Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Trump's presidency see an increase in 1st amendment-related lawsuits against the government?
Executive summary
Coverage in the provided sources shows a marked surge of litigation targeting actions by President Trump’s administration beginning in January 2025, including numerous suits raising First Amendment claims (e.g., more than 186 legal actions and “more than 100 lawsuits” tracked by reporters and trackers) and multiple federal rulings finding administration actions likely violated or did violate First Amendment protections (Perkins Coie injunction; Education Dept. email ruling; ACLU win on ICC sanctions) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Legal trackers and academic projects explicitly framed the second Trump administration as generating a high volume of First Amendment–related litigation and commentary (Just Security, Lawfare, NYU First Amendment Watch) [2] [6] [7].
1. Litigation numbers: a spike, according to trackers and outlets
Independent trackers and reporting compiled since January 2025 report an unusually large number of suits against the Trump administration — The Fulcrum counted “over 186 legal actions” challenging Trump administration policies as of April 2025, and Just Security and Lawfare created live litigation trackers cataloguing scores of challenges to executive orders and agency actions [1] [2] [6]. Those tallies include a mix of constitutional claims; reporting cited “more than 100 lawsuits and 50 restraining orders” in at least one cluster of disputes [2].
2. First Amendment claims appear prominently in that caseload
Among the lawsuits flagged, several explicitly alleged First Amendment violations or involved speech-related disputes: Perkins Coie successfully obtained a permanent injunction against an executive order the court found to be unlawful retaliation implicating the First Amendment [3]; a federal judge held that Education Department automated messages compelling partisan speech violated the First Amendment [4]; and the ACLU won a preliminary injunction finding sanctions tied to ICC engagement likely violated advocates’ First Amendment rights [5]. Trackers and observers categorized many of the administration’s actions as raising distinct First Amendment questions [2] [6].
3. Institutional responses: academic and civil‑liberties monitoring
Academic and advocacy institutions set up new projects to collect and analyze these disputes: NYU launched “Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment” to track executive orders, lawsuits, and commentary during the second Trump administration, and organizations like Lawfare and Just Security maintained litigation trackers — signals that legal scholars view the volume and nature of suits as notable [7] [2] [6].
4. Types of First Amendment issues seen in suits
The examples in the sources show varied speech and associational claims: alleged retaliation against a law firm for representing political opponents (Perkins Coie) [3]; compelled partisan messaging by a federal agency that used rank-and-file staff as spokespeople (Education Dept.) [4]; restrictions on advocacy tied to sanctions that impeded communications with an international tribunal (ACLU/ICC matter) [5]. Reporters also flagged press‑related suits and anti‑SLAPP issues involving defamation and press freedom (Trump v. Wall Street Journal reporting) [8].
5. Competing perspectives and context
Commentators and organizations emphasize different frames. Civil‑liberties and civil‑rights groups present these suits as defensive guards of speech rights against novel executive actions [5] [3]. Other legal observers and outlets documented broad litigation activity without asserting an absolute novelty — noting that every administration faces legal challenges and that past presidencies also prompted First Amendment disputes [9]. Academic essays underscore legal complexity in suing a President for First Amendment violations and note doctrinal obstacles even when speech harms are alleged [10].
6. What the reporting does—and does not—establish
Available sources document a clear rise in litigation confronting the Trump administration’s policies and identify multiple notable First Amendment rulings and trackers that treat speech issues as central [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Sources do not, however, provide a systematic comparison of First Amendment–specific lawsuits across administrations with matched methodology (e.g., apples‑to‑apples counts vs. prior presidencies), so a definitive, quantified statement that Trump’s presidency produced a higher absolute rate of First Amendment lawsuits than every prior administration is not present in the provided reporting [1] [2].
7. Bottom line for readers
The supplied reporting and trackers show an unmistakable surge of legal challenges to the Trump administration — many raising First Amendment or speech/associational claims — and several courts have ruled these actions likely or actually violated the First Amendment [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. At the same time, scholars and observers caution that litigation is not unique to one presidency and that doctrinal hurdles complicate direct comparisons; the sources do not offer a comprehensive historical tally that would definitively prove an unprecedented increase compared with earlier administrations [9] [10] [1].