Donald Trump’s recent declaration of unbounded power — “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” — serves as his dismissive response to at least 75 separate lawsuits that have been filed against his administration in federal courts as of February 18, with more inevitably to come.

These cases span a staggering range of constitutional violations. They claim, at the least, that Trump’s actions infringe on the First Amendment, where governmental power has allegedly been wielded to punish political opponents; the Fifth Amendment, where due process rights have been trampled with mass deportations; and the Fourteenth Amendment, as Trump attempts by unilateral decree to eliminate birthright citizenship. His executive overreach includes the unlawful impoundment of funds — whether temporary or permanent — under some 2600 federal programs providing federal support for agriculture, scientific research, international aid, housing, child-care, clean energy, education, and a host of other Congressionally-mandated activities. It also extends to violations of the Spending and Appropriations Clauses, which explicitly place federal funding decisions in Congress’s hands; and the Take Care Clause, which requires the president to uphold the laws rather than willfully rewrite them.

Beyond constitutional breaches, on their face, Trump’s appointees have in addition violated a host of federal statutes that govern executive power. The Administrative Procedure Act, which safeguards the public from arbitrary and capricious agency actions, is at the center of multiple legal challenges. The Civil Service Reform Act, designed to prevent government hiring and firing based on political loyalty, has been trampled as Trump and Musk purge thousands of career officials (and in some cases, scramble to hire them back). Other lawsuits target Trump’s unlawful attacks on the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Affordable Care Act and Public Health Service Act, and the congressional mandates that established and fund the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Some of these cases involve clear and targeted retaliation, such as the firing of career prosecutors at the Department of Justice and FBI agents involved in bringing cases against and securing convictions of more than 1,200 January 6th insurrectionists. Other cases encompass violations that have impacted potentially millions of people, from immigrants stripped of due process to civil servants dismissed without legal cause. Still other cases decry the abuse of the personal data of every single American, as Elon Musk’s so-called (and legally illegitimate) Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has accessed sensitive Treasury Department data on an information system that includes Social Security benefits, federal salaries, and tax records as well the personal information of millions of government workers — in unprecedented breaches of financial privacy laws, among others.

The legal pushback against these violations seek to reverse all of these actions. Some lawsuits also have sought damages against some of the Trump officials in their official capacities. But they have generally not aimed to hold those officials personally responsible for the consequences of their actions.

There is now at least one exception: a case filed against Musk, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others, on February 12, 2025 for Musk’s alleged involved in mass privacy violations through DOGE’s access of confidential personal information at the U.S. Treasury. The lawsuit takes the position that Musk was only acting in his private capacity, without having a legitimate government role. That assessment is likely incorrect. The Trump Administration has formally designated Musk as a White House employee. However, it is the involvement of Musk as an official, not as a private person, which could expose him — and others similarly working under official government titles — to personal liability for wrongful actions. This liability arises under a lesser-known provision of federal law, known as a Bivens Action, derived from a 1971 Supreme Court decision involving Fourth Amendment violations involving unlawful search and seizure.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics established that any federal official who violates constitutional rights under color of law can be sued for monetary damages in cases when no other federal remedy would adequately vindicate a constitutional right, on the principle that “for every wrong, there is a remedy.” As Justice John Harlan explained in a concurring opinion, this is even true when the plaintiffs injured by the constitutional violation may be able to secure “equitable relief,” such as an injunction to stop the conduct. For over half a century, Supreme Court precedent has been clear that those whose rights have been violated have still suffered damages, and those damages can be compensated.

Since Bivens was decided, the Supreme Court has been cautious in expanding the scope of Bivens actions. But even as recently as a 2022 ruling, while the Supreme Court limited Bivens claims in some cases, it nevertheless upheld them in Fourth Amendment cases involving unlawful searches and seizures, Fifth Amendment cases of gender discrimination, and Eighth Amendment cases concerning the treatment of prisoners. These wide-reaching and modern legal precedents suggest that multiple actions undertaken by Trump officials, including those working at DOGE, could plausibly result in personal liability lawsuits. Notably, Bivens-type actions in other matters continue to be filed in the federal courts on a regular basis. And while the Supreme Court has struck some Bivens cases down, others succeed.

Who could be sued in their personal capacity in a Bivens-type case? Not the President, as established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). But presidential immunity does not extend to the “Special Government Employees” at DOGE or other administration officials who knowingly disregarded settled law. If the courts determine that Musk’s DOGE operatives or other administration officials engaged in constitutional violations — particularly in areas like due process, privacy rights, and executive overreach into spending and surveillance — the individual DOGE operatives and other Trump officials could be held personally liable.

Some will argue that these officials, no matter what laws they violate, are shielded by “qualified immunity,” the legal doctrine protecting government officials from civil lawsuits if their actions did not violate “clearly established” rights. For example, in the 2015 case, City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, Justice Samuel Alito found that police officers who forcibly entered the apartment of a mentally ill and violent woman — who then attacked them, provoking them to shoot her — were entitled to “qualified immunity” because even though she was disabled, the woman’s rights were not “clearly established.” (Justice Elena Kagan joined with the majority in this decision).

But the outcome of that decision hardly seems applicable to Musk’s DOGE as it acts outside long-established legal guardrails to violate clearly established rights of public servants and private citizens. Many, and perhaps all of Musk’s operatives at DOGE, have never gone through basic background checks or followed standard chains of accountability before being provided privileged access to classified material and private information held by the government about American citizens. Regardless, they are now “special government employees.” And as “special government employees,” they are acting under “color of law” to violate what are indeed “clearly established rights.” Whatever qualified immunity such officials may have for actions in cases in which their victims’ rights have not been clearly established under existing law, that qualified immunity is not unlimited.

The Supreme Court as an institution has repeatedly held that presidents cannot legislate by decree, cannot override Congress’ power of the purse, and cannot use executive action to violate constitutional rights. Given these longstanding precedents, any of the actions by Trump’s appointees, at DOGE and elsewhere that are undertaken in defiance of settled law and established constitutional principles may leave those involved personally vulnerable.

History shows that presidents have routinely had their executive actions struck down by the courts. Lincoln’s wartime suspension of habeas corpus, Clinton’s labor restrictions on contracts, Bush’s military tribunals at Guantanamo, and Trump’s own first attempt at a Muslim travel ban were all found to exceed executive authority. Most recently, Biden’s effort to cancel student loan debt was blocked by the Supreme Court on the ground that it lacked explicit congressional approval. These cases affirm a fundamental principle: the presidency is powerful, but not absolute. No matter his personal views, Trump and his operatives remain bound by the very Constitution that grants his authority in the first place.

If the courts rule against Trump’s Executive Orders and Musk’s implementation of them through DOGE, those who carried out unlawful actions may find themselves facing significant personal jeopardy. And for the richest man in the world, who holds forth in the Oval Office wearing his black MAGA cap, and for each and every one of his hand-picked assistants, that liability could be enormously costly.

Jonathan M. Winer is a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement.