A sourced record of unlawful actions, contested abuses, and threats to constitutional government.
Scope: actions since January 20, 2025. Compiled October 24, 2026. Entries describe the record as of their cited sources, not a continuously updated litigation docket.
Selected for human consequences and the importance of the safeguards at stake, not as an objective legal ranking. Scroll horizontally to explore. These are highlights of the record below, not additional incidents.
01 / 10 · Lethal force
Legal assessmentMilitary strikes replaced arrest and criminal process. A follow-up strike killed survivors of an earlier attack, raising a distinct issue about targeting defenseless shipwrecked people. The UN human-rights chief condemned the campaign as unlawful.
The UN conclusion is a legal assessment, not a court judgment. The precise orders for the survivor strike and responsibility for them remain disputed.
02 / 10 · Detention & torture
Reported actionHuman Rights Watch and Cristosal documented systematic torture and other abuses of Venezuelans transferred by the United States to El Salvador's CECOT prison.
The abuse findings are attributed to the investigating organizations. They are not criminal judgments against U.S. officials.
03 / 10 · Wrongful removal
Reported actionThe administration sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an existing immigration order protecting him from removal there. The government acknowledged an error. Judges subsequently criticized its response to court-ordered information and discovery.
Litigation secured his return to the United States. His protection against removal to El Salvador was not a grant of permanent residency.
04 / 10 · Prosecutorial retaliation
Judicial findingA judge dismissed Abrego Garcia's human-smuggling case after finding presumptive vindictiveness that DOJ failed to rebut, following his successful challenge to his wrongful deportation.
The judge distinguished presumptive from actual vindictiveness. DOJ appealed. This concerns the subsequent prosecution, separate from the wrongful removal.
05 / 10 · Federal-officer accountability
Reported actionThe Renee Good and Alex Pretti cases involved restrictions on state investigative access and months of withheld evidence. Verified video contradicted central elements of the administration's initial account of Pretti's killing.
DOJ opened a civil-rights investigation into Pretti's killing. Substantial evidence in both cases was transferred in July 2026. Neither death is presented as an adjudicated murder.
06 / 10 · War powers
Legal assessmentOperations in Iran and Venezuela raised fundamental questions about unilateral presidential war-making. The disputes concern the authority to initiate force and to continue operations without the congressional approval required by law.
These are documented operations with contested legal justifications, not final court findings that every operation was unlawful.
07 / 10 · Judicial authority
Judicial findingAcross multiple cases, judges identified government noncompliance, misleading representations, and unreliable sworn evidence. Just Security's research collects the courts' own findings rather than treating suspicions as established misconduct.
The record includes preliminary and interlocutory rulings, with differing appellate histories. Tracker categories overlap and are not a count of unique crimes.
08 / 10 · Independent legal representation
Judicial findingDistrict courts struck down executive orders targeting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. The orders threatened clearances, federal access, contracting and business relationships.
These were district-court rulings. The summary does not certify every subsequent appellate outcome.
09 / 10 · Congressional spending power
Judicial findingCourts criticized efforts to preserve funding freezes through rebranding and administrative maneuvers after injunctions, including findings of noncompliance with orders to release funds.
Funding disputes involve different statutes, orders and appeals. Not every withholding or spending reduction has been finally adjudicated unlawful.
10 / 10 · Statutory authority
Judicial findingThe Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA did not authorize the president's tariffs, rejecting the asserted basis for the sweeping reciprocal and drug-trafficking duties.
The February 20, 2026 ruling concerns IEEPA tariffs. It does not invalidate tariffs imposed under other statutes.
Swipe or scroll horizontally. With the card area focused, use Left and Right arrows; Home and End jump to the first and last cards. No automatic rotation.
The entries distinguish judicial findings from reported actions, disputed allegations, expert legal assessments, and institutional concerns. Unlawful government action is not necessarily a criminal offense. A policy disagreement alone is not evidence of misconduct.
Judicial findings include preliminary and interlocutory rulings. Some have been stayed, narrowed, reversed, or appealed. A cited finding is evidence of what a court concluded at that stage, not a claim that the ruling remains operative or is the final word.
Related events can involve distinct conduct and appear in more than one section. Entries and tracker categories should not be added together as a count of unique cases or established crimes.
Compliance with orders, truthful evidence, and the credibility of government representations.
A judge found that OMB appeared to be evading judicial review without actually stopping the challenged funding freeze, describing the maneuver as disingenuous.
A court found noncompliance with its funding order and criticized FEMA's attempt to continue an indefinite freeze through a different administrative description.
Judges identified failures to provide court-ordered information and discovery, including a "willful and bad faith refusal" to comply with discovery obligations.
A judge described renewed staffing and funding maneuvers as attempts to achieve the very outcome an injunction was intended to prevent, including "thumbing their nose" at the courts.
A judge described a government declaration as "highly misleading, if not intentionally false" and expressed little confidence that the defense could be trusted to tell the truth.
The government filed corrections acknowledging that earlier representations about DOGE access were inaccurate or incomplete, and disclosed conduct potentially inconsistent with policy or a restraining order.
The correction does not establish that every disclosed act violated the order.
Courts identified unreliable affidavits and misleading descriptions of immigration-enforcement encounters. In one case, a judge described a complaint affidavit as telling a "largely fictional" story.
Courts criticized the government's response to orders on November 2025 food assistance. One judge described a USDA letter as "carefully crafted to feign compliance" with a restraining order.
Wrongful removal, access to courts and counsel, detention practices, and punishment for asserting legal rights.
The administration deported Abrego Garcia in violation of a 2019 immigration order. The government acknowledged an error; litigation ultimately secured his return to the United States.
On May 22, 2026, a judge dismissed the human-smuggling prosecution of Abrego Garcia after finding presumptive vindictiveness that the government failed to rebut, following his successful challenge to his deportation.
The judge distinguished presumptive from actual vindictiveness. DOJ appealed; the dismissal was not a final, unappealable resolution.
Barred from removing him to El Salvador, officials pursued removal to other countries, generating further disputes over notice, detention, meaningful process, and compliance with court orders.
On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court found that the notice given to detained Venezuelans was insufficient to allow meaningful challenges to their removal.
That decision did not resolve every question about the substantive legality of invoking the Act.
Human Rights Watch and Cristosal reported systematic torture and other abuses of Venezuelans transferred by the United States to El Salvador's CECOT prison.
These are findings by the investigating organizations, not criminal judgments against U.S. officials.
DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni alleged that Emil Bove said the department might have to tell courts "fuck you" and ignore an order. Released contemporaneous messages supported parts of Reuveni's account.
Bove and DOJ denied the allegations. The reported statement is not itself a judicial finding of misconduct.
Reuveni was placed on leave and subsequently dismissed after acknowledging problems with the Abrego Garcia deportation in court. The episode raised concerns about punishing candor to the judiciary.
A court found repeated, material violations of the court-ordered settlement governing immigration arrests and detention practices.
Declarations documented obstacles to attorney access for immigration detainees held in the federal building's B-18 basement, including allegations of noncompliance with a restraining order.
The cited entry documents the declarations; it should not be read as a final adjudication of every allegation.
Courts identified failures to follow statutory and regulatory requirements, including the necessary grounds for warrantless arrest and findings concerning flight risk.
Courts found substantial or likely First Amendment retaliation in cases involving pro-Palestinian expression, including findings that detention appeared to flow from protected speech rather than ordinary enforcement grounds.
These findings concern particular cases and procedural stages, not a holding that every immigration action involving an activist was retaliatory.
Courts identified inadequate country-conditions review, pretext and predetermined outcomes in challenges involving Venezuela, Haiti and other countries.
Separate appellate decisions and stays affected protections and remedies. The entry does not assert that every termination remained blocked.
Courts identified visa or SEVIS-related terminations lacking individualized explanations or a sufficient factual basis, including a case involving a dismissed criminal charge.
Federal use of lethal force, contradictory official accounts, and resistance to independent investigation.
After Good was fatally shot by an ICE officer on January 7, 2026, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche expressly said DOJ was not conducting a criminal investigation of the shooter.
An internal agency review and state investigative efforts are distinct from a DOJ criminal investigation. The shooting has not been treated here as an adjudicated murder.
DOJ barred Civil Rights Division prosecutors from investigating Good's killing despite career prosecutors volunteering to participate, according to sourced reporting.
CBS's verified analysis showed Pretti holding a phone and an officer removing his handgun shortly before the shooting began, contradicting central elements of the administration's initial account.
DOJ subsequently opened a civil-rights investigation on January 30, 2026. It would be inaccurate to claim that no federal investigation occurred.
Minnesota investigators were prevented from collecting evidence at the scene. In February, the state's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said the FBI had formally refused to share evidence.
A temporary preservation order is not proof that evidence was actually destroyed. Substantial evidence was later transferred.
Federal authorities withheld key material sought by state investigators for roughly six months. In July 2026 they transferred statements, body-camera footage and other materials, including Good's SUV.
The subsequent transfer matters: the record is one of prolonged delay, not permanent withholding of all evidence.
After the killing of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, the Harris County district attorney said federal authorities were not collaborating and had not provided basic information, including the officers' identities, at the time of the July report.
The agency asserted self-defense; the cited report did not establish a final legal determination about the shooting.
Lethal operations outside ordinary criminal process and disputed assertions of unilateral presidential authority.
The administration used military strikes against vessels it alleged were trafficking drugs. The UN human-rights chief concluded that the attacks violated international human-rights law: suspected trafficking is a law-enforcement matter and does not by itself justify lethal force.
The UN statement is a legal assessment, not a court judgment. The administration claimed authority to conduct the strikes.
The White House acknowledged a second September 2, 2025 strike. Reporting identified two survivors killed after the initial attack, raising distinct questions about targeting defenseless shipwrecked people.
The precise orders and responsibility were disputed. Hegseth denied the reported directive to kill everyone; no finding that he personally ordered the killing of survivors is asserted here.
Legal experts challenged the administration's armed-conflict premise and its attempt to treat suspected traffickers as military targets rather than people subject to arrest and criminal process.
As the War Powers Resolution's deadline approached, the administration advanced an interpretation that the strikes were not hostilities because U.S. personnel faced little danger. Critics argued that this evaded a statute intended to constrain unilateral military force.
The criticism is a legal analysis, not a final judicial holding on the campaign.
FOIA litigation sought the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum authorizing the campaign. In September 2026, a judge ordered the memorandum produced for confidential judicial review and sought information relevant to the claimed privileges.
The production order did not itself decide the lawfulness of the strikes.
The June 2025 strikes on Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan prompted constitutional objections, including from Republican lawmakers, over the president's authority to initiate the attack without Congress.
The attack is established; the asserted constitutional violation is a contested legal conclusion.
The administration launched broad attacks and called for the Iranian government's overthrow, raising separate questions about necessity, constitutional authority, congressional authorization and continued operations under the War Powers Resolution.
This was a separate escalation from the June 2025 strikes. The entry does not assume that fighting continued uninterrupted after later ceasefire negotiations.
The January 3, 2026 operation bombed targets in Venezuela and captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Legal analysts challenged both the absence of congressional authorization and the operation's compatibility with the UN Charter.
Describing the operation as law enforcement does not settle the use-of-force questions. The cited analysis is not a final judicial ruling.
Federalism, civilian law enforcement, factual justifications, and the limits of military authority at home.
The administration deployed federalized National Guard personnel to Los Angeles, prompting litigation over presidential authority and the military's domestic role.
The Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland demobilizations were completed in January 2026. These deployments are not described as ongoing.
In December 2025, the Supreme Court declined to lift a block on the deployment, stating that the government had not identified authority allowing the military to execute Illinois law at that preliminary stage.
This was not a final merits ruling categorically prohibiting all domestic military deployments.
A judge found the federalization rationale "simply untethered to the facts" and identified unreliable testimony. Related proceedings raised concerns about apparent contravention of an existing restraining order.
The administration extended the Guard deployment for years, raising concerns about normalizing prolonged military involvement in civilian policing.
D.C.'s legal status differs from that of states. An appeals court allowed the deployment to continue; the extension is not presented as conclusively unlawful.
Prosecutorial independence, punishment of critics, and coercion directed at lawyers and civil society.
Trump publicly pressed the attorney general to act against James Comey, Letitia James and Adam Schiff, departing from norms intended to insulate individual charging decisions from presidential political demands.
A judge ruled that Lindsey Halligan's appointment violated the appointments statute and the Constitution's Appointments Clause, and dismissed the indictments. The judge also rejected attempted retroactive validation.
The dismissals were without prejudice and appealed. The appointment rulings did not decide every claim of retaliatory motive or establish innocence.
CBS reported that Robert McBride was removed after declining to take over the prosecution, amid concerns among career prosecutors about the case's evidentiary strength.
The reported reason for the firing is sourced reporting, not an adjudicated retaliation finding.
Departing prosecutors alleged a bargain exchanging dismissal for immigration-enforcement cooperation. The judge described the circumstances as an arrangement that "smacks of a bargain."
DOJ denied a quid pro quo. The concern is misuse of prosecutorial leverage, not a claim that a criminal bribery conviction resulted.
Prosecutors, FBI agents and support personnel who worked on these investigations were fired, raising concerns about retaliation for prior official work and the chilling of independent enforcement.
A presidential memorandum directed DOJ, in consultation with Treasury, to investigate ActBlue. The directive raised concerns about presidential involvement in politically sensitive enforcement decisions.
The directive does not establish that the underlying allegations were false or that an investigation could never be justified.
A presidential memorandum revoked clearances and ordered scrutiny of Krebs and his former agency. The action followed his public rejection of claims that the 2020 election was insecure, raising concerns about retaliation against professional election-security judgments.
The revocation of Mark Zaid's clearance raised concerns about retaliation against protected legal representation and the chilling of national-security whistleblowing.
The concern is not equivalent to a finding that every clearance revocation is unlawful.
District courts found orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey unconstitutional. The orders targeted clearances, access to federal facilities, contracting and related business relationships.
The rulings are identified at the district-court stage; this summary does not certify every subsequent appellate outcome.
Other law firms entered agreements involving pro bono commitments and changes to internal practices in the context of the administration's campaign against major firms, raising concerns about coercion and independent representation.
Courts found retaliatory and pretextual conduct in the funding freeze and efforts affecting Harvard's ability to enroll international students, including a finding of likely unconstitutional retaliation.
Courts issued preliminary relief involving American Bar Association grant terminations and an FTC investigation of Media Matters, finding likely retaliation for protected activity or criticism.
The matters are separate cases with different records. Preliminary relief is not a final determination of every disputed fact.
Congress's taxing and spending powers, statutory agency duties, and the requirement of reasoned administrative action.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA did not authorize the president's tariffs, rejecting the authority underlying the sweeping reciprocal and drug-trafficking duties.
The ruling concerns IEEPA, not tariffs imposed under other statutes.
Courts found sweeping funding suspensions arbitrary and capricious, citing the lack of reasoned explanations and failures to account for consequences, statutory purposes and reliance interests.
Courts identified inadequate explanations, blanket suspensions and disregard of reliance interests in foreign-aid litigation, amid the effort to dismantle USAID's operations.
Foreign-aid litigation involved multiple authorities and appellate orders; this entry does not suggest that all aid reductions were permanently blocked.
A court found the suspension arbitrary and capricious, identifying conclusory reasoning, a lack of supporting facts, and failures to address reliance on previously approved funding.
Courts found inadequate explanations and unsupported rationales in challenges to clean-energy funding freezes and EPA grant actions.
Courts criticized the explanations and record supporting staffing reductions, including failures to account for operational harm and the department's statutory responsibilities.
Later stays and appeals affected the relief available; the entry records the adverse findings, not a claim that all staffing reductions remained prohibited.
Courts identified statutory or procedural defects in actions affecting U.S. Agency for Global Media operations, Job Corps and AmeriCorps, including abrupt cuts without required explanations or process.
These were separate proceedings. They are grouped by the shared issue of executive action affecting statutory programs.
Courts found deficiencies in NIH, HHS and university grant terminations based on form letters or generalized instructions instead of reasoned, grant-specific assessments.
Courts found agency cost caps inadequately explained or irrationally connected to the realities of research funding, with insufficient consideration of statutory missions and reliance interests.
Courts identified defects in transportation and disaster-funding conditions, including improper considerations, overbreadth, insufficient explanations and failures to address reliance interests.
Beyond disputes over compliance with payment orders, courts criticized the underlying decision-making around food assistance, identifying implausible reasoning, ignored consequences and partisan pretext.
A court found that the government had not supplied evidence of fraud or an individualized assessment sufficient to support the challenged freeze, and criticized its post-hoc explanation.
OMB took down its public apportionment database, limiting visibility into the executive branch's handling of appropriated funds. An appeals court subsequently reinstated an order requiring restoration.
Removal of safeguards that expose misconduct, protect professional independence, and constrain political interference.
Inspector general dismissals raised legal objections concerning advance notice to Congress and the required substantive explanation, as well as concerns about independent scrutiny of executive agencies.
OMB's funding actions disrupted CIGIE's work and access to watchdog websites. Republican senators Chuck Grassley and Susan Collins objected to the withholding.
Staffing actions shuttered or severely weakened offices responsible for civil-rights complaints and immigration detention oversight. Litigation prompted reversals, but filings described continuing understaffing.
The FBI disbanded the Washington field office's CR15 squad, removing a specialized investigative unit associated with public-corruption work and the Trump investigations.
The bureau said public-corruption investigations would continue through other units; disbanding a unit does not by itself establish that a particular case was improperly closed.
DOJ suspended a longstanding review requirement intended to provide an internal check against unfounded or politically motivated public-corruption prosecutions.
Schedule F-style reclassification and political-appointee control over hiring weakened insulation from political pressure. Hiring assessments also asked applicants about supporting presidential policies.
Staff cuts affected offices responsible for FOIA requests at HHS agencies, reducing capacity for public access to government information and independent scrutiny.
The administration changed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement priorities while experienced personnel departed, raising concerns about weakened anti-corruption capacity.
Changes in enforcement discretion are not inherently unlawful. The concern is their effect on accountability and impartial enforcement.
The attempted removal raised disputes over statutory for-cause protection, due process and central-bank independence. Cook denied the mortgage-related allegations used to justify the action.
The concern and allegations are recorded without asserting a final judicial outcome or a proven offense by Cook.
Reporting described removals of housing-finance watchdog and ethics personnel amid scrutiny of access to political opponents' mortgage records, raising concerns that oversight itself was being punished.
The reported sequence does not alone establish the motive for every personnel decision.
Entries link to original reporting, official statements, legal analysis, or research collections that reproduce and link the underlying court documents.
This is a selected inventory, not an exhaustive chronology or a claim that all entries carry equal legal significance. Linked trackers may change after compilation. Current litigation status should be checked against the docket before treating a historical ruling as controlling law.