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.
Fact check: What were the most common types of lawsuits filed against the Trump administration?
Executive Summary
The available analyses show that litigation against the Trump administration was multi-faceted, with environmental rules, immigration policies, and healthcare repeatedly identified as the most common targets of suits during 2017–2021. Different trackers and state tallies present consistent themes—multistate and state-level challenges dominated the docket, while a separate set of cases involved the administration suing states or seeking emergency relief in the Supreme Court [1] [2] [3].
1. How many fights were happening at once — a surprising scale of multistate litigation
The evidence indicates a broad, coordinated pattern of multistate litigation against the federal government during President Trump’s first term. One count finds at least 156 multistate lawsuits filed between January 2017 and January 2021, concentrated around challenges to federal rulemaking and policy rollbacks [1]. That tally highlights how state coalitions became a primary vehicle for legal resistance to administration actions, combining resources to contest regulations across sectors. The multistate approach amplified legal pressure on the administration and made litigation a central arena for policy disputes, particularly where federal agencies revised or rescinded Obama-era rules; environmental rollbacks figure prominently among those fights [1].
2. State-level battles — California as the bellwether of opposition
California’s litigation record presents a concentrated example of state-level opposition: the state sued the administration 123 times between 2017 and 2021, according to one count, and the majority of those suits targeted environmental policy changes, immigration directives, and healthcare decisions [2]. California also incurred notable litigation costs—about $10 million per year—illustrating the financial as well as legal commitment by some states to contest federal actions [2]. California’s pattern is emblematic: when large states mobilize legal teams and coordinate with other jurisdictions, they create sustained, high-profile challenges that shape national policy outcomes through courts rather than legislatures.
3. A wider litigation ecosystem — active cases, counter-suits, and Supreme Court interventions
A broader litigation tracker shows 227 active cases challenging Trump administration actions at a snapshot in time, and it also records instances where the administration itself filed 19 suits against state or local laws, signaling two-way litigation dynamics [3]. This reflects a litigation ecosystem in which states and the federal government confronted each other both defensively and offensively. The tracker also notes 17 Supreme Court stays or orders to vacate lower court rulings, underscoring how critical and frequent high-court interventions were in resolving disputes over executive policies [3]. These data reveal that litigation against the administration was not limited to district courts; many matters escalated to appellate and Supreme Court review, where emergency relief and stays affected implementation timelines.
4. Which issues kept coming back — environment, immigration, and healthcare explained
Across the datasets, environmental rules, immigration, and healthcare emerge repeatedly as the most frequent subject matters of litigation [1] [2]. Environmental suits often challenged agency rollbacks affecting air, water, and climate-related regulations and were frequently brought by state coalitions and environmental groups [1] [2]. Immigration litigation encompassed policy changes ranging from travel bans and asylum restrictions to enforcement priorities, provoking both state and national-level challenges. Healthcare suits focused on rule changes and the administration’s positions in broader litigation over the Affordable Care Act. The repetition of these three categories signals where policy shifts provoked the greatest legal friction and where states perceived the most immediate harm from federal actions [1] [2].
5. What these counts do and don’t tell us — limitations and context to bear in mind
The tallies provide useful snapshots but have limits: counts of “multistate lawsuits,” a single state’s suing frequency, and an active-case tracker each capture different slices of the litigation landscape and use differing inclusion criteria [1] [2] [3]. For example, a multistate case may appear once in one database but involve many states; a state’s count might include administrative challenges the tracker excludes. The active-case figure includes ongoing litigation and administrative petitions, producing a higher instantaneous total [3]. These methodological differences mean the numbers should be read as complementary rather than strictly additive; they consistently point to the same substantive conclusion—that environmental, immigration, and healthcare disputes dominated litigation against the Trump administration.
6. The big-picture takeaway — litigation as a central arena for policy contestation
Taken together, the sources portray litigation as a primary mechanism for contesting Trump administration policy: states organized multistate suits and individual states like California mounted sustained legal campaigns, while the administration pursued its own suits and frequent Supreme Court interventions resolved key disputes [1] [2] [3]. The concentration on environmental, immigration, and healthcare indicates these policy areas were both politically contentious and legally vulnerable to challenge. The data thus describe not only the volume of litigation but also the strategic use of courts by both states and the federal government to shape national policy outcomes.