Since the Trump Administration took office in January 2025, AG Dana Nessel has taken action to protect the rights, services, and federal funding that Michigan residents depend on. To help you stay informed, the Department created the Federal Actions Tracker.
The tracker provides up-to-date information on the Attorney General's legal actions in response to several unlawful federal policies and orders. The tracker is a helpful resource designed to keep residents informed on significant federal actions and how they impact Michigan residents.
|
Case Filed |
Case Name |
Summary |
AG Press Release |
|
1/21/2025 |
New Jersey, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (RE: BIRTHRIGHT) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 18 states filed this lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s executive order excluding certain newborns from birthright citizenship. This lawsuit is based on a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If this executive order is allowed to stand, an estimated 150,000 newborns per year—all born in America—would no longer count as Americans. Withholding citizenship from them would reduce the amount of money that the state of Michigan receives from the federal government to fund healthcare, education, and child welfare. Michigan’s hospitals and schools would receive less money too. STATUS: The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on June 27th, which limits the ability for a federal District Court to issue a nationwide injunction in certain circumstances. The Court did not issue an opinion on the merits of birthright citizenship. On July 25th, the District Court continued the nationwide injunction, finding “no workable, narrower alternative to the injunction issued originally would provide complete relief to the Plaintiffs in this case.” On September 22nd, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal of the district's decision to maintain a nationwide injunction. Separately, on October 3rd, the First Circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction in full. On October 23rd, the District Court and the First Circuit stayed its proceedings due to the federal government shutdown and pending appeals to the Supreme Court in related cases. |
|
|
1/28/2025 |
Michigan and a coalition of 21 states filed this lawsuit to challenge a Trump Administration policy that pauses disbursements of almost all federal funding to the states (the “OMB Directive”). This lawsuit is based on multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. If this policy is allowed to stand, Michigan and other states would not receive billions of dollars in funds promised by Congress to pay for Medicaid, healthcare, childcare, law enforcement, roads, support for public schools, resources to combat hate crimes and violence against women, disaster relief, and more. STATUS: Preliminary Injunction was ordered on March 6th. On April 4th, Courts found that the government was not in compliance with the preliminary injunction in regards to FEMA funding. Since, the Trump Administration has released all previously withheld FEMA funds and ended the manual review process. In addition, the preliminary injunction and order requiring FEMA to comply with the preliminary injunction are on appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument is scheduled for November 18th. |
||
|
2/10/2025 |
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. NIH (RE: NIH) (PDF) |
Michigan co-led a coalition of 21 states in this lawsuit to challenge the Trump Administration’s policy to cut billions of dollars in medical research funding provided by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). This lawsuit is based on violations of federal law. If the Trump Administration’s policy is allowed to stand, then the University of Michigan stands to lose about $181 million, Michigan State University stands to lose about $27 million, and Wayne State University stands to lose millions more in research funding that they use to cure and treat diseases like cancer. At University of Michigan alone, this would impact 425 NIH-funded trials currently underway, including 161 trials aimed at saving lives. STATUS: A preliminary injunction was issued nationwide on March 5th. On April 8th, the federal government appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument is scheduled for November 5th.
|
|
|
2/13/2025 |
Michigan co-led a coalition of 13 states in this lawsuit to challenge Elon Musk’s authority to exercise vast power over the entire federal government. This lawsuit is based on violations of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that federal officers must be appointed to offices created by Congress and confirmed by the Senate. If Musk’s authority is allowed to stand, then Musk will continue to stop federal funds for law enforcement, health care, education from going to states, including Michigan; illegally eliminate agencies created by Congress, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and access sensitive personal information about Michiganders and using it for illegal purposes. This suit highlights how, with President Trump's approval, Musk has unraveled federal agencies, accessed sensitive data, and caused widespread disruption for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American people. The complaint further asserts that Musk’s actions violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that executive appointments are subject to congressional oversight and Senate confirmation. STATUS: On May 27th, the Court granted in part and denied in part DOJ's motion to dismiss.
|
||
|
3/6/2025 |
Maryland, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al. (RE: RIF) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge the Trump Administration’s firing of thousands of government employees en masse in violation of laws passed by Congress. This lawsuit is based on violations of multiple federal laws and laws that require the federal government to reimburse states for some of the costs of running unemployment programs. If these mass firings are allowed to stand, then Michigan will pay the costs of unemployed workers, including sudden demand for unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and other services funded by the state taxpayers. STATUS: On September 8th, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. |
|
|
3/13/2025 |
New York, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al. (RE: DISMANTLING DOE) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s attempt to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education. This lawsuit is based on violations of the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers, and federal law. If the President’s policies are allowed to stand, then Michigan will be harmed in multiple ways. First, billions of dollars in funds could not be given to states, including funds for disabled students. Second, federal student loans and FAFSA applications would be disrupted or taken offline, leaving millions of potential students and current borrowers in limbo and unable to access repayment plans. Last, various services for students with special education needs, including those who are homeless, may disappear. STATUS: Preliminary injunction issued May 22nd. On July 14th, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction without explanation and over the dissent of three justices. On August 11th, the District Court granted an indicative ruling that indicates that the preliminary injunction would be vacated if the First Circuit Court dismissed the appeal. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal on September 15th and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. On October 1st, the District Court vacated the preliminary injunction and stayed the case due to the federal government shutdown.
|
|
|
4/1/2025 |
Colorado, et al. v. HHS, RFK Jr., et al. (RE: PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 23 states filed this lawsuit to challenge the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) abrupt and illegal termination of over $11B in critical public health grants nationwide. If these cuts were allowed to stand, Michigan would lose over $379M in grant funding already awarded to and owed to the State. These grants helped support programs to treat mental health and substance abuse, grants from the CDC to support infectious disease control, vaccinations programs for children and vulnerable adults, and more. STATUS: Temporary Restraining Order was issued on April 3rd for the 23 Plaintiff States. And a preliminary injunction was issued on May 16th. HHS filed a notice of appeal in July, but then voluntarily withdrew the appeal soon thereafter. |
|
|
4/3/2025 |
California, et al. v. Trump, Bondi, et al. (RE: ELECTION EO) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge President Trump's Executive Order No. 14248 (the "Elections Executive Order") which is an undemocratic and illegal attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions nationwide. The Elections Executive Order attempts to conscript State election officials in the President’s efforts to impose overly burdensome proof-of-citizenship requirements when Americans register to vote. It also seeks to upend common-sense, well-established state procedures for counting ballots — procedures that ensure peoples’ voices are heard. STATUS: The Court granted the Plaintiff States' motion for preliminary injunction on June 13th. DOJ has appealed the preliminary injunction, and the appeal is currently stayed due to the federal government shutdown. The District Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on September 17th. |
|
|
4/4/2025 |
Rhode Island, et al. v. Trump, IMLS, et al. (RE: 7 AGENCIES) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge the Trump Administration's dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. If allowed to stand, Michigan could lose over $4.75M in federal library funding, small businesses would lose access to new grants and unionized workers would have a harder time securing their rights. STATUS: The Court granted the Plaintiff States’ motion for preliminary injunction on May 6th and issued the preliminary injunction order on May 13th. DOJ appealed and requested a stay of the preliminary injunction before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The First Circuit denied the stay on September 11th. Oral argument on the full appeal is scheduled for December 4th. While the appeal proceeds, Plaintiff States filed a motion for summary judgement on August 22nd in the District Court. |
|
|
4/10/2025 |
New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al. (RE: ESSER) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 15 states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for unlawfully rescinding an extended deadline that allowed states and local school districts to use pandemic relief education funds appropriate by Congress. The suit argues that when the DOE terminated those extensions, they caused immediate and irreparable harm to the Michigan Department of Education, local districts, and the State’s public-school students by severing the State’s access to more than $25 million in education stabilization funds. STATUS: Preliminary Injunction issued May 6th blocking DOE’s first attempt to rescind the extended deadline to spend the education stabilization funds. When DOE attempted again to rescind the extended deadline for the Plaintiff States, the Court issued a second preliminary injunction on June 3rd. DOE sought a stay of the preliminary injunction from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 20th. DOE voluntarily dismissed their appeal on August 11th. |
|
|
4/25/2025 |
New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al. (RE: TITLE VI) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education's threat to withhold federal funding from state and local agencies that refuse to abandon lawful programs and policies and accept the Trump Administration’s new and legally incoherent interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Michigan, like many other states, declined to sign the certification form as drafted, explaining that there is no lawful or practical way to do so given the Department’s vague, contradictory, and unsupported interpretation of Title VI. In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition seek to bar the Department from withholding any funding based on these unlawful conditions. STATUS: Case was filed on April 25, 2025. |
|
|
4/29/2025 |
Maryland, et al. v. AmeriCorps, et al. (RE: AMERICORPS) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 24 states filed a lawsuit contesting the unlawful dismantling of AmeriCorps and termination of most AmeriCorps grants. AmeriCorps laid off approximately 85% of its staff and cancelled virtually all volunteer programs it sponsored across the country, including all volunteer programs in Michigan. The suit argues that the unlawful gutting of AmeriCorps violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. STATUS: The Court issued a preliminary injunction on June 5th. This preliminary injunction reinstated hundreds of AmeriCorps programs that were unlawfully cancelled and barred AmeriCorps from making similar cuts without formal rule making. Despite this order, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have withheld vast sums intended for outstanding service programs, threatening their survival and the wellbeing of those who depend on their services. Because of the Trump Administration’s withholding of these funds, on July 24th, the coalition amended its lawsuit to add OMB as a Defendant and brings new legal claims against the agency. A second preliminary injunction motion to address OMB was filed on August 8th. On August 28th, when their response to the preliminary injunction motion was due in court, OMB and Americorps instead agreed to fully release previously withheld funds. On September 30th, AmeriCorps confirmed it obligated all FY25 grant funds, so the Plaintiff States withdrew the second preliminary injunction motion. |
|
|
5/5/2025 |
New York, et al. v. RFK Jr., HHS, et al. (RE: DISMANTLING HHS) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 20 states filed a lawsuit against Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other Trump Administration officials to stop the dismantling of HHS. On March 27th, Secretary Kennedy announced that the department’s 28 agencies would be collapsed into 15, with many surviving offices shuffled or split apart. He also announced mass firings, cutting 10,000 full-time employees on top of about 10,000 who had left already, which together would slash the department’s headcount from around 85,000 to 65,000. On April 1st, the federal government began sending termination notices to thousands of HHS employees across the nation. Half of HHS’ regional offices were closed, including offices in Boston, Chicago, New York City, San Francisco and Seattle. STATUS: The Plaintiff States’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted on July 1st. The District Court denied HHS' motion to vacate the preliminary injunction on July 18th. HHS appealed the preliminary injunction on August 12th and sought a stay of the injunction. On September 17th, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the Trump Administration's motion to stay the preliminary injunction. HHS then voluntarily dismissed their appeal on October 30th. Separately, HHS moved to dismiss the case before the district court on August 15th. |
|
|
5/5/2025 |
New York, et al. v. Trump, USA, Dept. of Interior, et al. (RE: WIND ENERGY) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 18 states filed a lawsuit against President Trump, the United States of America, Department of Interior and other agencies to stop the Administration's unlawful attempt to freeze the development of wind energy. On January 20th, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum that indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects. Pursuant to that directive, federal agencies stopped all permitting and approval activities. STATUS: The Court converted the Plaintiff States' motion for a preliminary injunction to a motion for summary judgment and additional briefing was completed through summer 2025. A hearing on the summary judgment motion was held on September 4th and remains pending. |
|
|
5/9/2025 |
Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al. (RE: ENERGY EMERGENCY) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 15 states filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's unlawful declaration of an energy emergency. The multistate coalition argues the Trump Administration is illegally using emergency authorities for non-emergency projects to keep the nation reliant on energy sources like coal, oil, and gas, as energy production remains at an all-time high and major energy companies have stated they do not plan to increase output as a result of the order. The order also excludes wind, solar, and batteries — among the cheapest and cleanest modern energy sources that exist today – likely because the Administration is simultaneously seeking to increase exports of fossil fuels, a strategy which, according to the U.S. Department of Energy will increase prices for American consumers. STATUS: Case was filed on May 9, 2025. Case stayed due to government shutdown. |
|
|
5/13/2025 |
Illinois, et al. v. FEMA, Homeland Security, et al. (RE: DHS IMMIGRATION GRANT TERMS) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for attempting to illegally coerce the states into sweeping immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold billions in federal funding. In their lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition challenge grant terms and conditions that would impose immigration enforcement obligations on the states for grants that have nothing to do with immigration. The lawsuit points out that the immigration conditions exceed FEMA’s legal authority. The coalition further explains the conditions are unconstitutional because Congress appropriated the billions of federal dollars to help states prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters. The safety and well-being of Americans could be at risk if states are forced to forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal emergency preparedness and response funds. The State of Michigan received more than $60 million in grants through DHS or its sub-agencies in 2024. The federal funding assisted in preventing and responding to emergency situations. In addition, the state received nearly $257 million from FEMA for specific disasters. STATUS: On September 24th, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining DHS and FEMA from enforcing the immigration enforcement term in the agencies' grants. On October 14th, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the judgment, ordering DHS/FEMA to remove the contested term from recently issued grant awards. |
|
|
5/13/2025 |
California, et al. v. U.S. DOT, Duffy, et al. (RE: DOT IMMIGRATION GRANT TERMS) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for attempting to illegally coerce the states into sweeping immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold billions in federal funding. In their lawsuit against the DOT, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition challenge grant terms and conditions that would impose immigration enforcement obligations on the states for grants that have nothing to do with immigration. The lawsuit points out that imposing an immigration-enforcement condition on all federal transportation funds, which Congress appropriated to support critical infrastructure projects, is beyond the agency’s legal authority. The coalition states rely upon DOT money to fund highway development and airport safety projects, to prevent injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents, and to protect against train collisions. Since 2021, the Michigan Department of Transportation has been awarded more than $771 million in federal grant funding from DOT to develop, maintain, and ensure safety on the state’s roads, highways, railways, airways, and waterways – $521,757,384 of which has not yet been obligated. Attorney General Nessel and the attorneys general contend that withholding the federal funding will damage public infrastructure across the country and will undermine public trust and cooperation in criminal investigations. STATUS: The Court issued a preliminary injunction on June 19th. Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on August 19th. |
|
|
6/9/2025 |
New Jersey, et al. v. Bondi, ATF, et al. (RE: FORCE RESET TRIGGERS) (PDF) |
AG Nessel and a coalition of 16 attorneys general filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration, and in particular the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), over its plans to distribute thousands of machine gun conversion devices (MCD) to communities across the United States. STATUS: ATF has expressly confirmed to a judge that it will not return FRTs into Michigan or other Plaintiff States. As a result, the coalition withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction and the parties agreed to stay the case until February 2026. |
|
|
6/24/2025 |
New Jersey, et al. v. OMB, et al. (RE: AGENCY PRIORITIES CLAUSE) (PDF) |
AG Nessel and a coalition of 21 attorneys general filed suit to stop federal agencies from terminating grants based on 2 C.F.R. 200.340(a)(4). The Trump Administration has unlawfully cancelled billions of dollars in grants to states based on this regulation citing a change in "agency priorities." STATUS: The Plaintiff States moved for summary judgment on August 4th. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and opposed Plaintiff's summary judgement motion on September 11th. |
|
|
6/30/2025 |
AG Nessel and a coalition of 16 state attorneys general filed a suit against the Department of Education for illegally cutting congressionally approved funding for mental health programs in K-12 schools. STATUS: Case was filed on June 30, 2025. A motion for preliminary injunction was filed on July 8th by the Plaintiff States, and the Court held a hearing on the motion on September 5th. USED filed a motion to dismiss following the hearing on September 5th. On October 21st, the Court denied USED's motion to dismiss. And, on October 27th, the Court granted a preliminary injunction. |
||
|
7/1/2025 |
California, et al. v. HHS, RFK Jr., et al. (RE: MEDICAID DATA TRANSFER) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), challenging the transfer of Medicaid beneficiary data from HHS to DHS for purposes of immigration enforcement. STATUS: The Plaintiff States' motion for preliminary injunction was granted on August 12th. |
|
|
7/14/2025 |
California, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al. (RE: TITLE FUNDS IMPOUNDMENT) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 22 states filed suit against the Trump Administration for its unconstitutional, unlawful, and arbitrary decision to freeze funding of six longstanding programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education. STATUS: The complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were filed on July 14th. In late July, the Trump Administration released the funds. As a result, the motion for a preliminary injunction was withdrawn on August 5th. The Trump Administration and the multistate coalition have now jointly filed to dismiss the case under the terms of an agreement that ensures that the remaining funding for the fiscal year is released on time in early October, providing Michigan and the multistate coalition with the full relief they had sought in the lawsuit. On September 12th, the Court approved the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the case without prejudice upon the Federal Agency's agreement to release the next tranche of appropriated funding on or about October 1st. |
|
|
7/16/2025 |
Michigan and a coalition of 20 states filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for its decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC). This program is designed to protect communities from natural disasters before they strike. STATUS: The Court granted a preliminary injunction on August 5th, prohibiting FEMA from spending the funds allocated to BRIC for non-BRIC purposes. On October 15th, the Plaintiff States filed a motion for summary judgement. |
||
|
7/17/2025 |
California, et al. v. RFK Jr., et al. (RE: ACA MARKETPLACE RULE) (PDF) |
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging an unlawful final rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) that would create significant barriers to obtaining healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). STATUS: The complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were filed on July 17th. A hearing was held on August 13th. On October 2nd, the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion. |
|
|
7/21/2025 |
New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, et al. (RE: PRWORA) (PDF) |
Michigan and coalition of 20 other states filed suit against four federal agencies related to rules and guidance's announced in mid-July that reinterpret decades of precedent regarding the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The new interpretations require verification of citizenship or immigration status for individuals before they can access dozens of state safety net programs. The new requirement would require significant modifications to these programs to incorporate the new eligibility criteria, and would prevent access to these programs for everyone, even those who are U.S. citizens or documented immigrants, while the verification systems are established. STATUS: A preliminary injunction was granted on September 10th. |
|
|
7/28/2025 |
California, et al. v. USDA, et al. (RE: SNAP DATA SHARING) (PDF) |
Michigan joined a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) demands that states turn over personal and sensitive information about millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. USDA has suggested that it could withhold administrative funding for the program if states fail to comply—effectively forcing states to choose between protecting their residents’ privacy and providing critical nutrition assistance to those in need. STATUS: On October 15th, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking USDA's demand for the Plaintiff States to turn over SNAP recipients' personal data and prevented USDA from withholding SNAP funding. |
|
|
7/29/2025 |
California, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al. (RE: PLANNED PARENTHOOD) (PDF) |
Michigan joined a coalition of 22 states in suing the Trump Administration over the "Defund Provision" in the sweeping budget reconciliation law, the "Big Beautiful Bill," which targets Planned Parenthood and is a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color. This provision specifically blocks Medicaid reimbursements for essential healthcare services, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and STI testing, at Planned Parenthood health centers. STATUS: Case was filed on July 29th. A motion for preliminary injunction was filed September 24th and is fully briefed awaiting decision from the Court. |
|
|
8/1/2025 |
Massachusetts, et al. v. Trump, et al. (RE: HEALTHCARE FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH) (PDF) |
AG Nessel joined a coalition of states suing the Trump Administration's efforts to restrict access to necessary healthcare for transgender, intersex, and nonbinary youth. The lawsuit argues that the Administration is overstepping its authority by using threats of criminal prosecution and federal investigations to pressure health care providers. STATUS: Case was filed on August 1st. Case stayed due to the federal government shutdown. |
|
|
8/1/2025 |
Washington, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, et al. (RE: NEVI) (PDF) |
On August 1st, Michigan joined a coalition of 21 states suing the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) over the suspension of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program that provides federal funding to develop electric vehicle infrastructure across the country. Michigan was apportioned $87M for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. Of these funds, FHWA announced it would not obligated $28M to Michigan. STATUS: Michigan joined the case via an amended complaint on August 1st. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment on August 26th. |
|
|
8/15/2025 |
New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Wright, et al. (RE: DOE INDIRECT COSTS) (PDF) |
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined 18 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to block the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) from imposing a new funding cap that slashes support for vital state-run energy programs. The DOE policy would prevent states from using critical federal funds by limiting reimbursement for key administrative and staffing costs that have long been covered by these federal energy programs. The coalition argues that by capping certain funding for these programs, DOE is jeopardizing states’ ability to keep them running. The states are asking the court to vacate this unlawful cap and restore the legally required reimbursement rates for these essential energy programs. STATUS: Case was filed on August 15th. A partial motion for summary judgment on the APA contrary to law claim was filed on August 27th. A hearing was held on September 29th, where the Court indicated it would grant the Plaintiff States summary judgment, vacating DOE's indirect costs policy. An additional hearing is set for October 28th. |
|
|
8/18/2025 |
New Jersey, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bondi, et al. (RE: VOCA FUNDS) (PDF) |
Michigan joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general, over the illegal imposition of conditions on Congressionally authorized Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants. The VOCA was signed into law in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, creating a series of grant programs to enable States to provide critical resources and services to victims and survivors of crime as they try to restore normalcy in their lives: victim and witness advocacy services, emergency shelter, medical, funeral, and burial expenses, crime scene cleanup, sexual assault forensic exams, and much more. The State of Michigan has received between $27 and $43 million in VOCA funding each year for the past 5 years. STATUS: Case was filed on August 18th. Following the filing of the lawsuit, the DOJ dropped its plan to impose illegal conditions on nearly $1.4 billion in Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants. |
|
|
9/26/2025 |
Washington, et al. v. HHS, RFK Jr., et al. (RE: PREP GRANTS) (PDF) |
Michigan joined a coalition of 16 states and DC in suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over its attempt to strip funding for longstanding teen reproductive and sexual health education programs unless states remove language from the education curriculum affirming young people’s gender identity. STATUS: The Plaintiff States filed their complaint and motion for preliminary injunction on September 26th. The Court granted the preliminary injunction on October 27th. |
|
|
10/1/2025 |
New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bondi, et al. (RE: VOCA GRANTS) (PDF) |
Michigan joined a coalition of 16 other states in suing the U.S. Department of Justice for illegally withholding legal grant funds because these funds may allegedly be used to assist people who are undocumented with securing legal services. STATUS: The Plaintiff States filed their complaint and motion for preliminary injunction on October 1st. On October 22nd, the DOJ opposed the preliminary injunction and cross moved to dismiss. |
|
|
10/15/2025 & 10/16/2025 |
Maryland Clean Energy Center v. USA (RE: SOLAR FOR ALL) (PDF) |
Michigan joined a coalition of states to contest the termination of the Solar for All program by the EPA through two lawsuits, one case filed in U.S. District Court and a second case filed in the Court of Federal Claims. Solar for All is a $7 billion program that lowers energy costs and pollution by bringing solar energy to more than 900,000 households in low-income and disadvantaged communities across the country. Michigan was awarded $156 million before the EPA illegally cancelled the program. STATUS: Court of Federal Claims: Case was filed on October 15th. A status conference was held on October 28th. District Court: Case was filed on October 16th. |
|
|
10/28/2025 |
Michigan joined a coalition of 24 other states—including governors—and DC to contest USDA's refusal to utilize contingency funds to support SNAP benefits starting November 1st during the federal government shutdown. USDA's actions will cause 42 million people nationwide—including approximately 1.4 million Michigan residents—to lose benefits. STATUS: The case and a motion for a temporary restraining order were filed on October 28th. Following a hearing on October 30th, the Court issued an order on October 31st finding USDA's decision to withhold $5.25B in SNAP contingency funds was unlawful and that the contingency funding must be spent on November SNAP benefits. The Court further required USDA to determine by November 3rd if it would exercise its discretion to transfer other available funding to the SNAP program to ensure SNAP benefits are issued in full in November. |
Table updated November 3, 2025
Attorney General Dana Nessel is increasingly concerned about any disruption in social security for Michiganders. If you have experienced any unusual disruption in your social security services or you have been prevented from accessing your earned benefits, we urge you to report these issues.
