Trump’s Executive Order Isn’t Just a Power Grab—It’s the Logical Next Step of His Immunity Ruling
The text of the so-called "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" executive order is out, and its purpose is undeniable: this isn’t just about centralizing agency control—it’s about leveraging the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to erase any meaningful limits on executive power - extending its umbrella over all agencies, all departments, all bureaus fully act with the president's impunity in an attempt to sidestep the Chevron ruling.
The order mandates that all federal agencies must follow the President’s and Attorney General’s interpretation of the law, eliminating legal independence. That means if Trump claims an action is within his “official duties,” it’s both unchallengeable and unenforceable in court. This EO is designed to function as the legal infrastructure for executive power without judicial oversight.
The DOJ has already cited the Supreme Court ruling to justify removing independent agency heads. This is the pattern: rewrite agency authority, purge those who resist, and create a system where law is whatever the White House says it is. If federal agencies are no longer independent and courts are ignored or stripped of enforcement power, then where does resistance come from?
The answer has to be state insulation. If Washington is no longer bound by the rule of law, then states must act before federal control is fully consolidated. That means:
Immediate legal challenges to block agency takeovers before courts are rendered powerless.
Refusal to enforce federal policies that override state authority, particularly in regulatory and economic areas.
State economic barriers that disrupt funding channels for captured federal agencies.
This is a moment where protest must become action—not just marching, but organizing around concrete demands for state-level resistance. If states do not step up now, they will lose the power to do so at all.
Time is running out to put meaningful barriers in place. The old strategies—waiting for courts, hoping for a political shift—are obsolete. This fight has to move to the state level, and it has to start now.
Thank you so much for sharing. I have been thinking a lot about this lately with respect to the administration's unconstitutional actions - specific demands, and specific acts to hold our elected officials accountable. I sketched it out here: https://civicreform.substack.com/p/hello
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on organizations or networks for lawyers/law students who want to contribute to this strategy can get involved with? NLG comes to mind, but others?
That’s a great question, and before I begin I want to preface this by saying that this isn't an area I'm an expert in and I welcome feedback and comments from others and suggest you reach out to your mentors for additional advice if you can.
That said, the answer depends on what exactly you want to do. The legal infrastructure for resisting centralized executive power isn’t just about filing lawsuits—it’s about structuring resistance across multiple fronts: litigation, election protection, government accountability, and movement lawyering.
This is the high-profile work—suing the administration, challenging agency takeovers, fighting federal preemption. The major players:
Protect Democracy – Founded by former DOJ lawyers, specializing in litigation against executive abuses. They have an ongoing pipeline of cases targeting federal overreach, including voting rights and constitutional challenges.
Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law – Think of them as constitutional litigators for the rule of law. They take on separation-of-powers cases and unlawful government actions.
Brennan Center for Justice – Primarily focused on voting rights, campaign finance, and executive accountability. They combine litigation with policy advocacy.
State Attorneys General (AG) Offices – A significant amount of legal pushback against executive actions is coming from state AGs. The attorneys general of California, New York, and Massachusetts, among others, have built teams specifically for multistate litigation against federal overreach.
Law students interested in this should look at fellowships or clinic placements with these groups, particularly in state AG litigation units.
The current administration is already dismantling federal election security efforts. If you’re looking to push back on that:
Election Protection (866-OUR-VOTE) – The main legal defense network against voter suppression.
Fair Fight Action – Originally founded to fight Georgia’s election laws, now expanding nationwide to combat voting restrictions.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – Specializes in election security litigation and rapid-response legal teams during elections.
A lot of this work involves preemptive litigation—challenging new restrictions before they are implemented—and direct election monitoring. If you are a law student, these groups often recruit election-day legal volunteers.
If you want to defend activists and whistleblowers :
The administration has already signaled its intent to purge independent federal employees and target government critics. The legal defense infrastructure here includes:
National Lawyers Guild (NLG) – The oldest movement lawyering network in the U.S., focused on defending activists and protest movements. Their Mass Defense Committees provide legal observers, criminal defense, and protest-related civil litigation.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) – Represents whistleblowers and federal employees who refuse to comply with illegal directives.
Whistleblower Aid – A nonprofit that specializes in national security whistleblowing.
If you’re a law student, NLG chapters are a good entry point for legal observing and movement lawyering. GAP and Whistleblower Aid often take legal fellows.
Radical Federalism, in practice, means pushing legal authority back to the states. That means working on state constitutional litigation, state AG lawsuits, and legal frameworks that reinforce state autonomy.
Emory Law’s Center on Federalism – Focuses on state constitutional law as a legal shield against federal preemption.
StateAG.org – Tracks multistate AG lawsuits and provides legal research for state-led litigation.
The NYU State Impact Center – Works with state AGs, particularly on environmental and regulatory challenges, helping coordinate legal strategies against federal control.
Most of the real legal action is shifting to the states, because at some point federal lawsuits become academic if the courts are captured. State-level challenges will matter more in the long run.
There is also an entire legal-intellectual infrastructure supporting state resistance and legal challenges to executive power:
The Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers – Researches ways state constitutions can be used to protect rights beyond federal baselines.
Harvard’s Democracy and Rule of Law Clinic – Works on legal frameworks for preventing democratic backsliding.
The American Constitution Society (ACS) – State Attorneys General Project – Provides legal research and advocacy for AGs pushing back against federal overreach.
If you’re an academic or law student, contributing research and legal analysis to these groups is one way to be useful.
Where you engage depends on whether you want to be in a courtroom, in the streets, or in a library. The litigation groups are trying to hold the line in court. The election groups are trying to prevent the takeover of election infrastructure. The whistleblower and protest defense lawyers are trying to make sure people don’t get purged or imprisoned. The state constitutional and federalism groups are trying to push legal authority back to the states before Washington consolidates total control.
If you’re a law student, your best bet is probably a state AG office, a law school clinic, or one of the organizations that provide direct legal support. If you’re already a lawyer, finding a pro bono pipeline or a position in a legal nonprofit is the way to go.
But the main point is: the courts alone aren’t going to save us, so the legal fight needs to be waged on multiple fronts.
Trump’s Executive Order Isn’t Just a Power Grab—It’s the Logical Next Step of His Immunity Ruling
The text of the so-called "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" executive order is out, and its purpose is undeniable: this isn’t just about centralizing agency control—it’s about leveraging the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to erase any meaningful limits on executive power - extending its umbrella over all agencies, all departments, all bureaus fully act with the president's impunity in an attempt to sidestep the Chevron ruling.
The order mandates that all federal agencies must follow the President’s and Attorney General’s interpretation of the law, eliminating legal independence. That means if Trump claims an action is within his “official duties,” it’s both unchallengeable and unenforceable in court. This EO is designed to function as the legal infrastructure for executive power without judicial oversight.
The DOJ has already cited the Supreme Court ruling to justify removing independent agency heads. This is the pattern: rewrite agency authority, purge those who resist, and create a system where law is whatever the White House says it is. If federal agencies are no longer independent and courts are ignored or stripped of enforcement power, then where does resistance come from?
The answer has to be state insulation. If Washington is no longer bound by the rule of law, then states must act before federal control is fully consolidated. That means:
Immediate legal challenges to block agency takeovers before courts are rendered powerless.
Refusal to enforce federal policies that override state authority, particularly in regulatory and economic areas.
State economic barriers that disrupt funding channels for captured federal agencies.
This is a moment where protest must become action—not just marching, but organizing around concrete demands for state-level resistance. If states do not step up now, they will lose the power to do so at all.
Read the full executive order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
Time is running out to put meaningful barriers in place. The old strategies—waiting for courts, hoping for a political shift—are obsolete. This fight has to move to the state level, and it has to start now.
Thank you so much for sharing. I have been thinking a lot about this lately with respect to the administration's unconstitutional actions - specific demands, and specific acts to hold our elected officials accountable. I sketched it out here: https://civicreform.substack.com/p/hello
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on organizations or networks for lawyers/law students who want to contribute to this strategy can get involved with? NLG comes to mind, but others?
That’s a great question, and before I begin I want to preface this by saying that this isn't an area I'm an expert in and I welcome feedback and comments from others and suggest you reach out to your mentors for additional advice if you can.
That said, the answer depends on what exactly you want to do. The legal infrastructure for resisting centralized executive power isn’t just about filing lawsuits—it’s about structuring resistance across multiple fronts: litigation, election protection, government accountability, and movement lawyering.
So, options.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to litigate executive overreach :
This is the high-profile work—suing the administration, challenging agency takeovers, fighting federal preemption. The major players:
Protect Democracy – Founded by former DOJ lawyers, specializing in litigation against executive abuses. They have an ongoing pipeline of cases targeting federal overreach, including voting rights and constitutional challenges.
Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law – Think of them as constitutional litigators for the rule of law. They take on separation-of-powers cases and unlawful government actions.
Brennan Center for Justice – Primarily focused on voting rights, campaign finance, and executive accountability. They combine litigation with policy advocacy.
State Attorneys General (AG) Offices – A significant amount of legal pushback against executive actions is coming from state AGs. The attorneys general of California, New York, and Massachusetts, among others, have built teams specifically for multistate litigation against federal overreach.
Law students interested in this should look at fellowships or clinic placements with these groups, particularly in state AG litigation units.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to protect elections :
The current administration is already dismantling federal election security efforts. If you’re looking to push back on that:
Election Protection (866-OUR-VOTE) – The main legal defense network against voter suppression.
Fair Fight Action – Originally founded to fight Georgia’s election laws, now expanding nationwide to combat voting restrictions.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – Specializes in election security litigation and rapid-response legal teams during elections.
A lot of this work involves preemptive litigation—challenging new restrictions before they are implemented—and direct election monitoring. If you are a law student, these groups often recruit election-day legal volunteers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to defend activists and whistleblowers :
The administration has already signaled its intent to purge independent federal employees and target government critics. The legal defense infrastructure here includes:
National Lawyers Guild (NLG) – The oldest movement lawyering network in the U.S., focused on defending activists and protest movements. Their Mass Defense Committees provide legal observers, criminal defense, and protest-related civil litigation.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) – Represents whistleblowers and federal employees who refuse to comply with illegal directives.
Whistleblower Aid – A nonprofit that specializes in national security whistleblowing.
If you’re a law student, NLG chapters are a good entry point for legal observing and movement lawyering. GAP and Whistleblower Aid often take legal fellows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to work on state-level resistance :
Radical Federalism, in practice, means pushing legal authority back to the states. That means working on state constitutional litigation, state AG lawsuits, and legal frameworks that reinforce state autonomy.
Emory Law’s Center on Federalism – Focuses on state constitutional law as a legal shield against federal preemption.
StateAG.org – Tracks multistate AG lawsuits and provides legal research for state-led litigation.
The NYU State Impact Center – Works with state AGs, particularly on environmental and regulatory challenges, helping coordinate legal strategies against federal control.
Most of the real legal action is shifting to the states, because at some point federal lawsuits become academic if the courts are captured. State-level challenges will matter more in the long run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to do the scholarly work :
There is also an entire legal-intellectual infrastructure supporting state resistance and legal challenges to executive power:
The Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers – Researches ways state constitutions can be used to protect rights beyond federal baselines.
Harvard’s Democracy and Rule of Law Clinic – Works on legal frameworks for preventing democratic backsliding.
The American Constitution Society (ACS) – State Attorneys General Project – Provides legal research and advocacy for AGs pushing back against federal overreach.
If you’re an academic or law student, contributing research and legal analysis to these groups is one way to be useful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Thoughts :
Where you engage depends on whether you want to be in a courtroom, in the streets, or in a library. The litigation groups are trying to hold the line in court. The election groups are trying to prevent the takeover of election infrastructure. The whistleblower and protest defense lawyers are trying to make sure people don’t get purged or imprisoned. The state constitutional and federalism groups are trying to push legal authority back to the states before Washington consolidates total control.
If you’re a law student, your best bet is probably a state AG office, a law school clinic, or one of the organizations that provide direct legal support. If you’re already a lawyer, finding a pro bono pipeline or a position in a legal nonprofit is the way to go.
But the main point is: the courts alone aren’t going to save us, so the legal fight needs to be waged on multiple fronts.
Thank you! This is really helpful, and I'm starting to reach out and try and involve some of my peers.