Last November, when it became clear that Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress and Donald Trump had won the White House, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin, hopped on the phone.
“I can’t remember exactly who called who,” Raskin told NOTUS, recalling the conversation. “But essentially, I said that we need the equivalent of a legal war room so that we’re constantly playing both offense and defense against the onslaught.”
Trump’s first term was defined by two impeachment proceedings, a special counsel investigation into Russian election interference and a record-breaking number of lawsuits against him and his administration. But Trump returned to the White House with a renewed sense of organization — and resolve. Trump has also been open about targeting political opponents, causing many Democratic lawmakers to ready themselves for legal fights with liability insurance.
“The times that we are in have forced us to think not just like legislators, but like litigators,” Raskin said.
In previous years, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee alone led the caucus’ legal efforts, submitting amicus briefs in cases and choosing when and where they got involved. During Trump’s second term, Democrats have felt they’ve needed to up the ante.
They formed a new litigation working group, a first-of-its-kind for House Democrats, which works with the already existing legal apparatus working against the administration. Lawmakers meet with legal groups — such as Democracy Forward, Democracy Defenders Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund — as well as state Democratic attorneys general, which have been preparing for years for Trump’s potential return to power.
“Having that coordination with our [attorneys general], with outside [legal] groups … has been a critical part of leading this moment and holding Donald Trump accountable,” Rep. Katherine Clark, the House minority whip, said. “It is a new strategy, but one that we are very committed to.”
There have now been nearly 400 legal challenges to Trump’s policies in the first eight months of his second administration, and at least 130 cases have led to rulings at least in part blocking them, according to analysis by the law and policy journal Just Security.
“It’s never excellent to be in the minority, but if you’re up against a would-be king or dictator, it’s dangerous to be in the minority. You need to make sure that you are using every legal means to hold the executive to the rule of law and Constitution,” Raskin said. “This is the fight of our lives.”
Earlier this year, Jeffries approached the House assistant Democratic leader, Rep. Joe Neguse — who had served alongside Raskin as an impeachment manager in the second inquiry against Trump — to chair a new task force to combat the Trump administration in the courts. In mid-February, less than a month after Trump was inaugurated, Jeffries announced the creation of the Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group, with Neguse and Raskin leading the legal efforts and Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Robert Garcia focused on legislative responses.
The group now has at least 45 members, most of whom have backgrounds as attorneys, according to those involved (a complete membership list is not available publicly). In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the group filed at least eight amicus briefs in federal court, including in cases challenging Trump’s tariffs, National Institutes of Health grant cuts, the birthright citizenship executive order and the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
“By virtue of all of us gathering together, and I think leveraging shared expertise, we’re able to have a multiplier effect in terms of impact,” Neguse told NOTUS. “We’ve been involved in far more cases [than] we were through the duration of the first term of the Trump presidency. And that, in my view, is a direct byproduct of having a group that is kind of a broad cross section of the caucus, and that is not limited to one particular committee.”
One House Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said members get regular updates in the Democratic caucus’ weekly meetings from Neguse and Raskin regarding the status of different legal cases. Last Wednesday morning, for example, Raskin updated the entire caucus on an overnight ruling from a federal appellate court that blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old wartime law, to deport migrants his administration alleges are gang members.
There’s increased pressure on lawmakers with attorney backgrounds and the litigation working group to lead House Democrats’ legal responses to Trump.
“We are acting as a clearinghouse for the many ongoing lawsuits, and also we are leading the way on the amicus brief that the House Democrats are filing,” Rep. Diana DeGette, a member of the group, told NOTUS. “It’s kind of falling on us to aggregate all that information and then present it to our colleagues and see how we can help.”
House Democrats have hosted Democratic attorneys general both in public settings — like the June bicameral “shadow” hearing Raskin hosted with Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee — and in private, both in person and over the phone. Back in April, for example, House Democrats had a closed-door dinner with attorneys general “for them to give us a rundown of all of the cases” they’re involved in, DeGette, who was in attendance, told NOTUS.
“Everything is under attack,” Raskin said. “We need to strategize with whatever partners we have … to figure out what will be the best way to counter these moves. Sometimes it’s legislative, and sometimes it’s litigation, and sometimes it’s in the regulatory context. And, you know, sometimes it’s in the court of public opinion, and oftentimes it’s a mixture of those things.”
As a result of these discussions with outside partners, Democrats realized they potentially had grounds to sue the federal government over being denied entry to Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, including field offices, where migrants were detained.
“This was actually something I identified a number of months ago as a possible outlet for members of Congress to have standing and file lawsuits,” said Rep. Dan Goldman, a member of the litigation working group. He told NOTUS that an appropriation bill passed last year — one that Republicans supported — created a statutory right conferred on individual members of Congress rather than Congress overall (which is a more common approach and makes it more difficult for individual lawmakers to sue) to conduct oversight of ICE facilities where there are migrants.
Department of Homeland Security funds may not “be used to prevent [members] from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens,” the law says. It also has a provision that says a member of Congress is not required to “provide prior notice” to visit an ICE detention facility.
Goldman, who told NOTUS that his past work as lead counsel for the first impeachment inquiry against Trump has informed how he performs his congressional duties, said he raised this to the litigation working group, which “prompted more internal discussions and collaboration to put together the best case that we could press with.”
Members of the group then consulted with Democracy Forward and American Oversight, who are representing the lawmakers in the case, “to consult with them to put together the actual litigation papers and strategy,” Goldman added. (Raskin also said House Democrats consulted with Democratic attorneys general on what would be “the best way to approach” how they were getting denied entry to ICE facilities).
The lawsuit has at least partially opened the floodgates for lawmakers looking to sue the administration.
“I know that a lot of lawyers are looking into that,” Goldman said. “This is a pathway towards being able to challenge the administration’s efforts to completely undermine Congress’ separate power under the Constitution to be, at a minimum, a co-equal branch.”
“We have great staff and, certainly, plenty of outside groups who we’re working with who have outstanding lawyers and are doing that work,” he continued.
With Republicans in control of government, Democrats anticipate that they will continue to rely on the judiciary.
“The volume of administrative actions and unlawful executive orders is unparalleled, which has necessitated a response by private litigants and by members of Congress stepping forward to defend the Constitution, the constitutional order and our Article 1 powers as the United States Congress, particularly with a Republican-controlled House that capitulates to this president at every turn,” Neguse said.
“We have stepped into that void,” he continued. “It is certainly an unprecedented situation.”