Father goes to his grave without knowing who stabbed his daughter

Since Donald Trump returned to office and issued a series of executive orders targeting environmental regulationsclimate-focused nonprofits have entered a period of heightened uncertainty. From local initiatives to national institutions, advocacy organizations are expressing concern over proposed policies, including the potential revocation of their tax-exempt status.

The Center for Biological Diversitya national organization working to protect endangered species and public lands, has already announced its intention to sue if the Trump campaign’s threats become a reality. Executive Director Kieran Suckling didn’t mince wordsas reported by the Associated Press, vowing that the organization would pursue legal action—including a temporary restraining order (TRO)—against any executive move targeting their nonprofit status.

A TRO is essentially a legal emergency brake on harm. While waiting for a full court case could cause irreversible damage, a TRO can pause the action, whether it’s being taken by a private individual or by the government. In this case, a TRO could block an executive order from taking effect—at least for a short time—while the courts evaluate the larger legal challenge.

For climate nonprofits suddenly staring down the barrel of financial and operational uncertainty, that pause could mean the difference between survival and collapse, buying precious time to organize a legal response, rally public support, and continue work without the immediate threat of being defunded.

TROs that Blocked Executive Orders

During Trump’s first term in office, TROs were used to block multiple executive orders, including one in 2017 against a revised travel ban that targeted predominantly Muslim countries and one in 2018 against proposed asylum restrictions against migrants who crossed the US–Mexico border outside official ports of entry. In each case, federal judges found the executive orders to be causing an immediate threat and likely in violation of the Constitution, so TROs were put in place.

A TRO can be sought and granted in a matter of days, sometimes even hours.

More recently, in March 2025, US District Judge Brian Murphy issued a nationwide TRO halting the fast-tracked deportation of undocumented immigrants to third countries. The Trump administration had sought to expand its ability to remove noncitizens who were already under final deportation orders by sending them to countries with which they had no prior ties, effectively bypassing traditional immigration procedures. The TRO temporarily blocked the government from carrying out such removals without first providing crucial legal safeguards, underscoring the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power, especially when questions of due process are at stake. This TRO remains in effect pending a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunctionwhich could extend the halt on deportations further into the legal process.

In late May, a federal judge granted a TRO to Harvard Universityblocking the Trump administration from revoking the university’s enrollment of international students.

Are TROs a Viable Strategy for Nonprofits?

Filing a TRO can be a strategically sound maneuver for climate nonprofits facing imminent legal or financial threats from executive action. As we have seen, courts have demonstrated a willingness to intervene swiftly when executive orders pose credible threats to constitutional or statutory protections. In the current climate, where legal and administrative threats are surfacing with unprecedented speed and ideological intensity, a TRO may serve as both a defensive bulwark and a tactical platform from which broader resistance can be organized.

The main strength of a TRO is its immediacy. Unlike full-fledged lawsuits that can stretch across months or years, a TRO can be sought and granted in a matter of days, sometimes even hours, if the situation is deemed urgent enough.

Pursuing a TRO also signals to the courts—and the broader public—that the plaintiffs are confronting a constitutional emergency. Courts are more likely to give weight to claims of irreparable harm when an organization is not merely speculating about damage but is facing an imminent and concrete threat.

This is particularly relevant in the current context, where the nature of the harm—loss of nonprofit status—would cause disruptions so severe that retroactive remedies would be inadequate. Once an organization loses its tax-exempt designation and the associated flow of funding, the practical consequences could be irreversible.

The Limits of a TRO

Of course, the TRO is not without its limitations. It is, by design, a temporary measure pending a more detailed hearing on a preliminary injunction. It also requires plaintiffs to meet a high legal bar, demonstrating: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their case, 2) imminent and irreparable harm, and 3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor.

For nonprofits facing sudden attacks on their legal status, this evidentiary burden may not be as daunting as it seems.

However, for nonprofits facing sudden attacks on their legal status, this evidentiary burden may not be as daunting as it seems. In fact, strong evidence of harm is often readily available. Internal financial projections, established patterns showing donor sensitivity to tax-exempt status, and historical records showing reliance on 501c3 status for core operations can all provide compelling proof that the damage is not hypothetical: It is imminent and quantifiable.

Additionally, courts may look favorably on the broader public interest when evaluating such motions. Many environmental nonprofits play essential roles as watchdogs on regulatory agencies, holding polluters accountable, and educating the public: functions that directly impact public health and environmental safety. Any attempt to strip these groups of their ability to function due to their political stances could raise significant constitutional red flags, particularly around the First Amendment.

Groups like the Center for Biological Diversity are already charting this course. The Center’s public commitment to filing a TRO indicates that such legal remedies are ready to become part of the nonprofit legal playbook.

How Nonprofits Can File a TRO

For nonprofits suddenly thrust into existential crisis by a hostile executive order, pursuing a TRO can offer a crucial legal shield. But while the concept of a TRO may sound straightforward, the actual process of filing one—particularly against the federal government—is legally intricate and procedurally demanding.

Still, with the right legal support and strategic partnerships, even small or midsized nonprofits can pursue this urgent form of judicial protection. Here’s a general overview of how to go about it:

1. Secure legal counsel.

The first and most urgent step is to hire or consult with an experienced attorney, ideally one well-versed in constitutional, administrative, or environmental law. Lawsuits against the federal government are complex and have high stakes; they involve layers of jurisdictional nuance, detailed evidentiary standards, and the need for rapid response. Having the right legal team in place from the outset is essential—not just for filing the paperwork, but for shaping the legal theory, collecting evidence, and communicating urgency to the court.

2. File the underlying complaint.

A TRO doesn’t stand alone; it must be anchored to a formal lawsuit. This means the organization’s legal team must draft and file a complaint challenging the legality or constitutionality of the executive order in question. The complaint should articulate the nonprofit’s standing (such as why it has the legal right to sue), the harm it faces, and the legal grounds on which the order should be struck down, such as violations of the First Amendment, overreach of executive authority, or discriminatory intent.

3. Request a TRO as part of the filing.

Once the complaint is ready, the request for a TRO is filed alongside it, typically as a separate motion. This motion must make a compelling case that the organization cannot wait for a full trial or even a preliminary injunction because the threat is so immediate and damaging. Think of the TRO as a legal fire extinguisher, designed to stop the damage while the broader legal process plays out.

4. Demonstrate irreparable harm.

Perhaps the most critical element of the TRO request is proving “irreparable harm”—meaning damage that can’t be undone by money or later correction. For nonprofits, a disruption like this could lead to permanent damage via loss of funds and donors, affecting their ability to serve vulnerable communities with essential services like food, shelter, and healthcare.

Additionally, time-sensitive initiatives like climate disaster relief or legal aid could suffer irreversible setbacks. A nonprofit may lose key staff and partnerships, weakening future efforts. In the worst case, a nonprofit could be forced to shut down permanently, leaving the community without vital services. If the nonprofit advocates for the rights of others, any disruption could violate those individuals’ rights, amplifying the harm beyond the organization itself.

What If a Nonprofit Lacks Legal Resources?

Not every organization has an in-house legal team or the budget for outside counsel, but that doesn’t mean they’re out of options. There is a wide array of legal resources to help advocacy groups protect their missions in moments of urgent threat. These range from full-scale legal representation to strategic litigation support and public interest counseling, and they’re more accessible than nonprofits might realize.

• Partner with pro bono law firms.

A number of firms take on public interest cases for free or reduced cost, particularly when constitutional rights or government overreach are at stake. These are typically hosted by law schools, legal aid organizations, or public interest law firms, and they specialize in offering free or low-cost legal consultations. While not all clinics handle federal litigation or TRO filings directly, many can help nonprofits understand their legal rights, review Internal Revenue Service (IRS) compliance documentation, and even facilitate referrals to firms with the appropriate expertise. Approach them early, if possible, with a clear outline of the issue.

• Reach out to impact litigation organizations.

Groups like Earthjustice, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Climate Defense Project, and Public Citizen have long histories of taking on urgent legal battles in defense of civil liberties, environmental protections, and democratic norms. They often partner with grassroots organizations to bring cases of national significance to court.

Beyond these national players, many states host their own environmental legal defense groups. These organizations—such as the Western Environmental Law Center, the Environmental Law & Policy Center in the Midwest, or the Conservation Law Foundation in the Northeast—often focus on region-specific threats, but they’re increasingly stepping up to assist in broader legal challenges with national implications. Some state bar associations and nonprofit alliances such as the National Council of Nonprofits also maintain directories of volunteer attorneys who specialize in nonprofit, environmental, or constitutional law. In moments of crisis, localized resources can become crucial allies.

• Join multigroup lawsuits.

Many nonprofits facing a shared threat could file a joint complaint. This not only spreads legal costs and resources but also strengthens the case by demonstrating broad impact across the sector.

A Powerful Pause

It is important to remember that filing a TRO is not a long-term solution; it’s a stop-gap measure, a way to hit pause before irreversible damage is done. But in that pause lies tremendous potential. It can create space for a legal strategy to unfold, for partnerships to form, for public support to grow.

In these moments, time is of the essence. Climate-focused nonprofits that believe they may be targeted should seek legal counsel quickly. Just as importantly, they should not isolate themselves. Collaboration—whether through joint legal action, coordinated messaging, or shared resources—is key to protecting the nonprofit ecosystem.

The path forward is difficult, but not unfamiliar. Facing long odds, the climate movement continues to fight with legal ingenuitycollective action, and unshakable resolve.

For More on This Topic:

Why the Threats Against Nonprofit Tax Status Are Unprecedented

Nonprofits Under Fire: How the IRS Can—and Cannot—Revoke Federal Tax-Exempt Status

The Rise of Climate Change Litigation: A New Form of Accountability