Holding the Trump Administration Accountable

Congresswoman Brownley and 92 Congressional Democrats filed an amicus brief in the case of Centro de Trabajadores Unidos vs. Bessent, calling on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to block an unprecedented agreement between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that allows immigration enforcement agents access to millions of taxpayers’ confidential IRS records. The Democrats submitted policy arguments demonstrating that this agreement contravenes Congress’s clear intent to protect taxpayer privacy and encourage all individuals present in the U.S. to pay taxes. The brief demonstrates that the harms of sharing taxpayer data far outweigh ICE’s interest in the information. The brief reinforces Congress’s long-standing, bipartisan intent to maintain a strict firewall between tax administration and immigration enforcement. It further explains how the District Court’s misinterpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code gives the IRS greater leeway than is permitted by the statute to share taxpayer address information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also emphasizes the importance of the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) program and taxpayer privacy protections under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 that enable individuals who are ineligible for Social Security Numbers to comply with federal tax law. It argues that the agreement stands to undermine both tax revenue – in 2022 alone, ITIN filers paid $59.4 billion in federal income taxes, plus billions more to Social Security and Medicare, despite being ineligible to receive those benefits – and taxpayer faith in the confidentiality of their tax data.

Congresswoman Brownley and 180 Members of Congress filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals (Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al.) for the Federal Circuit challenging President Donald Trump’s sweeping and chaotic tariffs that were unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The lawmakers’ brief stands up for Congress’s Article I executive legislative powers and argues that IEEPA is not a tariff statute and that Congress did not intend or provide for IEEPA to be used as a tariff statute. In May, the Task Force successfully filed a brief in the same matter before the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT decision referenced our brief and struck down the President’s illegal tariffs under IEEPA. The administration has now appealed the lower court’s ruling, and the matter is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs, and the President can only raise tariffs if Congress has clearly delegated its authority to him. Although IEEPA (enacted in 1977) grants the president authority to impose sanctions, block foreign assets, and regulate economic transactions in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” originating abroad, it is not a tariff statute and has never been used that way. Congress knows how to delegate tariff authority and has clearly done so on a number of occasions. When Congress does delegate such authority, it imposes substantive, procedural, and temporal limits on the president’s power in order to avoid economic chaos and protect the American people.

Congresswoman Brownley and 178 Members of Congress filed an amicus brief before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (NAACP v. US) arguing that President Trump’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) violate separation of powers and lack constitutional authority. The lawmakers wrote, “Since the Department was created, presidents have taken different views of the Department and the role the federal government should play in education policy, but none has attempted what President Trump is attempting here: to unilaterally shutter the department… In short, the ‘President’s power, if any, to issue an order’ abolishing the Education Department ‘must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.’ Here, President Trump’s effort to unilaterally dismantle the Education Department defies the express will of Congress. Defendants lack the power to do what only Congress can do—restructure the federal government by shuttering a government department.” On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order instructing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps” to abolish ED. This came after the Trump administration carried out a series of actions dismantling the Department, including mass firings of ED employees, the termination of contracts for congressionally authorized programs and activities, and the removal of crucial protections for student loan borrowers, while announcing plans to reorganize key ED functions into different departments. On March 24, 2025, a coalition of plaintiffs, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Maryland Council 3, and others, filed a lawsuit to halt the Trump administration’s illegal efforts to dismantle ED. The lawsuit argues that dismantling a Congressionally created federal agency requires Congressional approval.

Congresswoman Brownley and 156 House Democrats filed an amicus brief challenging the Trump administration’s illegal and devastating cuts to life-saving medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The brief defends Congress’s Article I authority to appropriate federal funds and speaks up for every American who relies on crucial life-saving biomedical and public health research conducted at universities, medical schools, research hospitals, and other scientific institutions across the country. House Democrats’ amicus brief was filed in the consolidated cases Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NIH, Association of American Medical Colleges v. NIH, and Association of American Universities v. Department of Health and Human Services, all currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. These cases challenge the Trump administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional efforts to reduce indirect cost reimbursements for projects funded by the NIH. In early February, the Trump administration arbitrarily slashed the NIH reimbursement rate for indirect research costs. Without fair reimbursement for indirect costs, more than 300,000 scientists and researchers at 2,500 institutions that receive NIH funding will face devastating impacts, and Americans could be left without access to lifesaving and life-extending treatments. The ramifications would also ripple through global collaboration and the development of our future scientific leadership and workforce, limiting our ability to enhance health and reduce illness and disability in the future.

Congresswoman Brownley and 169 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in the matter of Trump v. Casa, Inc., which is now before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Members remain steadfast in their commitment to fighting the Trump administration’s illegal attacks on the constitutional principle of birthright citizenship. The Trump administration filed this appeal to overturn a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the President’s attempt to change the constitutional right to birthright citizenship via executive order. The amicus brief provides overwhelming evidence that President Trump’s Executive Order violates the Constitution and over a century of Supreme Court rulings, as well as laws enacted by Congress. It also signifies the lawmakers’ commitment to defending birthright citizenship, following their amicus briefs filed in State of Washington v. Trump before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the Supreme Court cases Trump v. Washington, Trump v. CASA, Inc., and Trump v. New Jersey.

Congresswoman Brownley and 147 Members of Congress filed an amicus brief challenging President Donald Trump’s sweeping and chaotic tariffs unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The lawmakers’ brief stands up for Congress’s Article I exclusive legislative power to impose tariffs and regulate commerce, and argues that IEEPA does not give the President the power to impose reckless, on-again-off-again tariffs, which have wreaked havoc on the U.S. economy. It was filed in the matter of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al., which was brought forth by 12 States’ Attorneys General. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs, and the President can only raise tariffs if Congress has clearly delegated its authority to him. Although IEEPA (enacted in 1977) grants the president authority to impose sanctions, block foreign assets, and regulate economic transactions in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” originating abroad, it is not a tariff statute and has never been used that way. Congress knows how to delegate tariff authority and has clearly done so on a number of occasions. When Congress does delegate such authority, it imposes substantive, procedural, and temporal limits on the president’s power in order to avoid economic chaos and protect the American people. 

On May 28, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to impose sweeping and chaotic tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In their ruling, the judges, appointed to the federal bench by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump, adopted the arguments House Democrats made in their amicus brief in the case: the emergency powers granted to the President by Congress in IEEPA do not include the authority to impose tariffs.

Congresswoman Brownley and 233 current and former Members of Congress filed an amicus brief in defense of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The brief was submitted in the case of National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), et al. v. CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought, et al. before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit following an appeal by the Trump administration of a D.C. District Court ruling that blocked the administration’s unlawful shutdown. As emphasized in the brief, Congress established the CFPB following the devastating 2008 global financial crisis that “shattered” lives, “shuttered” businesses, and “evaporated” savings. This agency was created to hold accountable the big banks and predatory lenders whose unfair and deceptive practices caused the crisis. While Trump and Musk have made several unlawful attempts to abolish the CFPB without Congressional approval, the Members make clear in the brief that the sole authority to do so lies with Congress, as Congress created the agency. This Constitutional power holds true regardless of any President’s personal views about the agency. Moreover, in the past, when Congress determined to give the President reorganization authority, it did so through legislation. The President has no authority to prevent the agency from fulfilling its statutory mission to protect consumers from harmful practices of the financial services industry. In fact, since the agency was established 15 years ago, it has returned $21 billion to 205 consumers, including working-class families, servicemembers, veterans, students, and others harmed by predatory institutions. Gutting this agency would halt this work, as no alternative agency has the authority and resources to fill this massive void.

Congresswoman Brownley and 182 House Democrats filed an amicus brief for the three birthright citizenship cases currently before the United States Supreme Court (Trump v. State of Washington, Trump v. CASA, Inc., and Trump v. State of New Jersey), elevating their fight against the Trump administration’s illegal attacks on the constitutional principle of birthright citizenship to the highest court in the land. The brief offers a compelling argument that President Trump’s week one order to strip the guarantee of citizenship provided to children born in America violates the Constitution and over a century of Supreme Court rulings, and laws enacted by Congress. The justices are set to hear oral arguments in the cases on May 15th, following the administration’s request that they lift a nationwide pause currently halting the implementation of this policy.

On April 23rd, Congresswoman Brownley and 191 House Democrats filed an amicus brief challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to close the Department of Education in the matter of the State of New York v. Linda McMahon – a case in which 20 states moved to sue the administration for its plans to place fifty percent of the Department’s workforce on administrative leave, effectively shuttering a congressionally authorized agency by way of executive fiat. By involving themselves in this legal battle, House Democrats sought to stand up for Congress’s power to ensure a quality education for all Americans—and in their filing, they argued that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally create, dismantle, or reorganize the Education Department, nor can executive officials make solitary decisions regarding the agency’s organization and assignment of functions. The lawmakers also cited executive overreach, noting that efforts to strip support for the federal agency violate Congress’s power of the purse.

On April 14th, Congresswoman Brownley, 209 House Democrats, and 41 Senators filed an amicus brief opposing President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya are duly appointed, Senate-confirmed Commissioners at an independent federal agency created by Congress. Trump’s illegal attempts to terminate them threaten the integrity of independent federal agencies and the FTC’s ability to enforce civil antitrust law and protect the public from fraudsters and monopolists. In Slaughter v. Trump, a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the unlawful attempted firings of FTC Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya, the congressional amicus brief argues: 1) The Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor makes clear that Congress has the power to create independent multimember agencies like the FTC and provide removal protections for FTC Commissioners; 2) Throughout our nation’s history, Congress has created independent agencies with multimember boards or commissions whose members enjoy removal protections, like the Commissioners of the FTC, and this established practice has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court; and 3) Constitutional text and history support Congress’ constitutional authority to temper the President’s exercise of removal.

On April 12th, Congresswoman Brownley and 207 members of the Democratic Caucus filed an amicus brief in defense of the essential constitutional principle of birthright citizenship in the matter of State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al. pushing back against President Donald Trump’s unlawful executive directives. In their argument, the amici curiae (or friends of the court) presented overwhelming evidence that Trump’s day-one order to nullify birthright citizenship violates not just the Constitution and over a century of Supreme Court rulings, but also laws passed by Congress that have repeatedly guaranteed citizenship to children born in America.

On April 9th, Congresswoman Brownley, 211 House Democrats, and 41 Senators filed an amicus brief for two cases (Cathy Harris v. Scott Bessent, et al. and Wilcox v. Trump et al.) opposing President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempts to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The individuals cited in this matter were duly appointed, congressionally confirmed board members at independent federal agencies. Illegal attempts to terminate them threaten the integrity of these institutions and their ability to protect American workers and uphold workplace democracy. The NLRB and MSPB play a critical role in protecting workers, both in public service and the private sector, in their right to seek better working conditions and in safeguarding a non-political, merit-based federal workforce.

On March 31st, Congresswoman Brownley and 201 House Democrats filed an amicus brief standing up to the blatant executive overreach and illegal dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), in the matter of American Foreign Service Association, et al. v. Trump, et al. In their brief, the members argued that the President’s directive blatantly violated Congress’s lawmaking and spending powers as explicitly outlined in Article I of the United States Constitution, by dismantling a federal agency authorized and repeatedly funded by acts of Congress. The shuttering of USAID, including placing thousands of workers on leave and halting nearly all congressionally approved foreign aid, undermines a critical component of the federal government responsible for global stability and American security. For nearly 40 years, USAID has played a central role in preventing crises, fostering economic opportunities abroad, and mitigating the conditions that contribute to violent extremism and instability. Scaling back its work not only weakens these efforts but also creates a vacuum for global competitors like China, Russia, and Iran to expand their influence.

On February 28, Congresswoman Brownley and 197 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in defense of American consumers and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the matter of National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), et al. v. CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought, et al. before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As the House members described in their amicus brief, President Trump has already imposed significant and irreparable harm on consumers across the country. In seeking to “shut down” CFPB, President Trump wants to eliminate the agency that protects Americans from unfair, deceptive, and abusive corporate practices, giving even more power to his corrupt billionaire friends serving as top advisors. In the brief, the House Democratic leaders noted that recent actions toward the CFPB, the “consumer watchdog agency,” including the implementation of sweeping stop-work orders and plans to arbitrarily fire most employees, represent a blatant disregard for Congress’s role and express directives. These actions are in clear violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, as well as the Constitution’s mandate that the laws be faithfully executed. As the CFPB is the only federal agency dedicated solely to protecting American consumers in the financial marketplace, the lawmakers also underscored the threat to key operations that provide relief from a wide range of unlawful practices costing hardworking families billions. These include rulings promoting small business lending transparency, curbing excessive overdraft fees, and preventing medical debt from limiting creditworthy borrowers’ access to credit. The amicus curiae also referenced reports that President Trump and unelected and unaccountable members of his team have access to sensitive consumer data and critical systems within the CFPB.

House Democrats successfully urged a federal judge to block efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Their argument was cited multiple times throughout the federal judge’s 112-page ruling issued Friday, March 28, 2025.