Which Biden policies have been challenged as unconstitutional in court?
Executive summary
Multiple Biden administration policies have been litigated as unconstitutional, from immigration parole and asylum rules to COVID-era mandates, student loan relief, surveillance practices, and proposed Supreme Court reforms; courts and state attorneys general have both won and lost challenges, and advocacy groups, think tanks and state officials frame many suits with explicit political agendas [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting shows a pattern: conservative states and attorneys general frequently bring suits that sometimes succeed in preliminary injunctions or appellate rebukes, while civil‑liberty groups and left‑of‑center outlets focus on other claims, meaning the mix of legal theories and political motives must be tracked case‑by‑case [5] [2] [3].
1. Immigration parole, “parole in place,” and asylum rules — frequent targets in federal court
The administration’s use of parole authority and regulatory changes to asylum have been repeatedly challenged as exceeding statutory authority or violating the Administrative Procedure Act, with the Fifth Circuit criticizing mass parole as “the opposite of case‑by‑case decision making” in Texas v. Biden and Texas continuing to press suits against asylum rules and win standing to litigate [1] [6]. State attorneys general like Texas’s Ken Paxton have framed those challenges as defending constitutional and statutory limits on executive power and have touted courtroom victories or continuations of suits as proof the administration’s immigration moves were unlawful [5] [6]. Opponents of the suits argue states are politicizing immigration policy and that executive flexibility is necessary to manage border operations; both positions are advanced in the public record and litigation filings [1] [5].
2. COVID-era mandates and the eviction moratorium — split results before the high court
Several Biden administration workplace and contractor vaccine requirements and the CDC eviction moratorium were subject to multistate lawsuits; courts issued stays and injunctions against OSHA and the CDC rules, and the Supreme Court intervened to limit enforcement, illustrating successful constitutional and statutory challenges to those pandemic measures [2] [7]. Critics from conservative think tanks and opinion writers say these are examples of presidential overreach and constitutional contempt, while supporters contend public‑health imperatives justified aggressive administrative action; the judicial record shows the courts often found statutory or separation‑of‑powers defects in the administration’s approach [7] [2] [8].
3. Student loan forgiveness — litigated up to the Supreme Court and characterized as beyond executive authority
Challenges to the administration’s attempts to cancel or modify wide swaths of federal student debt culminated in court findings that at least some forgiveness schemes exceeded statutory authority, prompting the White House to narrow or revise plans and leading commentators to debate whether the moves were lawful executive action or improper policymaking without congressional authorization [9] [10]. Some outlets portray the litigation as courts correctly policing executive power, while defenders argue constraints on borrowers required administrative remedies; the back‑and‑forth in courts and revised policies underscores the contested legal footing [9] [10].
4. Surveillance law posture — civil‑liberties groups call the administration’s defense of Section 702 unconstitutional
Civil‑liberties organizations assert the administration has defended Section 702 surveillance in ways that violate constitutional protections and have brought litigation challenging the law’s application to U.S. persons; the ACLU highlights examples where the FBI allegedly used Section 702 to query communications of activists and donors, arguing the government’s position enables repeated civil‑liberties violations [3]. The administration’s defense of existing surveillance authorities is thus a live constitutional battleground, with privacy advocates and courts weighing Fourth Amendment and statutory issues [3].
5. Supreme Court reform and presidential‑immunity proposals — contested on constitutional grounds by scholars and conservative groups
Proposals from the White House and Biden’s commission for Supreme Court “reform,” including term limits and changes to immunity doctrines, have been denounced by conservative scholars and advocacy groups as unconstitutional, with briefs and opinion pieces arguing such changes violate Article III or entrenched immunity principles; proponents counter that reform addresses legitimacy and accountability concerns raised after recent high‑profile decisions [4] [11] [12]. These fights are as much about institutional vision and political stakes as they are about textual constitutional interpretation, with clear ideological polarization in the commentary and litigation posture [4] [12].
6. Litigation landscape and political incentives — who sues and why it matters
Multistate coalitions, state attorneys general, civil‑liberties NGOs and conservative think tanks have all used lawsuits to challenge Biden administration actions, sometimes securing injunctions or appellate rulings and sometimes losing; Ballotpedia’s cataloging of multistate suits shows a broad, sustained effort to test executive actions through court processes, and the political aims of litigants—ranging from ideological oversight to concrete policy outcomes—shape which claims reach the bench [2] [5]. Where source material is opinion‑driven or issued by advocacy groups, the agendas are explicit; reporting and court records are the best available record for which policies have been legally challenged [2] [3].