The Administrative Procedure Act has emerged as the central legal battleground in challenges to Trump administration actions since President Trump took office in January 2025. This foundational statute, enacted in 1946 as a bipartisan measure to review and curb the executive branch’s growing influence, establishes the process federal agencies must follow when creating rules and regulations. As the Trump administration pursues an aggressive agenda of executive actions, opponents have repeatedly invoked the APA to challenge these directives in federal courts nationwide, making it perhaps the most consequential law in determining the ultimate fate of the president’s policy initiatives.
Historical Context of the Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act was enacted following the expansion of government functions during the New Deal era. The law was designed as both a foundation and a safeguard for regulatory activities originating from the executive branch. It applies to all Cabinet departments—such as the Department of Defense and the Treasury—as well as independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The APA emerged from concerns about the growing administrative state and the need to establish uniform standards for agency actions. Prior to its enactment, federal agencies operated under varying procedural requirements, creating inconsistency and unpredictability in government operations. The statute represented a compromise between competing interests: it acknowledged the necessity of administrative agencies while imposing procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercises of power.
Since its inception, the APA has remained remarkably stable, with relatively few amendments over its nearly eight-decade history. This stability has allowed the development of a robust body of case law interpreting its provisions, creating predictability in administrative law practice. The statute’s endurance speaks to the careful balance it strikes between administrative efficiency and protection of individual rights.
The APA’s importance has only grown over time as the federal bureaucracy has expanded. With over 400 executive agencies now in existence and a federal budget that has grown exponentially, the procedural safeguards established by the APA have become increasingly vital to ensuring that agency actions remain within legal boundaries.
Core Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
The APA establishes several key procedural requirements that federal agencies must follow. These requirements fall into two main categories: rulemaking procedures and adjudication procedures.
For rulemaking, the APA generally requires agencies to provide notice of proposed rules, solicit public comment, and consider relevant factors before finalizing regulations. This notice-and-comment process ensures transparency and public participation in the development of regulations that may significantly impact individuals and businesses.
The typical rulemaking process begins with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. This notice must include the text of the proposed rule, the legal authority for the rule, and an explanation of the issues involved. Following publication, the agency must provide a period for public comment, typically lasting at least 30 days. After reviewing the comments, the agency may then publish a final rule, which must include a statement of its basis and purpose.
For adjudication, the APA establishes procedures for agency decisions that affect specific parties. It includes provisions relating to notice of hearings, legal representation, evidentiary requirements, and the right to be heard before an impartial decision-maker. These provisions aim to ensure due process in administrative proceedings.
Perhaps most importantly, the APA provides for judicial review of agency actions. It allows parties aggrieved by agency decisions to seek redress in federal courts. Under the APA, courts review agency actions to determine whether they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” This standard of review has become a critical tool for challenging executive actions that may exceed statutory or constitutional authority.
The “Arbitrary and Capricious” Standard
The “arbitrary and capricious” standard represents the most common basis for challenging agency actions under the APA. This standard requires agencies to engage in “reasoned decisionmaking” by providing an adequate explanation for their decisions and the essential facts upon which those decisions are based.
When reviewing agency actions under this standard, courts examine whether the agency has:
- Articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action
- Considered relevant factors and important aspects of the problem
- Offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency
- Made a decision so implausible that it cannot be attributed to a difference in view or agency expertise
The arbitrary and capricious standard is largely fact-based and situation-specific. While it is generally deferential to agencies, courts will invalidate agency actions when the explanation provided is implausible or contradicts the evidence. An agency must provide more than conclusory statements; it must justify its determination with actual evidence.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has clarified and, in some cases, strengthened this standard of review. For example, in Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court held that the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census was arbitrary and capricious because the stated rationale appeared to be contrived. This decision demonstrated that courts will look beyond an agency’s stated reasons to ensure they reflect the actual basis for the agency’s action.
The arbitrary and capricious standard has proven particularly important in challenges to Trump administration actions. Opponents have successfully argued that various executive actions failed to consider important aspects of the problems they addressed or lacked adequate factual support.
Trump Administration Executive Actions and APA Challenges
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued dozens of executive orders addressing various policy areas, including immigration, federal workforce management, gender policies, and economic matters. Almost immediately, opponents initiated legal proceedings to block many of these measures, with the APA serving as the primary legal basis for these challenges.
One prominent example is the executive order on birthright citizenship issued on January 20, 2025. This order seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to mothers who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily on visas, and whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has faced immediate legal challenges, with opponents arguing that it violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and fails to comply with APA requirements.
Four U.S. district judges—in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington—have issued orders blocking enforcement of the president’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these injunctions to apply only to the parties directly involved in the cases, rather than nationwide.
Another controversial executive action is the reinstatement of Schedule F for policy/career employees through Executive Order 14171. This order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. Public employee organizations have sued to enjoin implementation of this order, arguing that it violates the APA and deprives civil servants of due process by stripping them of protections guaranteed under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees have asserted that the Trump administration failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures under the APA in issuing the Schedule F order. They argue that the order renders “inoperative or without effect” existing regulations without going through the required rulemaking process.
The Role of the APA in Presidential Directives
While the APA’s requirements do not apply directly to the president, they govern how federal agencies implement presidential directives. When a president issues an executive order, it typically directs federal agencies to execute specific policies. These agencies must then follow APA procedures when implementing these directives.
This distinction is crucial for understanding the legal challenges to Trump administration actions. The president may have broad authority to set policy priorities through executive orders, but the implementation of those policies by federal agencies remains subject to APA requirements. This creates a potential bottleneck for presidential initiatives, as agencies must navigate the procedural requirements of the APA before fully implementing executive directives.
Under the APA, agencies are generally required to provide the public with notice of a proposed rule and the chance to offer written comment on it. Once the notice-and-comment period closes, the agency must publish its final rule in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the rule takes effect. Bypassing these procedures can render agency actions vulnerable to legal challenge.
The Trump administration has sought to streamline this process through various executive orders. For example, on February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” This order directs agencies to identify and rescind regulations that are inconsistent with the administration’s policies or raise legal questions. It also instructs agencies to deprioritize enforcement proceedings based on regulations that adopt “anything other than the best reading of the statute” or that exceed the constitutional powers of the federal government.
This executive order reflects a broader effort to reduce regulatory burdens and constrain agency discretion. However, any attempt to rescind or modify existing regulations must still comply with APA requirements, including the notice-and-comment process and the prohibition on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Administrative Law
Recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly impacted the landscape of administrative law and, by extension, the legal challenges to Trump administration actions. These decisions have generally trended toward greater judicial scrutiny of agency actions and reduced deference to agency interpretations of statutes.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the long-standing Chevron doctrine. Under Chevron, courts had deferred to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. The Loper Bright decision eliminated this deference, requiring courts to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
This shift has profound implications for APA challenges to Trump administration actions. Without Chevron deference, agencies face a higher bar in defending their interpretations of statutory authority. Courts must now rely on ordinary tools of statutory construction to determine the best reading of a statute, without giving an agency’s view any special weight.
The Trump administration’s February 19 executive order explicitly channels this new legal reality by directing agencies to identify “regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition.” This language mirrors the post-Loper Bright standard for statutory interpretation, suggesting that the administration is proactively identifying regulations that might be vulnerable under the new judicial approach.
Other recent Supreme Court decisions have also strengthened judicial review of agency actions. For example, the Court has emphasized that agencies must provide thorough explanations for policy changes, particularly when those changes reverse long-standing positions. This requirement poses challenges for an administration seeking to quickly reverse policies established by previous administrations.
Practical Implications for Agency Operations
The interplay between executive orders and APA requirements has significant practical implications for the operation of federal agencies and the implementation of Trump administration policies. These implications extend beyond constitutional questions to affect how agencies function on a day-to-day basis.
When a president issues an executive order, agencies must carefully consider how to implement it in compliance with APA requirements. This often necessitates a lengthy process of drafting proposed rules, soliciting public comment, reviewing those comments, and finalizing rules. This process can take months or even years, potentially delaying the full implementation of presidential directives.
The Trump administration has sought to expedite this process through various mechanisms, including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative and directives to deprioritize enforcement of certain regulations. However, these efforts face legal constraints under the APA, which generally requires formal rulemaking procedures for substantive changes to regulatory policy.
Agencies also face practical challenges in justifying policy changes under the arbitrary and capricious standard. To survive judicial review, agencies must provide thorough explanations for their decisions, supported by factual evidence and reasoned analysis. This requirement can be particularly challenging when an agency seeks to reverse a policy established by a previous administration, as it must acknowledge the change and provide good reasons for it.
The practical effect of these constraints is evident in the litigation over Trump administration actions. Courts have blocked or delayed numerous executive initiatives based on APA violations, requiring agencies to reconsider their approaches or engage in more thorough rulemaking processes.
Nationwide Injunctions and Their Impact
A significant aspect of APA litigation against Trump administration actions has been the issuance of nationwide injunctions by district courts. These injunctions block the implementation of executive actions across the entire country, not just for the parties directly involved in the litigation.
The Trump administration has consistently opposed nationwide injunctions, arguing that they exceed the proper role of district courts and allow a single judge to effectively veto presidential policies. In its recent request to the Supreme Court regarding the birthright citizenship order, the administration specifically asked the Court to limit the scope of district court injunctions to cover only those individuals directly involved in the cases.
The debate over nationwide injunctions reflects broader questions about the proper role of courts in reviewing executive actions. Supporters of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs and ensure uniform application of federal law. Critics contend that they give too much power to individual district judges and encourage forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking favorable rulings.
The Supreme Court has not definitively resolved this issue, though some justices have expressed skepticism about the propriety of nationwide injunctions. The Court’s approach to this question could significantly impact the effectiveness of APA challenges to Trump administration actions going forward.
Constitutional Dimensions of APA Challenges
Beyond the procedural requirements of the APA, many legal challenges to Trump administration actions also raise constitutional concerns. These include separation of powers issues, particularly regarding Congress’s control over federal government spending, and potential violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.
For example, lawsuits challenging executive orders on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs have alleged violations of the First Amendment by chilling free speech and academic freedom. These cases also raise Fifth Amendment due process concerns, arguing that certain orders are overly vague and fail to provide fair guidance on prohibitions and definitions of key terms.
The constitutional dimensions of these challenges highlight the complex interplay between administrative law and constitutional principles in constraining executive power. While the APA provides specific procedural requirements, these requirements operate within the broader constitutional framework of separated powers and individual rights.
Courts reviewing APA challenges often consider both the procedural validity of agency actions under the APA and their substantive validity under the Constitution. This dual review ensures that executive actions comply with both statutory and constitutional requirements.
The Future of APA Litigation
As the Trump administration continues to pursue its policy agenda through executive actions, APA litigation will likely remain a central feature of the legal landscape. Several factors will shape the future of these legal challenges.
First, the Supreme Court’s composition and jurisprudential approach will significantly impact the outcome of APA challenges. The Court’s recent decisions limiting agency deference and emphasizing textualist approaches to statutory interpretation suggest a willingness to scrutinize agency actions more closely. However, the Court has also shown deference to executive authority in certain contexts, particularly national security and immigration.
Second, congressional action could alter the legal framework for APA challenges. Congress has the authority to amend the APA or create statutory exceptions to its requirements for particular agencies or types of agency action. Several bills introduced in recent years would modify the scope of judicial review under the APA, potentially affecting the viability of legal challenges to executive actions.
Third, the Trump administration’s approach to implementing its agenda may evolve in response to legal setbacks. The administration might adopt more careful rulemaking procedures to withstand judicial scrutiny or focus on policy areas where executive discretion is broader.
Finally, the specific nature of the legal challenges will continue to evolve as the administration pursues different policy initiatives. Different areas of policy implicate different statutory and constitutional provisions, potentially leading to varying judicial approaches to APA challenges.
Strategies for Regulated Entities
For businesses and individuals subject to federal regulation, the ongoing APA litigation creates both challenges and opportunities. Regulated entities must navigate a complex and uncertain regulatory environment while also potentially benefiting from legal challenges to burdensome regulations.
One strategy for regulated entities is to actively participate in the rulemaking process. The APA’s notice-and-comment requirements provide an opportunity for affected parties to influence regulatory outcomes by submitting comments on proposed rules. These comments can highlight potential legal vulnerabilities in proposed regulations and shape agencies’ approaches to implementation.
Another strategy is to monitor and, where appropriate, participate in litigation challenging agency actions. Regulated entities may intervene in existing cases or initiate their own challenges to regulations that exceed agency authority or fail to comply with APA requirements.
Regulated entities should also stay informed about executive orders and agency guidance that may affect their operations. While these documents may not have the force of law without proper rulemaking procedures, they can signal enforcement priorities and regulatory approaches.
Finally, regulated entities should consider the potential for policy reversals and regulatory uncertainty when making long-term business decisions. The ongoing litigation over Trump administration actions creates uncertainty about the durability of regulatory changes, which may affect investment decisions and compliance strategies.
Conclusion
The Administrative Procedure Act has emerged as the key legal battleground in challenges to Trump administration actions. This foundational statute, with its requirements for reasoned decision-making and procedural regularity, serves as a crucial check on executive power and ensures that agency actions remain within legal boundaries.
As the administration pursues its policy agenda through executive orders and agency actions, the APA will continue to shape the implementation and legal viability of these initiatives. The statute’s requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking, reasoned explanation, and factual support create significant procedural hurdles for agencies seeking to implement presidential directives.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have strengthened judicial review of agency actions, eliminating longstanding deference doctrines and requiring courts to exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes. These developments have created new opportunities for challenging executive actions that exceed statutory authority or lack adequate factual support.
The ongoing litigation over Trump administration actions reflects broader tensions in American governance between executive authority and legal constraints, between policy innovation and procedural regularity. As these tensions play out in the courts, the APA will remain a central feature of the legal landscape, ensuring that executive power is exercised within the bounds of law.
For legal practitioners, policymakers, and regulated entities, understanding the APA and its application to executive actions is essential for navigating the complex and evolving regulatory environment. As the Trump administration continues to pursue its agenda, the APA will serve as both a constraint on executive power and a framework for ensuring that agency actions reflect reasoned decision-making and respect for legal boundaries.
Citations:
- https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/38741821/3ddace32-926b-41b3-b332-9fe839f45efd/categories2.docx
- https://www.texasemploymentlawyer.com/2025/03/the-administrative-procedure-act-the-achilles-of-the-trump-agenda/
- https://www.npr.org/2025/02/08/g-s1-47098/trump-arbitrary-lawsuits-gender-executive-actions
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-trump/
- https://www.hklaw.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2023/07/expandingtheadministrativerecordinadministrativeprocedureactlitigation.pdf?la=en&rev=cedd65348dc94333aab5939e13c776d8
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10558
- https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/02/rolling-back-the-administrative-state
- https://www.genderjusticeleague.org/understanding-executive-orders-the-administrative-procedures-act/
- https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/executive-briefing/overview-of-trumps-executive-actions
- https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/07/expanding-the-administrative-record-in-administrative-procedure
- https://www.gibsondunn.com/new-executive-order-on-regulatory-and-enforcement-review-topics-to-watch-in-corporate-enforcement/
- https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
- https://administrative.laws.com/administrative-procedure-act
- https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/year-ahead-2025-agency-authority-and-scotus-paradigm-shift
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48264
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
- https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/03/2025-03300/policy-on-adhering-to-the-text-of-the-administrative-procedure-act
- https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2025/03/timeline-of-key-developments-related-to-recent-executive-actions-as-of-march-5-2025/
- https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2025/03/new-executive-orders-independent-federal-regulatory-agencies
- https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2024/07/supreme-court-broadens-statute-of-limitations
- https://www.ncsl.org/in-dc/2025-administration-actions-key-executive-orders-and-policies
- https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/trump-administration-issues-two-executive-orders-affecting-agency-regulations-and-workforce-
- https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/03/hhs-publishes-notice-on-policy-on-adhering-to-text-of-administrative
- https://www.jdsupra.com/topics/constitutional-challenges/administrative-procedure-act/executive-orders/
- https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/trumps-environmental-and-energy-executive-orders-initial-insights-and-what-were-watching/
- https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-administrative-procedure-act
- https://nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-92-number-5/final-agency-action-in-the-administrative-procedure-act/
- https://law.pepperdine.edu/blog/posts/understanding-administrative-law.htm
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-orders-targeting-law-firms-raise-constitutional-concerns-experts-say-2025-03-08/
- https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-administrative-procedure-act-and-6145320/
- https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2805/
- https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/how-many-of-trumps-executive-orders-are-being-challenged
- https://www.theregreview.org/2022/11/08/lubbers-putting-the-u-s-administrative-procedure-act-in-perspective/
- https://www.justia.com/law-schools/justia-case-law-outlines/administrative-law-cases-outline/
- https://administrativelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/69-3-Christopher-Walker.pdf
- https://www.uclawsf.edu/2025/02/28/experts-examine-legal-limits-of-trumps-sweeping-executive-orders/
- https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/07/supreme-court-opens-the-door-to-more-rule-challenges
- https://www.hklaw.com/en/general-pages/trumps-2025-executive-orders-chart
- https://www.prrac.org/pdf/APA.summary.ProfMetzger.pdf
English 
Español de México
Administrative Procedure Act: The Key Law in Trump Administration Lawsuits
Home » Blog » Civil Law » Administrative Law » Administrative Procedure Act: The Key Law in Trump Administration Lawsuits
The Administrative Procedure Act has emerged as the central legal battleground in challenges to Trump administration actions since President Trump took office in January 2025. This foundational statute, enacted in 1946 as a bipartisan measure to review and curb the executive branch’s growing influence, establishes the process federal agencies must follow when creating rules and regulations. As the Trump administration pursues an aggressive agenda of executive actions, opponents have repeatedly invoked the APA to challenge these directives in federal courts nationwide, making it perhaps the most consequential law in determining the ultimate fate of the president’s policy initiatives.
Historical Context of the Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act was enacted following the expansion of government functions during the New Deal era. The law was designed as both a foundation and a safeguard for regulatory activities originating from the executive branch. It applies to all Cabinet departments—such as the Department of Defense and the Treasury—as well as independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The APA emerged from concerns about the growing administrative state and the need to establish uniform standards for agency actions. Prior to its enactment, federal agencies operated under varying procedural requirements, creating inconsistency and unpredictability in government operations. The statute represented a compromise between competing interests: it acknowledged the necessity of administrative agencies while imposing procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercises of power.
Since its inception, the APA has remained remarkably stable, with relatively few amendments over its nearly eight-decade history. This stability has allowed the development of a robust body of case law interpreting its provisions, creating predictability in administrative law practice. The statute’s endurance speaks to the careful balance it strikes between administrative efficiency and protection of individual rights.
The APA’s importance has only grown over time as the federal bureaucracy has expanded. With over 400 executive agencies now in existence and a federal budget that has grown exponentially, the procedural safeguards established by the APA have become increasingly vital to ensuring that agency actions remain within legal boundaries.
Core Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
The APA establishes several key procedural requirements that federal agencies must follow. These requirements fall into two main categories: rulemaking procedures and adjudication procedures.
For rulemaking, the APA generally requires agencies to provide notice of proposed rules, solicit public comment, and consider relevant factors before finalizing regulations. This notice-and-comment process ensures transparency and public participation in the development of regulations that may significantly impact individuals and businesses.
The typical rulemaking process begins with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. This notice must include the text of the proposed rule, the legal authority for the rule, and an explanation of the issues involved. Following publication, the agency must provide a period for public comment, typically lasting at least 30 days. After reviewing the comments, the agency may then publish a final rule, which must include a statement of its basis and purpose.
For adjudication, the APA establishes procedures for agency decisions that affect specific parties. It includes provisions relating to notice of hearings, legal representation, evidentiary requirements, and the right to be heard before an impartial decision-maker. These provisions aim to ensure due process in administrative proceedings.
Perhaps most importantly, the APA provides for judicial review of agency actions. It allows parties aggrieved by agency decisions to seek redress in federal courts. Under the APA, courts review agency actions to determine whether they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” This standard of review has become a critical tool for challenging executive actions that may exceed statutory or constitutional authority.
The “Arbitrary and Capricious” Standard
The “arbitrary and capricious” standard represents the most common basis for challenging agency actions under the APA. This standard requires agencies to engage in “reasoned decisionmaking” by providing an adequate explanation for their decisions and the essential facts upon which those decisions are based.
When reviewing agency actions under this standard, courts examine whether the agency has:
The arbitrary and capricious standard is largely fact-based and situation-specific. While it is generally deferential to agencies, courts will invalidate agency actions when the explanation provided is implausible or contradicts the evidence. An agency must provide more than conclusory statements; it must justify its determination with actual evidence.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has clarified and, in some cases, strengthened this standard of review. For example, in Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court held that the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census was arbitrary and capricious because the stated rationale appeared to be contrived. This decision demonstrated that courts will look beyond an agency’s stated reasons to ensure they reflect the actual basis for the agency’s action.
The arbitrary and capricious standard has proven particularly important in challenges to Trump administration actions. Opponents have successfully argued that various executive actions failed to consider important aspects of the problems they addressed or lacked adequate factual support.
Trump Administration Executive Actions and APA Challenges
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued dozens of executive orders addressing various policy areas, including immigration, federal workforce management, gender policies, and economic matters. Almost immediately, opponents initiated legal proceedings to block many of these measures, with the APA serving as the primary legal basis for these challenges.
One prominent example is the executive order on birthright citizenship issued on January 20, 2025. This order seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to mothers who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily on visas, and whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has faced immediate legal challenges, with opponents arguing that it violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and fails to comply with APA requirements.
Four U.S. district judges—in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington—have issued orders blocking enforcement of the president’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these injunctions to apply only to the parties directly involved in the cases, rather than nationwide.
Another controversial executive action is the reinstatement of Schedule F for policy/career employees through Executive Order 14171. This order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. Public employee organizations have sued to enjoin implementation of this order, arguing that it violates the APA and deprives civil servants of due process by stripping them of protections guaranteed under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees have asserted that the Trump administration failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures under the APA in issuing the Schedule F order. They argue that the order renders “inoperative or without effect” existing regulations without going through the required rulemaking process.
The Role of the APA in Presidential Directives
While the APA’s requirements do not apply directly to the president, they govern how federal agencies implement presidential directives. When a president issues an executive order, it typically directs federal agencies to execute specific policies. These agencies must then follow APA procedures when implementing these directives.
This distinction is crucial for understanding the legal challenges to Trump administration actions. The president may have broad authority to set policy priorities through executive orders, but the implementation of those policies by federal agencies remains subject to APA requirements. This creates a potential bottleneck for presidential initiatives, as agencies must navigate the procedural requirements of the APA before fully implementing executive directives.
Under the APA, agencies are generally required to provide the public with notice of a proposed rule and the chance to offer written comment on it. Once the notice-and-comment period closes, the agency must publish its final rule in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the rule takes effect. Bypassing these procedures can render agency actions vulnerable to legal challenge.
The Trump administration has sought to streamline this process through various executive orders. For example, on February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” This order directs agencies to identify and rescind regulations that are inconsistent with the administration’s policies or raise legal questions. It also instructs agencies to deprioritize enforcement proceedings based on regulations that adopt “anything other than the best reading of the statute” or that exceed the constitutional powers of the federal government.
This executive order reflects a broader effort to reduce regulatory burdens and constrain agency discretion. However, any attempt to rescind or modify existing regulations must still comply with APA requirements, including the notice-and-comment process and the prohibition on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Administrative Law
Recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly impacted the landscape of administrative law and, by extension, the legal challenges to Trump administration actions. These decisions have generally trended toward greater judicial scrutiny of agency actions and reduced deference to agency interpretations of statutes.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the long-standing Chevron doctrine. Under Chevron, courts had deferred to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. The Loper Bright decision eliminated this deference, requiring courts to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
This shift has profound implications for APA challenges to Trump administration actions. Without Chevron deference, agencies face a higher bar in defending their interpretations of statutory authority. Courts must now rely on ordinary tools of statutory construction to determine the best reading of a statute, without giving an agency’s view any special weight.
The Trump administration’s February 19 executive order explicitly channels this new legal reality by directing agencies to identify “regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition.” This language mirrors the post-Loper Bright standard for statutory interpretation, suggesting that the administration is proactively identifying regulations that might be vulnerable under the new judicial approach.
Other recent Supreme Court decisions have also strengthened judicial review of agency actions. For example, the Court has emphasized that agencies must provide thorough explanations for policy changes, particularly when those changes reverse long-standing positions. This requirement poses challenges for an administration seeking to quickly reverse policies established by previous administrations.
Practical Implications for Agency Operations
The interplay between executive orders and APA requirements has significant practical implications for the operation of federal agencies and the implementation of Trump administration policies. These implications extend beyond constitutional questions to affect how agencies function on a day-to-day basis.
When a president issues an executive order, agencies must carefully consider how to implement it in compliance with APA requirements. This often necessitates a lengthy process of drafting proposed rules, soliciting public comment, reviewing those comments, and finalizing rules. This process can take months or even years, potentially delaying the full implementation of presidential directives.
The Trump administration has sought to expedite this process through various mechanisms, including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative and directives to deprioritize enforcement of certain regulations. However, these efforts face legal constraints under the APA, which generally requires formal rulemaking procedures for substantive changes to regulatory policy.
Agencies also face practical challenges in justifying policy changes under the arbitrary and capricious standard. To survive judicial review, agencies must provide thorough explanations for their decisions, supported by factual evidence and reasoned analysis. This requirement can be particularly challenging when an agency seeks to reverse a policy established by a previous administration, as it must acknowledge the change and provide good reasons for it.
The practical effect of these constraints is evident in the litigation over Trump administration actions. Courts have blocked or delayed numerous executive initiatives based on APA violations, requiring agencies to reconsider their approaches or engage in more thorough rulemaking processes.
Nationwide Injunctions and Their Impact
A significant aspect of APA litigation against Trump administration actions has been the issuance of nationwide injunctions by district courts. These injunctions block the implementation of executive actions across the entire country, not just for the parties directly involved in the litigation.
The Trump administration has consistently opposed nationwide injunctions, arguing that they exceed the proper role of district courts and allow a single judge to effectively veto presidential policies. In its recent request to the Supreme Court regarding the birthright citizenship order, the administration specifically asked the Court to limit the scope of district court injunctions to cover only those individuals directly involved in the cases.
The debate over nationwide injunctions reflects broader questions about the proper role of courts in reviewing executive actions. Supporters of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs and ensure uniform application of federal law. Critics contend that they give too much power to individual district judges and encourage forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking favorable rulings.
The Supreme Court has not definitively resolved this issue, though some justices have expressed skepticism about the propriety of nationwide injunctions. The Court’s approach to this question could significantly impact the effectiveness of APA challenges to Trump administration actions going forward.
Constitutional Dimensions of APA Challenges
Beyond the procedural requirements of the APA, many legal challenges to Trump administration actions also raise constitutional concerns. These include separation of powers issues, particularly regarding Congress’s control over federal government spending, and potential violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.
For example, lawsuits challenging executive orders on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs have alleged violations of the First Amendment by chilling free speech and academic freedom. These cases also raise Fifth Amendment due process concerns, arguing that certain orders are overly vague and fail to provide fair guidance on prohibitions and definitions of key terms.
The constitutional dimensions of these challenges highlight the complex interplay between administrative law and constitutional principles in constraining executive power. While the APA provides specific procedural requirements, these requirements operate within the broader constitutional framework of separated powers and individual rights.
Courts reviewing APA challenges often consider both the procedural validity of agency actions under the APA and their substantive validity under the Constitution. This dual review ensures that executive actions comply with both statutory and constitutional requirements.
The Future of APA Litigation
As the Trump administration continues to pursue its policy agenda through executive actions, APA litigation will likely remain a central feature of the legal landscape. Several factors will shape the future of these legal challenges.
First, the Supreme Court’s composition and jurisprudential approach will significantly impact the outcome of APA challenges. The Court’s recent decisions limiting agency deference and emphasizing textualist approaches to statutory interpretation suggest a willingness to scrutinize agency actions more closely. However, the Court has also shown deference to executive authority in certain contexts, particularly national security and immigration.
Second, congressional action could alter the legal framework for APA challenges. Congress has the authority to amend the APA or create statutory exceptions to its requirements for particular agencies or types of agency action. Several bills introduced in recent years would modify the scope of judicial review under the APA, potentially affecting the viability of legal challenges to executive actions.
Third, the Trump administration’s approach to implementing its agenda may evolve in response to legal setbacks. The administration might adopt more careful rulemaking procedures to withstand judicial scrutiny or focus on policy areas where executive discretion is broader.
Finally, the specific nature of the legal challenges will continue to evolve as the administration pursues different policy initiatives. Different areas of policy implicate different statutory and constitutional provisions, potentially leading to varying judicial approaches to APA challenges.
Strategies for Regulated Entities
For businesses and individuals subject to federal regulation, the ongoing APA litigation creates both challenges and opportunities. Regulated entities must navigate a complex and uncertain regulatory environment while also potentially benefiting from legal challenges to burdensome regulations.
One strategy for regulated entities is to actively participate in the rulemaking process. The APA’s notice-and-comment requirements provide an opportunity for affected parties to influence regulatory outcomes by submitting comments on proposed rules. These comments can highlight potential legal vulnerabilities in proposed regulations and shape agencies’ approaches to implementation.
Another strategy is to monitor and, where appropriate, participate in litigation challenging agency actions. Regulated entities may intervene in existing cases or initiate their own challenges to regulations that exceed agency authority or fail to comply with APA requirements.
Regulated entities should also stay informed about executive orders and agency guidance that may affect their operations. While these documents may not have the force of law without proper rulemaking procedures, they can signal enforcement priorities and regulatory approaches.
Finally, regulated entities should consider the potential for policy reversals and regulatory uncertainty when making long-term business decisions. The ongoing litigation over Trump administration actions creates uncertainty about the durability of regulatory changes, which may affect investment decisions and compliance strategies.
Conclusion
The Administrative Procedure Act has emerged as the key legal battleground in challenges to Trump administration actions. This foundational statute, with its requirements for reasoned decision-making and procedural regularity, serves as a crucial check on executive power and ensures that agency actions remain within legal boundaries.
As the administration pursues its policy agenda through executive orders and agency actions, the APA will continue to shape the implementation and legal viability of these initiatives. The statute’s requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking, reasoned explanation, and factual support create significant procedural hurdles for agencies seeking to implement presidential directives.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have strengthened judicial review of agency actions, eliminating longstanding deference doctrines and requiring courts to exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes. These developments have created new opportunities for challenging executive actions that exceed statutory authority or lack adequate factual support.
The ongoing litigation over Trump administration actions reflects broader tensions in American governance between executive authority and legal constraints, between policy innovation and procedural regularity. As these tensions play out in the courts, the APA will remain a central feature of the legal landscape, ensuring that executive power is exercised within the bounds of law.
For legal practitioners, policymakers, and regulated entities, understanding the APA and its application to executive actions is essential for navigating the complex and evolving regulatory environment. As the Trump administration continues to pursue its agenda, the APA will serve as both a constraint on executive power and a framework for ensuring that agency actions reflect reasoned decision-making and respect for legal boundaries.
Citations:
Subscribe to Our Newsletter for Updates
About Attorneys.Media
Attorneys.Media is an innovative media platform designed to bridge the gap between legal professionals and the public. It leverages the power of video content to demystify complex legal topics, making it easier for individuals to understand various aspects of the law. By featuring interviews with lawyers who specialize in different fields, the platform provides valuable insights into both civil and criminal legal issues.
The business model of Attorneys.Media not only enhances public knowledge about legal matters but also offers attorneys a unique opportunity to showcase their expertise and connect with potential clients. The video interviews cover a broad spectrum of legal topics, offering viewers a deeper understanding of legal processes, rights, and considerations within different contexts.
For those seeking legal information, Attorneys.Media serves as a dynamic and accessible resource. The emphasis on video content caters to the growing preference for visual and auditory learning, making complex legal information more digestible for the general public.
Concurrently, for legal professionals, the platform provides a valuable avenue for visibility and engagement with a wider audience, potentially expanding their client base.
Uniquely, Attorneys.Media represents a modern approach to facilitating the education and knowledge of legal issues within the public sector and the subsequent legal consultation with local attorneys.
Video Categories