What legal challenges have been filed against Executive Order 14321 and what courts are handling them?

1. Where the public record actually documents lawsuits: multiple orders, many courts

National trackers and legal reporting show litigation campaigns against several of the administration’s executive actions; Law360 reported that “at least 11 lawsuits” were filed challenging a prominent executive order (the reporting context identifies the birthright citizenship order) and that multiple federal district courts issued preliminary injunctions in four of those cases ^[1], while Just Security and Lawfare maintain litigation trackers cataloguing suit pleadings, rulings, and jurisdictional posture ^{[4] [5]}.

2. The birthright citizenship litigation — who sued and which courts are involved

The most litigated executive order discussed in the coverage is the one attempting to limit birthright citizenship: the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a challenge identified as Trump v. Barbara and the product of multiple district-court suits that produced temporary halts to enforcement; one federal court in New Hampshire issued a temporary prohibition as to a class of infants born on or after a specified date ^{[7] [1] [8]}. Reporting notes that the Supreme Court is set to resolve the constitutional question during the 2025–26 term, having limited the pathway for lower courts to issue universal relief in related disputes after its decision in Trump v. CASA ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

3. The AI executive order and the prospect of coordinated federal suits in federal courts

Analysis from law firms and legal observers describes an executive order that directs the Attorney General to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state AI statutes in federal court—claims framed around dormant Commerce Clause and federal preemption theories—and instructs the Commerce Department to flag state laws for referral ^{[2] [3]}. Those pieces do not list specific lawsuits already filed against that executive order (or by it), but they make clear the administration intends to deploy the Department of Justice in federal district courts across the country to attack state laws it deems inconsistent with federal AI policy ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Litigation posture shaped by Supreme Court doctrine and specialist trackers

The legal terrain for any multi-jurisdictional attack on executive action has shifted after the Supreme Court’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA, which narrow relief to parties before the court and complicate attempts to secure universal blocks on executive policies ^[9]. Given that doctrinal context, the reporting suggests plaintiffs have brought multiple suits in different federal districts, and some matters have already reached the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution ^{[1] [7]}; specialist trackers (Just Security, Lawfare, National LGBTQ+ Bar, GLAD) are the best available contemporaneous sources for which courts and filings are active in any given challenge ^{[4] [5] [6] [10]}.

5. What the sources do — and do not — show about “Executive Order 14321” specifically

None of the provided sources explicitly identifies an Executive Order numbered 14321 or lists lawsuits captioned against “EO 14321”; instead, the material collectively documents intense litigation over a birthright citizenship order and identifies an AI-focused order that contemplates DOJ litigation against state laws ^{[7] [2] [3]}. Consequently, reporting limits prevent a definitive catalog here of plaintiffs, complaint captions, or the exact district courts handling challenges under the EO number 14321; the public trackers named above are the explicit sources to consult for live dockets and updates ^{[4] [5]}.