Case: State of New York v. McMahon

1:25-cv-10601 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: March 13, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case, brought by 21 states, challenged the Trump administration's directive to dismantle the Department of Education through a massive "reduction in force." The immediate catalyst for this lawsuit was the Department of Education’s announcement on March 11, 2025, of a near-50% workforce reduction, seen by the plaintiff states as an unlawful attempt to incapacitate the agency and its statutorily mandated functions. The Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, herself stated that these workforc…

In response, on March 13, 2025, 21 states filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the U.S. Department of Education and President Trump. The states were represented by their respective Attorneys General. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that these actions violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, the states claimed that the Executive branch was overstepping its authority by attempting to dismantle a congressionally created agency and failing to faithfully execute the laws. They also asserted that the Department of Education's actions were outside the scope of its statutory authority and were arbitrary and capricious, violating the APA. The remedies requested included a court declaration that the defendants’ actions were unlawful, an order vacating the implementation of the directive, and a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the dismantling of the Department of Education. This case was assigned to Judge Myong J. Joun.

Following the initial complaint, on March 21, 2025, the plaintiff states filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Pseudonymous Declarations. In this motion, they requested permission for current and former employees of the Department of Education to file declarations under pseudonyms, claiming that the declarants feared potential negative repercussions if their names were publicly revealed. The Court granted this motion, explaining that “the Doe Declarants’ fears of retribution and retaliation in this context is reasonable.” 2025 WL 1478387.

On March 24, 2025, the states filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. They contended that they would suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction. On April 23, 2025, nearly 200 members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff state's motion arguing that the government's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education "contravenes Congress's express directives." A hearing on this motion was held on April 25.

The court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on May 22, entering a preliminary injunction for the pendency of the litigation. It enjoined the reduction in force and the transfer of management of federal student loans and special education functions out of the Department. The court's order required the administration to reinstate federal employees whose employment was terminated as part of the reduction in force, and to "restore the Department to the status quo such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions." 2025 WL 1463009.

On May 22, after the court issued the preliminary injunction, the defendants appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants requested an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal. The defendants argued that the district court's ruling was based on speculation that the Department would be unable to fulfill its duties, rather than on a verified failure to do so. The defendants also contested the district court's jurisdiction, arguing that in the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), Congress required terminated employees to bring challenges before the Merit Systems Protection Board, with judicial review in the Federal Circuit. Finally, the defendants contested the merits of the district court's decision, arguing that the administration was not seeking to close the Department as found by the district court, but rather to reduce inefficiency "to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law." "It violates neither the Constitution nor any other law for the government to endeavor to operate as efficiently as possible or to implement judgments about staffing levels needed to carry out any statutory mandates." Therefore, the defendants argued that the district court erred in requiring the current administration to "freeze the Department in the form a prior administration considered appropriate."

On May 27, the Court of Appeals denied the defendants' motion for an immediate administrative stay. The court found that the defendants had not demonstrated a need for an immediate stay; however, the court said that it intended to rule promptly on the request for a stay pending appeal. 2025 WL 1503501.

Back in the district court, the defendants also filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction on May 22. On May 23, Judge Joun denied the motion. He found that, given the court's analysis in the order granting the preliminary injunction, the defendants would not suffer irreparable harm by maintaining the status quo, while staying the preliminary injunction would cause serious harm to the plaintiffs. Therefore, he denied the defendants' motion. 2025 WL 1478007.

On June 4, 2025, the Court of Appeals denied the defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal. Looking first at whether the defendants had made a strong showing that they would prevail on the merits, the court found "no basis on which to conclude that the appellants have made a 'strong showing' that the District Court likely clearly erred in finding that the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory obligations." The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because of the CSRA, since the court was "loath to attribute to Congress" the defendants' view that Congress "intended to bar every challenge to an unlawful effort by the Executive to shut down a statutorily created agency by summarily firing its employees en masse" through enactment of the CSRA. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the defendants had not made a strong showing that they would succeed on their argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Looking at the merits, the court also held that the defendants had failed to make a "strong showing" of success, since their contentions "merely favorably characterize[d] the actions found to have been contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious" rather than explaining why the district court's ruling was erroneous. Finally, the court found that the RIF in this case sufficiently constituted a final agency action to support an action under the APA.

Turning to other concerns, the court also said that the defendants had failed to show that they would suffer an irreparable injury "by being required to carry out Congress's duly enacted statutes," or that the "public's interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions." Therefore, the court denied the motion for a stay of the district court's injunction. 2025 WL 1576570.

On June 6, the government went to the Supreme Court asking for a stay of the district court's injunction for the duration of the litigation while the government appeals to the First Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. In its application, the government argued that it was likely to succeed on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing, asserting that the district court "accepted a standing theory rife with speculation" about whether the Department would be able to fulfill its duties. The government also argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute, since, while the district court admitted more limited reductions in force would have to be brought before the MSPB, it found that more massive terminations granted it jurisdiction. Finally, the government argued that the district court lacked authority to order reinstatement as a remedy.

The government also told the Court that the case warranted its intervention because of the irreparable harm the Executive Branch would suffer if it were required to reinstate the employees. The government requested a stay of the district court's injunction and an immediate administrative stay pending the Court's decision on its request for a stay. Briefing in the Supreme Court on the motion has concluded, so a decision could come at any time.

The Supreme Court granted the government's request on July 14, staying the district court's preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the government's appeal in the First Circuit and any possible appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court did not explain its reasoning, but the decision came over the noted dissents of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, who argued that "[w]hen the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it."

The district court also consolidated this case with Somerville Public Schools v. Trump and ordered this case to be the main one--further developments are located here.

	Document
1 1:25-cv-10601	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 Complaint
70 1:25-cv-10601	Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminarily Injunction	March 24, 2025	March 24, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
110 1:25-cv-10601	Brief of Members of Congress as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Preliminary Injunction	April 23, 2025	April 23, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
128 1:25-cv-10601	Memorandum and Order on Consolidated Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction	May 22, 2025	May 22, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 1463009
136 1:25-cv-10601	Order on Defendants’ Motion to Stay	May 23, 2025	May 23, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 1478007
108289655 25-01495	Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Immediate Administrative Stay U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	May 23, 2025	May 23, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
108295196 25-01495	Opinion Somerville Public Schools v. McMahon U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	June 4, 2025	June 4, 2025 Order/Opinion 139 F.4th 63
24-A-01203	Application to Stay the Injunction Issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay McMahon v. State of New York Supreme Court of the United States	June 6, 2025	June 6, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
24-A-01203	On Application for Stay McMahon v. State of New York Supreme Court of the United States	July 14, 2025	July 14, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 1922626

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Black Farmers FAQ: The history of discrimination against Black farmers and policy initiatives to remedy these inequities. Legal Defense Fund	Black farmers have long faced systemic discrimination by public and private institutions and barriers to economic mobility. Inequities in the administration of government farm programs and discrimina…		https://www.naacpldf.org/...
Press Release - U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force U.S. Department of Education	Announcing that the U.S. Department of Education initiated a reduction in force (RIF) impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s workforce, with Impacted Department staff to be placed on administrative…	March 11, 2025	March 11, 2025 https://www.ed.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-10889005 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Washington, State of New York, State of Wisconsin, State of Vermont, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, State of Hawaii, State of California, State of Arizona, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, District of Columbia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/13/2025) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP 2 Category Form View on RECAP	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 Clearinghouse
10	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Kathleen A. Halloran and Neil Giovanatti. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney.(SP) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
11	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Jonathan Rose Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-10891183 by State of Vermont. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Rose Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
12	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Karyn L. Bass Ehler and Katharine Roberts Filing fee: $ 250, receipt number AMADC-10891190 by State of Illinois. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Roberts Certificate, # 2 Affidavit Bass Ehler Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
2	NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine B. Dirks on behalf of COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (Dirks, Katherine) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
3	NOTICE of Appearance by Nathaniel J. Hyman on behalf of COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
4	NOTICE of Appearance by Sean D. Magenis on behalf of State of Maine (Magenis, Sean) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
5	NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth C. Carnes Flynn on behalf of COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (Carnes Flynn, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
6	ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Myong J. Joun assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (JAM) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
7	Summons Issued as to Department of Education, Linda McMahon, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (SP) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
8	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Neil Giovanatti and Kathleen Halloran Filing fee: $ 250, receipt number AMADC-10890396 by Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Neil Giovanatti, # 2 Affidavit Certificate of Kathleen Halloran)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/13/2025) 1 Affidavit Certificate of Neil Giovanatti View on PACER 2 Affidavit Certificate of Kathleen Halloran View on PACER	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
9	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Elizabeth Kramer Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-10890572 by State of Minnesota. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Elizabeth Kramer)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/13/2025)	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
	Notice of Case Assignment	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
	Order on Motion for Leave to Appear	March 13, 2025	March 13, 2025 PACER
13	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 9 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Elizabeth Kramer. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
14	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Jonathan Rose. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
15	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 12 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Karyn L. Bass Ehler and Katharine P. Roberts. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
16	NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan T Rose on behalf of State of Vermont (Rose, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Neil Giovanatti on behalf of Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan (Giovanatti, Neil) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
18	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Kathryn T. Gradowski Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-10891754 by State of Rhode Island. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Gradowski Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
19	NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth C. Kramer on behalf of State of Minnesota (Kramer, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
20	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Patrick Ring Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-10891943 by State of Connecticut. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Ring Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
21	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 18 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Kathryn Tucker Gradowski. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
22	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 20 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Patrick Thomas Ring. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
23	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Molly Thomas-Jensen, Gina Bull, and Rabia Muqaddam Filing fee: $ 375, receipt number AMADC-10892091 by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Thomas-Jensen Certificate, # 2 Affidavit Bull Certificate, # 3 Affidavit Muqaddam Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
24	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Spencer Coates and Cristina Sepe Filing fee: $ 250, receipt number AMADC-10892104 by State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Coates Certificate, # 2 Affidavit Sepe Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
25	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 23 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Rabia Muquaddam, Molly Thomas-Jensen, Gina Bull. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
26	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 24 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Cristina Sepe and Spencer W. Coates. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (SP) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
27	NOTICE of Appearance by Rabia Muqaddam on behalf of State of New York (Muqaddam, Rabia) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
28	NOTICE of Appearance by Molly Thomas-Jensen on behalf of State of New York (Thomas-Jensen, Molly) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
29	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of David Day, Kaliko Fernandes, and Ewan Rayner Filing fee: $ 375, receipt number AMADC-10893221 by State of Hawaii. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Day Certificate, # 2 Affidavit Fernandes Certificate, # 3 Affidavit Rayner Certificate)(Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
30	NOTICE of Appearance by Spencer Wade Coates on behalf of State of Washington (Coates, Spencer) (Entered: 03/14/2025)	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
	Order on Motion for Leave to Appear	March 14, 2025	March 14, 2025 PACER
31	Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 29 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Ewan C. Rayner, Kalikoonlani D. Fernandes, and David D. Day. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (SP) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 PACER
32	NOTICE of Appearance by Karyn L. Bass Ehler on behalf of State of Illinois (Bass Ehler, Karyn) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 PACER
33	NOTICE of Appearance by Katharine Pinckney Roberts on behalf of State of Illinois (Roberts, Katharine) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 PACER
34	NOTICE of Appearance by Cristina Sepe on behalf of State of Washington (Sepe, Cristina) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 PACER
35	AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Executed by State of Maine, State of Vermont, State of Connecticut, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, State of Oregon, State of New York, State of Rhode Island, Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan, State of New Jersey, State of Colorado, State of Hawaii, District of Columbia, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of Wisconsin, State of Delaware, State of California, State of Illinois, State of Washington, State of Arizona. All Defendants. Acknowledgement filed by State of Maine, State of Vermont, State of Connecticut, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, State of Oregon, State of New York, State of Rhode Island, Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan, State of New Jersey, State of Colorado, State of Hawaii, District of Columbia, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of Wisconsin, State of Delaware, State of California, State of Illinois, State of Washington, State of Arizona. (Hyman, Nathaniel) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 RECAP
36	NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Ann Halloran on behalf of Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan (Halloran, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 PACER
37	NOTICE of Appearance by Kalikoonalani Diara Fernandes on behalf of State of Hawaii (Fernandes, Kalikoonalani) (Entered: 03/17/2025)	March 17, 2025	March 17, 2025 PACER

Case: State of New York v. McMahon

1:25-cv-10601 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details