Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general in suing the Trump administration over new federal contract terms intended to purge DEI. The lawsuit alleges the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide public notice or accept comments, exceeding legal authority, and imposing vague requirements that threaten severe penalties on contractors.
The lawsuit asks the court to block the federal agencies from imposing the new contract terms and to hold their actions unlawful.
In-house legal teams should review all federal contract clauses related to compliance with executive orders and antidiscrimination policies. Specifically, they should examine vendor agreements for clauses that require adherence to federal contract terms, particularly those that may be modified by executive orders. They should also review their own customer contracts with federal agencies to ensure they have adequate notice and consent provisions for any changes to contract terms. Additionally, they should assess their internal policies and training programs related to DEI to ensure they are not inadvertently violating vague new requirements.
Entity
Trump Administration
Industry
Other"Attorney General Ellison sues Trump Administration over unlawful mandates on federal contractors"
"the agencies failed to invite comments from the public as required by law"
"violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide notice to the public or accept comments as required by federal procurement law"
"The lawsuit asks the court to hold the agencies’ actions unlawful and block them from imposing the new contract terms."
"Joins coalition of 20 AGs in suing over illegal new additions to federal contracts intended to purge DEI"
A multistate coalition co-led by New Jersey won a federal court order rejecting the Trump Administration’s decision not to request funding for the CFPB. The order struck down that decision and directed the Administration to follow the law and fund the agency; no monetary penalty or privacy violation is described.
A federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from penalizing states over SNAP administration and struck down guidance restricting food assistance for certain lawful permanent residents. The release does not state the date of the court’s ruling, so the event date uses the publication date as a proxy.
A coalition of 24 states led by Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones won a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, invalidating illegal tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs were unauthorized by law, as a trade deficit does not constitute the required 'large and serious balance-of-payment deficits' under the statute. The ruling prevents the administration from enforcing the 10% worldwide tariffs on most products.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.
Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.
Consumer protection enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a coalition of 24 states in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump Administration's imposition of tariffs on imported goods. The states argue the tariffs are unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as they cause financial harm to consumers and state governments by increasing prices and procurement costs.