.
  1. The Institute for Policy Integrity has filed amicus briefs in several of the cases discussed in this Roundup. Policy Integrity did not represent any of the parties. ↩︎
  2. The Roundup does not include litigation over executive orders or individual project-level decisions. It includes outcomes of all cases of which we are aware and is continually updated with newly decided cases as well as new information and analysis. For questions or to submit updates, contact bethany.davisnoll @ ↩︎
  3. At times, advocates have brought lawsuits over a single agency action in multiple different courts. The Roundup combines decisions from different courts regarding the same agency action in a single entry. ↩︎
  4. Some rules that went back into effect were later repealed or further suspended by the relevant agency. Brookings tracks rulemaking activity on that front. ↩︎
  5. If a ruling vacating or enjoining an agency action is not nationwide, that will be addressed in the chart. ↩︎
  6. Lawsuits that were dismissed for reasons other than a finding that the agency had complied with the law are not included. There is a small number of such dismissals and those dismissals say nothing about whether the agency’s action complied with the law. See, e.g., Make The Road New York v. Wolf, 2020 WL 3421904 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (decision was unreviewable because committed to the agency's sole discretion); California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 934 F.3d 627 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (not a final agency action); Free Press, et al. v. FCC, et al., 735 Fed. Appx. 731 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (standing); Organic Trade Association v. Department of Agriculture, 370 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2019) (mootness); Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, 926 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (improper venue). ↩︎
  7. This section tracks the political party affiliation of the judge’s nominating president. If the decision was issued by a panel of judges, this section tracks the political party affiliation of the nominating president for the majority of the judges on the panel. “Mixed” refers to a case where there were only two judges deciding the case and those judges were nominated by presidents of different parties. “N/A” refers to a case where the agency withdrew the action before a court could rule on the legality of the action. "N/A (Magistrate)" refers to a case where a magistrate judge issued the decision. ↩︎