Oregon’s attorney general has joined in a dozen lawsuits challenging President Trump’s executive orders, agency actions

SALEM, Ore. (KTVZ) -- Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield joined Friday in three more multi-state lawsuits challenging the legality of President Trump's executive orders and federal agencies' recent actions, bringing the total to a dozen so far.

Rayfield noted Friday that his predecessor during Trump’s first term, former Democratic Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, had only filed one lawsuit by this point in Trump’s first term.

“The common theme that you have heard for the first 100 days that I’ve been in office, and that you’ll hear today, is that the president has a lot of powers in the world, but the president does not have the power to ignore the United States Constitution, nor does the president have the ability to ignore federal law,” Rayfield told reporters during a virtual press conference Friday morning, the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported. 

A full list of the cases and their status was provided to KTVZ News and is at the end of Friday's three news releases:

Oregon and Washington Sue Trump to Protect Election Integrity from Presidential Overreach
AG Rayfield, SOS Tobias Read call this latest power grab a blatant attempt to undermine voting

The attorneys general of Oregon and Washington today filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s unconstitutional executive order attacking elections and voting rights.

The president’s illegal order will make it harder to vote, erode public confidence in our elections, and make elections more expensive for states to administer. The order’s confusing language about proof of citizenship requirements makes it possible that voters will mistakenly believe that they must show proof of citizenship in order to register and vote.

“President Trump’s executive order is nothing more than a blatant attempt to rig the system and suppress votes,” Oregon AG Dan Rayfield said. “He’s trying to make it harder for people to vote. It’s a direct assault on the Constitution and a brazen attempt to act like a king, dictating how states should run their elections. No president, no matter how hungry, gets to strip away our right to run our own voting system in Oregon or any other state.”

“Oregon citizens have the right to hold their politicians accountable at the ballot box. It is our responsibility as a state to defend that right and run secure, fair elections,” Read said. “The Trump Administration does not have the power to take away Oregonians’ rights to vote and the funding we need to run secure elections. This Executive Order is nonsense. It’s illegal. And, it will not stand.”

The lawsuit states the obvious – the Constitution’s Elections Clause gives states the authority to run their own elections, with exceptions for actions by Congress. But this executive order, signed by a president who still falsely claims to have won the 2020 presidential election, also violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act by unfairly making it harder to vote.

The lawsuit seeks to declare most provisions of the order unconstitutional and prevent the federal government from implementing or enforcing them.

President Trump’s attacks on elections and voting are well-documented, though his evidence to support them is not. He blamed his 2020 election loss on widespread fraud that was proven to be false. An Associated Press analysis of the six battleground states former President Biden won in the 2020 election found a combined total of 475 potentially fraudulent votes, while Biden won those states by a combined 311,257 votes.

Trump has made similarly false claims about vote-by-mail. Oregon was the first state in the country to use vote by mail in a presidential election and that voting system has been administered by secretaries of state who were both Republican and Democrat. Both Oregon and Washington have championed this type of voting, which is safe and secure, and popular with voters because of how it improves access to democracy.

The order would require votes sent by mail to arrive no later than Election Day to be counted, even though 18 states, including Washington and Oregon, accept ballots postmarked on or before Election Day.

The order’s illegal and burdensome proof of citizenship requirements will disenfranchise voters. About 9% of U.S. citizens of voting age do not have such documents readily available, according to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice.

--

Attorney General Rayfield Sues Trump Administration to Protect Libraries and Museums
Multi-state Coalition Suing to Stop Dismantling of Federal Agencies That Support Libraries, Museums, Minority-Owned Businesses, and Workers

Attorney General Dan Rayfield today joined a coalition of 19 other attorneys general in suing the Trump administration to stop the dismantling of three federal agencies that provide services and funding supporting public libraries and museums, workers, and minority-owned businesses nationwide.

In March, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order that would dismantle federal agencies created by Congress that collectively provide hundreds of millions of dollars for programs in every state. As a result of this Executive Order, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) – one of the targeted agencies – has placed almost its entire staff on administrative leave and will cut hundreds of grants for state libraries and museums. The lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rayfield and the coalition seeks to stop the targeted destruction of the IMLS and two other agencies targeted in the administration’s EO that millions of Americans rely on, especially those in underserved communities.

“These agencies provide essential resources for education, culture and economic growth, and Trump is stripping them away to score cheap political points,” Rayfield said. “This is a deliberate attempt to erase the spaces where people learn, connect and thrive.”

This Executive Order is the administration’s latest attempt to dismantle federal agencies in defiance of Congress. Attorney General Rayfield and the coalition are seeking to stop the dismantling of three agencies targeted in the administration’s Executive Order:

1. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which supports museums and libraries nationwide through grantmaking, research, and policy development.
2.  The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), which promotes the growth and inclusion of minority-owned businesses through federal financial assistance programs; and
3. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), which promotes peaceful resolution of labor disputes.

As Attorney General Rayfield and the coalition assert in the lawsuit, dismantling these agencies will have devastating effects on communities throughout Oregon and the nation that rely on them to provide important services to the public, including funding their libraries, promoting minority-owned businesses, and protecting workers’ rights.

In Oregon, among other things, the loss of the federal funding would greatly impact our local libraries, especially those in 15 rural counties, which get assistance from the Oregon State Library. It would also affect the Oregon Battle of the Books program, an annual competition for students around the state.

Attorney General Rayfield and the coalition argue that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by eliminating the programs of agencies without any regard for the laws and regulations that govern each source of federal funding. The coalition argues that the president cannot decide to unilaterally override laws governing federal spending, and that this Executive Order unconstitutionally overrides Congress’s power to decide how federal funds are spent.

Joining Attorney General Rayfield in this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

--

AG Rayfield Sues Trump Administration Over Illegal Funding Cuts and Delays for Medical and Public Health Research

Attorney General Dan Rayfield today joined a coalition of 15 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts over its unlawful attempt to disrupt grant funding issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The lawsuit challenges the Administration’s unreasonable and intentional delays in reviewing NIH grant applications, as well as its termination of hundreds of already-issued grants.

“This administration thinks they can play games with public health and research, but they’re messing with the future of science and the well-being of Oregonians,” Rayfield said. “Oregon’s researchers deserve the resources they need to make breakthroughs, not to be held hostage by political games.”

Typically, NIH grant applications must undergo two layers of review: review by a “study section” of subject-matter experts who assess the scientific merit of the proposal and review by an advisory council that considers funding availability and agency priorities. Since January, the Administration has cancelled upcoming meetings for both of these review bodies and has delayed the scheduling of future meetings. Further, NIH has indefinitely withheld issuing final decisions on applications that have already received approval from the relevant study section and advisory council. Currently, the plaintiff states are awaiting decisions on billions of dollars in requested research funding.

The complaint also alleges that NIH has recently terminated large swaths of already-issued grants for projects that are currently underway based on the projects’ perceived connection to “DEI,” “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” or another topic disfavored by the current Administration. In boilerplate letters issued to the grants’ recipients, NIH claims that each cancelled project “no longer effectuates agency priorities.” With these shoddy explanations, the complaint alleges, the Trump Administration has clawed back millions of dollars that have already been awarded to address important public health needs.

The coalition argues that by postponing meetings, delaying the review of pending applications, failing to issue final recommendations, and terminating issued grants, NIH is failing to meet its statutory obligations and violating applicable regulations. Further, the coalition argues that the Administration does not have the authority to unilaterally decline spending congressionally appropriated funds.

The coalition is asking the Court to compel the Administration to promptly review and issue decisions on delayed grant applications and prohibit them from terminating already-awarded grants.

On February 10, AG Rayfield joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Administration for its attempts to unilaterally cut “indirect cost” reimbursements for NIH grants at nearly every research institution in the country. On March 5, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Administration, preventing it from cutting the funding as the case proceeds.

Joining AG Rayfield in filing today’s lawsuit, were the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

--

List From Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield:

Pending multi-state lawsuits

Birthright citizenship (Washington v. Trump, W.D. Wash.).  Challenges the President’s executive order revoking birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. 

• Latest update: Appeal of preliminary injunction order is pending in the Ninth Circuit.  The parties are briefing the case, with oral argument scheduled for 6/4/2025.  On 3/13/2025, federal defendants applied for a stay from the injunction from the Supreme Court. 

OMB funding freeze memo (New York v. Trump, D.R.I.).  Challenges the Office of Management and Budget’s funding freeze memo, alleging that policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. 

• Latest update: Appeal of preliminary injunction order is pending in the First Circuit.  On 3/26/25, the First Circuit denied federal defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal.

Gender-affirming care (Washington v. Trump, W.D. Wash.).  Challenges anti-gender-affirming care executive order’s restrictions on grant funding for medical institutions providing GAC and its call for enforcement against providers.

• Latest update:  On 2/28/25, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  On 3/21/25, federal defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

NIH medical research “indirect costs” (Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, D. Mass.).  Challenges NIH guidance imposing an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research.

• Latest update:  On 3/5/25, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order blocking NIH’s indirect cost guidance.  We expect the federal defendants to appeal to the First Circuit.

DOGE access to Treasury payment systems (New York v. Trump, S.D.N.Y.).  Challenges access to sensitive personal/financial information granted by the Treasury Department to DOGE-affiliated individuals.

• Latest update: On 2/21/25, the district court issued a limited preliminary injunction order, enjoining the Treasury Department from granting access to individuals who had not obtained proper vetting and security clearances.

Musk appointment / authority (New Mexico v. Musk, D.D.C.).  Challenges Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation pursuant to the Appointments Clause. 

• Latest update: On 2/18/25, the district court issued an order denying the plaintiff states’ request for a temporary restraining order.  On 3/7/25, federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. 

Mass firings of probationary employees(Maryland v. USDA, D. Md.).  Lawsuit against numerous federal agencies, challenging mass layoffs of federal probationary employes. 

• Latest update: On 4/1/25, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order, requiring 20 federal agencies to take “all steps necessary to undo the purported terminations” of the probationary employees who were terminated without the requisite notice to states and prohibiting future reductions in force except in compliance with notice requirements.

Dismantling of Education Department (New York v. McMahon, D. Mass.).  Lawsuit challenging efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, requesting a halt to the agency’s planned reduction in workforce. 

• Latest update: On 3/13/25, the plaintiff states filed their complaint.  On 3/24/25, plaintiffs filed a motion fora preliminary injunction.

Termination of public health grants (Colorado v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Svcs., D.R.I.).  Lawsuit challenging HHS’s termination of nearly $12 billion in critical public health grants to states.

• Latest update: On 4/1/25, the plaintiff states filed their complaint and motion for temporary restraining order.  The hearing on plaintiffs’ TRO motion is scheduled for 4/3/25.

NIH grant delays/terminations:  Filed today -- Oregon and other states are suing NIH for grant terminations, delays, and the “un-publishing” of notices of funding opportunities.  (OHSU and the University of Oregon are affected; possibly other institutions, too.) 

Elections lawsuit:  Filed today – OR/WA filed lawsuit in the western district of Washington. The order would require votes sent by mail to arrive no later than Election Day to be counted, even though 18 states, including Washington and Oregon, accept ballots postmarked on or before Election Day.

Gutting of small federal agencies:  Filed today regarding EO gutting seven smaller federal agencies, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services (which provides significant funding to the State Library of Oregon).