Trump FIRES Top Military Lawyers - The Army, Navy & Air Force JAGS. This WILL Backfire on Trump!
Glenn Kirschner
Feb 25, 2025
Donald Trump apparently thinks he can fire his way through ethical leadership in the United States armed forces. He is wrong.
This video discusses what all military Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) officers are taught, and why Trump's attempts for fire his way out of ethical legal military leadership will fail.
Transcript
well friends, it looks like Donald Trump
must think he can fire his way out of
ethical military leadership he fired the
Judge Advocate General for the Army for
the Navy for the Air Force here's the
thing Donald Trump doesn't know anything
about the Jag
Corp let's talk about that because
Justice matters
[Music]
hey all Glenn kirschner here so friends you
probably saw the new reporting about
Donald Trump firing the three top
lawyers in the military services what we
call the
tjs T just for the word the the Judge
Advocate General for the Army the Judge
Advocate General for the Navy and the
Judge Advocate General for the Air Force
the top lawyers in the military services
who are there to make sure our military
services our secretary of defense and
our commander-in-chief the president of
the United States are acting
lawfully so of course Donald Trump felt
compelled to get rid of them let's start
start with the new reporting and then
let's talk about why from this old Jags
perspective I was active duty Army Jag
for 6 and a half years as a prosecutor
first in the trial courts handling Court
Marshal cases and then in the appeals
courts handling things like death
penalty and Espionage cases from this
old Jags
perspective Donald Trump's move is a
dramatic miscalculation and we'll talk
about why that is in a minute but let's
start with the new reporting this from
the
hill headline heg SE fired military
lawyers were potential roadblocks to
Trump's
orders and that article
begins defense secretary Pete heg said
Monday that the three fired judge
Advocates General Jags were potential
roadblocks to president Trump's orders
and the hill notes the Jag's job is to
provide independent legal guidance to
senior Military Officers in the Pentagon
and on the battlefields to avoid
potential legal issues with us or
International laws surrounding armed
conflict okay friends so let's talk
about what JAG officers do JAG officers
give legal advice to commanders all the
way way up and down the military chain
from the platoon Commander to the
company Commander to the Battalion
Commander to the division Commander to
the regiment commander and all the way
up to the top of the military leadership
and indeed to the civilian leadership as
well Jags give advice on things like law
of War Rules of Engagement the Geneva
conventions and perhaps most importantly
given where we are in this Lawless
presidential Administration Jags give
advice on what orders constitute lawful
orders and what orders constitute
unlawful
orders you know in the Army alone there
are about 2,000 give or take active duty
JAG officers trying to keep the Army on
you know the straight and narrow when it
comes to acting lawfully not doing
anything that would violate the law
would violate the constitution across
all of the military services there are
about 5,000 active duty JAG officers
give and take in the reserves there are
thousands more Jags these are the folks
who try to keep the military acting in a
way that comports with the law civilian
law military law um the law of war the
Geneva conventions Rules of Engagement
Etc and friends this is perhaps the most
important thing to know about military
JAG officers there is one Bedrock
principle about the rule of law that we
are all taught I was first taught it as
an rooc Cadet when I was in college I
was next taught it in officer basic
training I was taught it again at the
Army's Jag School
after you go to law school you graduate
you pass a bar exam then you enter Army
law school and you learn about military
law before you are posted up for your
first assignment I was taught this
lesson over and over and over again as
is every other Jag officer across all of
the military
services we must obey lawful orders but
even more
importantly we must we must
disobey
unlawful orders that is a Bedrock
principle every Jag knows it the
thousands and thousands of active duty
and Reserve Corp JAG officers and if
Donald Trump thinks he can fire his way
out of ethical Jag leadership across the
military services he is out of his damn
mind and he knows even less about the
military than we suspect he knows we
know how he regards folks who decide to
join the military and serve a cause
bigger than themselves he thinks they're
suckers and losers he says why would
anybody ever do that and he of course is
the original Captain bone
spurs which prevented him from serving
doesn't seem to hamper his golf game at
all
but if he thinks he can fire his way
through the thousands of
Jags until he gets to you know judge
Advocates General that he can appoint
that will support him in the event he
issues
unlawful orders through his secretary of
defense Pete hegf he's got another thing
coming that ain't going to happen at
least not in the estimation of this old
former Jag officer because you know what
I agree and stand with General Millie
when he said we in the military don't
pledge loyalty or fty to a dictator to a
tyrant to an autocrat to a
man we pledge loyalty to the
Constitution and we are Duty bound to
disobey unlawful orders including from a
commanderin-chief from a president
because we all know as Army Jags and Air
Force Jags and navy Jags we all
know that
Justice
matters friends please stay safe please
stay tuned and I look forward to talking
with you all again tomorrow
[Music]
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:43 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 7:25 am
HUD meets TOE: AI-generated clip of Trump sucking Elon Musk's feet blasted across TVs at federal agency
by Juliana Kaplan
Feb 24, 2025, 11:30 AM MT
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-m ... hud-2025-2
• An AI-generated video of Trump sucking Musk's toes was displayed on TVs at the HUD office.
• The video was emblazoned with the text: "LONG LIVE THE REAL KING."
• "Another waste of taxpayer dollars and resources," a HUD spokesperson said about the video.
When some employees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development came into work on Monday morning, they were greeted with an unexpected sight: office TVs showing what appeared to be an AI-generated video of President Donald Trump sucking the toes of Elon Musk underneath the text: "LONG LIVE THE REAL KING."
It's unclear how widely the video was distributed or how long it was displayed. One HUD employee said that by the time they arrived at the building, just before 9 a.m., the video was no longer showing.
"Another waste of taxpayer dollars and resources. Appropriate action will be taken for all involved," a department spokesperson, Kasey Lovett, said in a statement to Business Insider.
The White House and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Two recordings seen by BI seem to show different monitors in the building displaying the video. Officials from the American Federation of Government Employees union said that they had verified the video was shown at the office.
One HUD worker said the video was all the buzz among staffers Monday morning, with coworkers passing along their own accounts of the monitors. That worker said that they hadn't received any official communications about the monitors or video. Footage also quickly made its way to reporters, with several posting the video on X and Bluesky.
Monday was the first day that bargaining unit employees at HUD were to return to the office.
A former HUD worker who was recently terminated as part of probationary-worker cuts said the video was "funny as hell."
"I have been in shock since seeing it," they said, "and immediately shared it with anyone I could."
The video comes as workers across the federal government contend with large-scale terminations of probationary employees. The Associated Press reported Friday that HUD could see sweeping cuts, saying the Trump administration had proposed to halve its workforce.
Over the weekend, the Office of Personnel Management emailed federal workers under the subject line "What did you do last week?" The email asked workers to submit five bullet points on what they had accomplished in the past week. Some federal agencies directed their workers not to respond to the email, while at least one — the Social Security Administration — told workers to reply and treat it as an opportunity to highlight their work.
For now, another HUD worker said, the monitors have been turned off, and people have moved on.
"Everyone was talking about it this morning," the worker said, "and then it's back to business on housing policy."
Are you a federal worker with a story or tip to share? Contact this reporter on Signal at julianakaplan.33 or via email at [email protected].
by Juliana Kaplan
Feb 24, 2025, 11:30 AM MT
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-m ... hud-2025-2
• An AI-generated video of Trump sucking Musk's toes was displayed on TVs at the HUD office.
• The video was emblazoned with the text: "LONG LIVE THE REAL KING."
• "Another waste of taxpayer dollars and resources," a HUD spokesperson said about the video.
When some employees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development came into work on Monday morning, they were greeted with an unexpected sight: office TVs showing what appeared to be an AI-generated video of President Donald Trump sucking the toes of Elon Musk underneath the text: "LONG LIVE THE REAL KING."
It's unclear how widely the video was distributed or how long it was displayed. One HUD employee said that by the time they arrived at the building, just before 9 a.m., the video was no longer showing.
"Another waste of taxpayer dollars and resources. Appropriate action will be taken for all involved," a department spokesperson, Kasey Lovett, said in a statement to Business Insider.
The White House and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Two recordings seen by BI seem to show different monitors in the building displaying the video. Officials from the American Federation of Government Employees union said that they had verified the video was shown at the office.
One HUD worker said the video was all the buzz among staffers Monday morning, with coworkers passing along their own accounts of the monitors. That worker said that they hadn't received any official communications about the monitors or video. Footage also quickly made its way to reporters, with several posting the video on X and Bluesky.
Monday was the first day that bargaining unit employees at HUD were to return to the office.
A former HUD worker who was recently terminated as part of probationary-worker cuts said the video was "funny as hell."
"I have been in shock since seeing it," they said, "and immediately shared it with anyone I could."
The video comes as workers across the federal government contend with large-scale terminations of probationary employees. The Associated Press reported Friday that HUD could see sweeping cuts, saying the Trump administration had proposed to halve its workforce.
Over the weekend, the Office of Personnel Management emailed federal workers under the subject line "What did you do last week?" The email asked workers to submit five bullet points on what they had accomplished in the past week. Some federal agencies directed their workers not to respond to the email, while at least one — the Social Security Administration — told workers to reply and treat it as an opportunity to highlight their work.
For now, another HUD worker said, the monitors have been turned off, and people have moved on.
"Everyone was talking about it this morning," the worker said, "and then it's back to business on housing policy."
Are you a federal worker with a story or tip to share? Contact this reporter on Signal at julianakaplan.33 or via email at [email protected].
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 7:31 am
Vulgar Replies To Musk's Email | Trump's Mystery Bruise | Hooters In Trouble
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Feb 25, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #Monologue
Some federal employees wrote "very rude" replies to the DOGE email that demanded they list five accomplishments, the White House declined to explain why President Trump has a huge bruise on his right hand, and beloved American restaurant chain Hooters is preparing to file for bankruptcy.
Transcript
Welcome to The Late Show I am your host
Steven colar ladies and gentlemen
today today marks uh the fifth week of
Trump's second presidency and it is
clear even at this point even at this
early stage it is clear that he is
hellbent on dismantling our federal
government and ending our 80y yearlong
Western Alliance but on the bright side
these people clearly don't have a clue
what the they're
doing
now
Case Case in this recent Elon Musk email
he sent out on Saturday demanding that
federal employees tell him five things
they did last week or they'd be fired
employees
were that's what they
said employees were not thrilled leading
some to respond with very rude emails
listing fake vulgar accomplishments even
sending links to graphic images of sex
and scatalogical content
now yes good for them now if there's
anyone out there who don't know what
scatological
means that's poop
now this email yeah you didn't know I
could do that got you it was
nice yeah this email created chaos
throughout uh our government some
agencies like the FBI told their
employees just to ignore it others like
the VA demanded that employees respond
at HHS employees were told they could
respond if they wanted to but should
assume that what they write will be read
by malign foreign
actors
what Russell br's going to get
these yesterday yesterday with a
midnight deadline approaching the office
of personnel management told HR leaders
that responding to musk is voluntary
okay there's clear guidance federal
workers don't have to respond except at
the same time Trump was saying this the
last email that was sent where he wanted
to know what you did this week if you
don't answer like you're sort of semi
fired or you're
fired semi fired or you're fired that's
a boss anyone would want to work for
Kristen you're semi fired put half your
stuff in a box and get out of here then
come back after lunch cuz you're a semi-
valued part of this
team so if that's not semi confusing
enough Elon totally unclarified it more
tweeting about the employees subject to
the discretion of the president they
will be given another chance failure to
respond a second time will result in
[Music]
termination sounds like somebody wants
to get a little more SK po
porn at this
point Z up zip up doy Boop watch at this
point how is anybody supposed to know
what to do with all this confusing
information forget running the
government these clowns couldn't get 10
bridesmaids to a painton
sip who could possibly who who on Earth
could possibly spin this pile of
steaming garbage into a pile of steaming
gold that Plum assignment Falls to White
House Press Secretary Caroline
seen here telling you that you're not
trid delt
material levit go hang out with the
kappas Lev released this statement to
the Press everyone is working together
as one unified team that is a unified
team okay boys listen up come on bring
it in remember what we practice okay we
drilled on this get out there and do
literally the first insane thing that
comes here mind okay no bad ideas Hank
you sit on the ball and try to hatch it
like an egg Timmy you knit me a scarf
out of your own hair the rest of you I
don't know I don't care maybe lay on the
grass and act like you're swimming in it
all right surprised me bring it in let's
say the team prayer we dedicate today's
game to Lord arok Duke of chaos May our
Victory be written in the blood of those
he arbitrarily elects to
slay on
three then is that look
I don't care not Colbert
cber this afternoon a reporter asked
Trump to clarify you know once in for
all whether answering the email was
voluntary or mandatory it's somewhat
voluntary but it's also if you don't
answer I guess you get fired that
answer somewhat
stupid Trump went on about the reason
for the email being sent and you know
what he waxed philosophical what it
really is what it is is people exist
yes what it really is the real question
is do people exist because it seems
clear to me I'm the only real person in
the whole world and when I close my eyes
all of you are gone forever just like
just like that ball that rolled behind
the couch that ball that ball won't
respond to my emails either ball you're
semi fired now on the other hand I know
that I exist because I'm hungry you know
chicken nugget
ergosum that's Latin four I think
therefore I
am
yesterday yesterday thank you thank you
lilos
amazing yesterday Donald Trump had an
oval office meeting with French
president Emanuel macron was a high Stak
Summit of these two historic allies who
are now drifting dangerously apart
thanks to to Trump siding with Russia
over Russia's invasion of Ukraine so no
surprise the big headline coming out of
it was massive bruise spoted on Trump's
right hand media do better try to focus
on the global implications
of black and sakur
blue it looks like he's stuffed with d
old
guacamole okay that's that's enough
about the let's talk about the substance
of the meeting they also had a weird
handshake first there was this crazy
attempt at something then there was this
thing where Trump keeps grabbing
macron's leg and macron keeps trying to
shove him off eventually they had to
clear the room when Trump established
dominance by expressing his anal
glands it was a mess it was a mess wow
oh my thank God everything there is
scotch guarded now there was also there
was also a really big moment where Trump
tried to lie about Europe loaning money
to Ukraine rather than granting them the
money and macron was not having it again
just so you understand just so you
understand Europe is loaning the money
to Ukraine they get their money back no
in fact to be to be frank uh we paid we
paid 60% of the total eort and it was
through like the US loans guarantee
grants and we we provided real money to
be clear oh that has
that has some real gently correcting
Grandma energy no mama remember nurse
Maria helps you we found the earrings
you were missing in your nightstand so
so let's let's let's take our hand off
the fire alarm
Okay that meeting you saw there clearly
shows how warped Trump's view of global
Affairs is and now you can celebrate
that view with a brand new product
because a company is now offering a
special globe that features labels for
the USA the Gulf of America Mount
mckinly and nothing
else not only that it comes with a bonus
you won't find in your outdated accurate
Globes because this one has an extra
Great
Lake tucked it up there wow are
there at least that's what it looks like
it might be where they moved the old
Gulf of Mexico we're not sure at this
point if you're planning on buying one
of these keep in mind currently they
only ship within the United States they
would ship to other countries but they
have no way to know where they
are the company offers another product
called the USA patriotic Globe featuring
a massive United States of America that
takes up almost the entire hemisphere
which they boast is a conversation
starter that conversation what a
beautiful home
hey did you know that your Globe is
wrong oh you did know that okay honey
get the coats we're going let's go let's
go
now is this the way is this the way is
this
the at this point I'm sure you're asking
Steve how much money am I allowed to
spend on a super wrong Globe $100
$250 no these Globes could be yours for
just2
$149.99 but in Canadian dollars that's
sorry Canada doesn't
exist now if that sounds expensive to
you it is uh we looked it up on
globo.com the number one glob store
on.com and you can get one for
$64.95 but those are cluttered up with
the names of all those other countries
it's it's so confusing what's a Burundi
again so that's why for only $300
tonight I am proud to offer this
beautiful blue
dodgeball yes from the good people at
Voit this blue dodgeball with America
written on it in white sharpie no messy
confusing land masses here just us on
ball plus anybody that says that looks
stupid you can throw it at their
face it seems than oh you're out you're
out oh you C I'm
out these days it seems like no American
institution is safe because ladies and
gentlemen this weekend we learned that
Hooters is preparing to file for
bankruptcy I don't even recognize my
country anymore Hooters is an American
tradition dating all the way back to
1983 when his Founders set up the first
ever location in Florida here they are
six brilliant Visionaries
seen here the first time any of them saw
a
breast their names Biff Rick other Rick
mustache Jerry mustache Mike and of
course stand the
stash but now thanks to yes thank you
for your service
gentlemen really thanks to inflation and
declining sales we might have to say
farewell to Hooters and instead dine at
the next best body part themed wing
place Buffalo Wild
butts put enough ranch dressing on there
sure that's not the only Bedrock
institution we're losing my friends
because we also just learned that Joanne
Fabrics is officially closing all
remaining Us stores after 82 years no I
I but I I was I was just about to
finish my blanket or or or v-neck Poncho
or or bandana I won't know for sure till
I hot glue the zippers
on this comes after a brief failed
Rebrand when the fabric store relaunched
the chain as Joann's
Hooters we got a great show fee tonight
my guests are Drew Barrymore and
director bong Jun ho but when we come
back meanwhile join us won't you
[Music]
he
[Applause]
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Feb 25, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #Monologue
Some federal employees wrote "very rude" replies to the DOGE email that demanded they list five accomplishments, the White House declined to explain why President Trump has a huge bruise on his right hand, and beloved American restaurant chain Hooters is preparing to file for bankruptcy.
Transcript
Welcome to The Late Show I am your host
Steven colar ladies and gentlemen
today today marks uh the fifth week of
Trump's second presidency and it is
clear even at this point even at this
early stage it is clear that he is
hellbent on dismantling our federal
government and ending our 80y yearlong
Western Alliance but on the bright side
these people clearly don't have a clue
what the they're
doing
now
Case Case in this recent Elon Musk email
he sent out on Saturday demanding that
federal employees tell him five things
they did last week or they'd be fired
employees
were that's what they
said employees were not thrilled leading
some to respond with very rude emails
listing fake vulgar accomplishments even
sending links to graphic images of sex
and scatalogical content
now yes good for them now if there's
anyone out there who don't know what
scatological
means that's poop
now this email yeah you didn't know I
could do that got you it was
nice yeah this email created chaos
throughout uh our government some
agencies like the FBI told their
employees just to ignore it others like
the VA demanded that employees respond
at HHS employees were told they could
respond if they wanted to but should
assume that what they write will be read
by malign foreign
actors
what Russell br's going to get
these yesterday yesterday with a
midnight deadline approaching the office
of personnel management told HR leaders
that responding to musk is voluntary
okay there's clear guidance federal
workers don't have to respond except at
the same time Trump was saying this the
last email that was sent where he wanted
to know what you did this week if you
don't answer like you're sort of semi
fired or you're
fired semi fired or you're fired that's
a boss anyone would want to work for
Kristen you're semi fired put half your
stuff in a box and get out of here then
come back after lunch cuz you're a semi-
valued part of this
team so if that's not semi confusing
enough Elon totally unclarified it more
tweeting about the employees subject to
the discretion of the president they
will be given another chance failure to
respond a second time will result in
[Music]
termination sounds like somebody wants
to get a little more SK po
porn at this
point Z up zip up doy Boop watch at this
point how is anybody supposed to know
what to do with all this confusing
information forget running the
government these clowns couldn't get 10
bridesmaids to a painton
sip who could possibly who who on Earth
could possibly spin this pile of
steaming garbage into a pile of steaming
gold that Plum assignment Falls to White
House Press Secretary Caroline
seen here telling you that you're not
trid delt
material levit go hang out with the
kappas Lev released this statement to
the Press everyone is working together
as one unified team that is a unified
team okay boys listen up come on bring
it in remember what we practice okay we
drilled on this get out there and do
literally the first insane thing that
comes here mind okay no bad ideas Hank
you sit on the ball and try to hatch it
like an egg Timmy you knit me a scarf
out of your own hair the rest of you I
don't know I don't care maybe lay on the
grass and act like you're swimming in it
all right surprised me bring it in let's
say the team prayer we dedicate today's
game to Lord arok Duke of chaos May our
Victory be written in the blood of those
he arbitrarily elects to
slay on
three then is that look
I don't care not Colbert
cber this afternoon a reporter asked
Trump to clarify you know once in for
all whether answering the email was
voluntary or mandatory it's somewhat
voluntary but it's also if you don't
answer I guess you get fired that
answer somewhat
stupid Trump went on about the reason
for the email being sent and you know
what he waxed philosophical what it
really is what it is is people exist
yes what it really is the real question
is do people exist because it seems
clear to me I'm the only real person in
the whole world and when I close my eyes
all of you are gone forever just like
just like that ball that rolled behind
the couch that ball that ball won't
respond to my emails either ball you're
semi fired now on the other hand I know
that I exist because I'm hungry you know
chicken nugget
ergosum that's Latin four I think
therefore I
am
yesterday yesterday thank you thank you
lilos
amazing yesterday Donald Trump had an
oval office meeting with French
president Emanuel macron was a high Stak
Summit of these two historic allies who
are now drifting dangerously apart
thanks to to Trump siding with Russia
over Russia's invasion of Ukraine so no
surprise the big headline coming out of
it was massive bruise spoted on Trump's
right hand media do better try to focus
on the global implications
of black and sakur
blue it looks like he's stuffed with d
old
guacamole okay that's that's enough
about the let's talk about the substance
of the meeting they also had a weird
handshake first there was this crazy
attempt at something then there was this
thing where Trump keeps grabbing
macron's leg and macron keeps trying to
shove him off eventually they had to
clear the room when Trump established
dominance by expressing his anal
glands it was a mess it was a mess wow
oh my thank God everything there is
scotch guarded now there was also there
was also a really big moment where Trump
tried to lie about Europe loaning money
to Ukraine rather than granting them the
money and macron was not having it again
just so you understand just so you
understand Europe is loaning the money
to Ukraine they get their money back no
in fact to be to be frank uh we paid we
paid 60% of the total eort and it was
through like the US loans guarantee
grants and we we provided real money to
be clear oh that has
that has some real gently correcting
Grandma energy no mama remember nurse
Maria helps you we found the earrings
you were missing in your nightstand so
so let's let's let's take our hand off
the fire alarm
Okay that meeting you saw there clearly
shows how warped Trump's view of global
Affairs is and now you can celebrate
that view with a brand new product
because a company is now offering a
special globe that features labels for
the USA the Gulf of America Mount
mckinly and nothing
else not only that it comes with a bonus
you won't find in your outdated accurate
Globes because this one has an extra
Great
Lake tucked it up there wow are
there at least that's what it looks like
it might be where they moved the old
Gulf of Mexico we're not sure at this
point if you're planning on buying one
of these keep in mind currently they
only ship within the United States they
would ship to other countries but they
have no way to know where they
are the company offers another product
called the USA patriotic Globe featuring
a massive United States of America that
takes up almost the entire hemisphere
which they boast is a conversation
starter that conversation what a
beautiful home
hey did you know that your Globe is
wrong oh you did know that okay honey
get the coats we're going let's go let's
go
now is this the way is this the way is
this
the at this point I'm sure you're asking
Steve how much money am I allowed to
spend on a super wrong Globe $100
$250 no these Globes could be yours for
just2
$149.99 but in Canadian dollars that's
sorry Canada doesn't
exist now if that sounds expensive to
you it is uh we looked it up on
globo.com the number one glob store
on.com and you can get one for
$64.95 but those are cluttered up with
the names of all those other countries
it's it's so confusing what's a Burundi
again so that's why for only $300
tonight I am proud to offer this
beautiful blue
dodgeball yes from the good people at
Voit this blue dodgeball with America
written on it in white sharpie no messy
confusing land masses here just us on
ball plus anybody that says that looks
stupid you can throw it at their
face it seems than oh you're out you're
out oh you C I'm
out these days it seems like no American
institution is safe because ladies and
gentlemen this weekend we learned that
Hooters is preparing to file for
bankruptcy I don't even recognize my
country anymore Hooters is an American
tradition dating all the way back to
1983 when his Founders set up the first
ever location in Florida here they are
six brilliant Visionaries
seen here the first time any of them saw
a
breast their names Biff Rick other Rick
mustache Jerry mustache Mike and of
course stand the
stash but now thanks to yes thank you
for your service
gentlemen really thanks to inflation and
declining sales we might have to say
farewell to Hooters and instead dine at
the next best body part themed wing
place Buffalo Wild
butts put enough ranch dressing on there
sure that's not the only Bedrock
institution we're losing my friends
because we also just learned that Joanne
Fabrics is officially closing all
remaining Us stores after 82 years no I
I but I I was I was just about to
finish my blanket or or or v-neck Poncho
or or bandana I won't know for sure till
I hot glue the zippers
on this comes after a brief failed
Rebrand when the fabric store relaunched
the chain as Joann's
Hooters we got a great show fee tonight
my guests are Drew Barrymore and
director bong Jun ho but when we come
back meanwhile join us won't you
[Music]
he
[Applause]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 7:47 am
Major news on Republicans CUTTING healthcare
by Brian Tyler Cohen
February 25, 2025
Transcript
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Some breaking news here. In a wholly heinous, albeit unsurprising development, Republicans in the House have just passed their budget blueprint by a vote of 217 to 215. What this means is that Medicaid and food stamps are virtually assured to be cut so that the Republicans can pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Here's how this process works. The budget instructs the following committees to cut the following amounts: the Energy and Commerce Committee will cut $880 billion over 10 years, which is where Medicaid is funded; the Agriculture Committee will cut $230 billion, which is where food stamps are funded; the Education and Workforce committee will cut $330 billion, which is where student loans are funded. That alone is about $1.5 trillion in cuts.
And I want to be clear: if you are instructing those Committees to make those cuts, then that is a guarantee that Medicaid and Food Stamps will be the victims. The money is not available otherwise. What we've just witnessed is Republicans cutting funding to the last lifeline for 85 million Americans who rely on Medicaid, and 43 million Americans who rely on food stamps.
And look, Republicans are trying to be clever about this. They didn't put the cuts on themselves in the budget, they merely instructed the Committees to make these cuts, so that they can preserve some plausible deniability about what they're doing. Here's Republican Jason Smith for example playing that game on Fox:
[Brian Tyler Cohen] See, they're not cutting food stamps. They're merely ordering the Agriculture committee to cut $230 billion, which you cannot do unless you cut food stamps. They did this to add a layer of protection, so that they can pretend that the thing they're doing is somehow not what they're doing. They didn't want to cut Medicaid in the budget, because then no Republicans would want to vote for it. But instruct the Energy and Commerce Committee to make $880 billion in cuts? Well sure, that's opaque enough that no one will know what it means. Except I'm here to tell you exactly what it means. If you intend to cut $880 billion, that means Medicaid is on the the chopping block. The Republicans might feel fine playing make-believe, but what they're doing is beyond clear. In fact, here's an example of that very double speak from Mike Lawler who represents a very swingy seat in New York.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] See what he did there? He said "no" to cuts to Medicaid, but he knows that Medicaid itself isn't in the bill; it is a directive to the Committee to make cuts which they can only do if Medicaid is slashed. He knows that. He's banking on the notion that you don't. He thinks you're stupid. And then he's going to go back to his purple seat in New York. and pretend that he's not responsible for cutting Medicaid, which he just voted to ensure would get cut.
And just as bad, all of this is intended to offset spending for -- you guessed it -- a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. Again, you can see here that all of these cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, stuff that impacts regular Americans, will occur in order to be able to fund $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the ultra rich.
Here's what I mean. The top 1% will see an average $70,000 decrease in their tax burden. Meanwhile, a middle class family will see an average $1,000 decrease in their tax burden. And working-class Americans? Well, they'll see their tax burden decreased by just a few hundred bucks. If you're a regular American, how do you feel about the crumbs that you would get relative to the giveaway that the top 1% are getting? Do you think it's fair that the most vulnerable Americans lose their last lifeline: Medicaid; food stamps, all so that the ultra Rich can enjoy a tax cut that is at least 70 times more than what you get?
Republicans want to hand you some crumbs in one hand, and expect you to be grateful, all the while taking away critical lifelines for Americans with the other hand, and hope you don't notice. But I can assure you, we are paying attention.
And the most insane part here? All of this is being done in the name of balancing the budget. But there would still be a $2.5 trillion deficit. That means roughly $20 trillion added to the debt over the course of a decade. 20 trillion. In other words, we gut essential programs like food stamps and Medicaid, and we continue exploding the debt, which is the very thing that the Republicans have spent the last month pretending to care about.
And don't take my word for it. Take that of Republican lawmaker Victoria Spartz, who tweeted:
And guess what? She's right. And guess what else? She just voted for it, for the very bill that she herself admitted would explode the deficit and add ungodly amounts to the debt. Because for the umpteenth time, they do not care about fiscal responsibility, and they never have. Not now, not when they added $7.8 trillion to the debt during the first Trump term, that is branding to give coverage to the fact that their sole priority now, then, and forever, is giving rich people tax cuts paid for by shipping programs that the most vulnerable Americans need to survive. But hey, something something pro-life.
And mark my words, they've made a mistake. I'm old enough to remember what happened the last time Republicans stripped Healthcare away from Americans in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires. An 2018, they did the exact same thing: proposing deep cuts to the Affordable Care Act. And guess what happened in the midterm cycle? They lost the House by the largest margin in modern American history, allowing Democrats to flip a staggering 41 seats that cycle. That is the sleeping giant that they've just awoken. And it's already happening. Despite Republicans' best efforts to hide what they're doing, despite Republicans' hopes that Americans are stupid, despite Republicans' best efforts to obfuscate this budget so that their actions aren't so explicit, Americans are clearly smarter than the GOP is giving them credit for.
So my advice to Americans: do not forget this moment, February 25th, 2025. Republicans just fucked with our health care. They fucked with the last lifeline for over a 100 million Americans. They are hoping that you aren't paying attention. Remember this day, so that in November of 2026,they will know exactly why they lost hold of power.
by Brian Tyler Cohen
February 25, 2025
Transcript
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Some breaking news here. In a wholly heinous, albeit unsurprising development, Republicans in the House have just passed their budget blueprint by a vote of 217 to 215. What this means is that Medicaid and food stamps are virtually assured to be cut so that the Republicans can pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Here's how this process works. The budget instructs the following committees to cut the following amounts: the Energy and Commerce Committee will cut $880 billion over 10 years, which is where Medicaid is funded; the Agriculture Committee will cut $230 billion, which is where food stamps are funded; the Education and Workforce committee will cut $330 billion, which is where student loans are funded. That alone is about $1.5 trillion in cuts.
And I want to be clear: if you are instructing those Committees to make those cuts, then that is a guarantee that Medicaid and Food Stamps will be the victims. The money is not available otherwise. What we've just witnessed is Republicans cutting funding to the last lifeline for 85 million Americans who rely on Medicaid, and 43 million Americans who rely on food stamps.
And look, Republicans are trying to be clever about this. They didn't put the cuts on themselves in the budget, they merely instructed the Committees to make these cuts, so that they can preserve some plausible deniability about what they're doing. Here's Republican Jason Smith for example playing that game on Fox:
[ Maria Bartiromo] What do you want to say to those people who are upset about these cuts to the Snap and Nutrition assistance? 230 billion in cuts to Snap and Nutrition assistance.
[Jason Smith] For one, you can't say that it's cuts to Snap. This resolution just says the Ag committee has to cut more than $200 billion. What you have is other people, like the Democrats, going out there, saying you're going to cut Medicaid; you're going to cut benefits. Nowhere, Maria, in the resolution, does it say what the cuts are. It just sets the goal and the target rate of how much we're going to cut.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] See, they're not cutting food stamps. They're merely ordering the Agriculture committee to cut $230 billion, which you cannot do unless you cut food stamps. They did this to add a layer of protection, so that they can pretend that the thing they're doing is somehow not what they're doing. They didn't want to cut Medicaid in the budget, because then no Republicans would want to vote for it. But instruct the Energy and Commerce Committee to make $880 billion in cuts? Well sure, that's opaque enough that no one will know what it means. Except I'm here to tell you exactly what it means. If you intend to cut $880 billion, that means Medicaid is on the the chopping block. The Republicans might feel fine playing make-believe, but what they're doing is beyond clear. In fact, here's an example of that very double speak from Mike Lawler who represents a very swingy seat in New York.
Q. Is Medicaid safe, or is Medicaid going down? Trump, or Johnson? Who's your daddy?
[Mike Lawler] Uh the budget resolution is what is being discussed has to pass in order to get to reconciliation. The final bill, the Reconciliation bill, will be what is negotiated. And there are many of us, myself included, who will not cut Medicaid benefits to our constituents. Period.
[Clapping]
Q. So when that bill comes to the floor, and there's even a dollar in Medicaid cuts, you vote --
[Mike Lawler] Well, we're not cutting Medicaid.
Q. Right, but when that bill comes to the floor, if there is even a dollar Medicaid cuts, you are a "No."
[Mike Lawler] On benefits. If you are eliminating any type of fraud or waste or abuse, that's fine. But benefits to beneficiaries, no.
Q. You understand that Elon and Trump are claiming waste Fraud and Abuse where there is none, so when the bill comes, and there's a dollar to cuts in Medicaid, you're a "No."
[Mike Lawler] I will not cut Medicaid benefits. No.
Q. Right, so you're a "No" if there's even a dollar in cuts to Medicaid. Very good.
Q. Damn, he was doing so good.
Q. Well, cuz you're giving you're giving me politician double-speak, and it's bullshit.
[Mike Lawler] I'm not giving you double-speak. It's way more complicated than you want to make.
Q. It's not complicated.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] See what he did there? He said "no" to cuts to Medicaid, but he knows that Medicaid itself isn't in the bill; it is a directive to the Committee to make cuts which they can only do if Medicaid is slashed. He knows that. He's banking on the notion that you don't. He thinks you're stupid. And then he's going to go back to his purple seat in New York. and pretend that he's not responsible for cutting Medicaid, which he just voted to ensure would get cut.
And just as bad, all of this is intended to offset spending for -- you guessed it -- a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. Again, you can see here that all of these cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, stuff that impacts regular Americans, will occur in order to be able to fund $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the ultra rich.
Here's what I mean. The top 1% will see an average $70,000 decrease in their tax burden. Meanwhile, a middle class family will see an average $1,000 decrease in their tax burden. And working-class Americans? Well, they'll see their tax burden decreased by just a few hundred bucks. If you're a regular American, how do you feel about the crumbs that you would get relative to the giveaway that the top 1% are getting? Do you think it's fair that the most vulnerable Americans lose their last lifeline: Medicaid; food stamps, all so that the ultra Rich can enjoy a tax cut that is at least 70 times more than what you get?
Republicans want to hand you some crumbs in one hand, and expect you to be grateful, all the while taking away critical lifelines for Americans with the other hand, and hope you don't notice. But I can assure you, we are paying attention.
And the most insane part here? All of this is being done in the name of balancing the budget. But there would still be a $2.5 trillion deficit. That means roughly $20 trillion added to the debt over the course of a decade. 20 trillion. In other words, we gut essential programs like food stamps and Medicaid, and we continue exploding the debt, which is the very thing that the Republicans have spent the last month pretending to care about.
And don't take my word for it. Take that of Republican lawmaker Victoria Spartz, who tweeted:
Rep. Victoria Spartz @ RepSpartz
The situation is much worse than it sounds. @RepThomasMassie and @elon musk -- we are going to accumulate $24 trillion of additional debt in 10 years on top of the $36 trillion we already have ... reaching $60 trillion.
And guess what? She's right. And guess what else? She just voted for it, for the very bill that she herself admitted would explode the deficit and add ungodly amounts to the debt. Because for the umpteenth time, they do not care about fiscal responsibility, and they never have. Not now, not when they added $7.8 trillion to the debt during the first Trump term, that is branding to give coverage to the fact that their sole priority now, then, and forever, is giving rich people tax cuts paid for by shipping programs that the most vulnerable Americans need to survive. But hey, something something pro-life.
And mark my words, they've made a mistake. I'm old enough to remember what happened the last time Republicans stripped Healthcare away from Americans in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires. An 2018, they did the exact same thing: proposing deep cuts to the Affordable Care Act. And guess what happened in the midterm cycle? They lost the House by the largest margin in modern American history, allowing Democrats to flip a staggering 41 seats that cycle. That is the sleeping giant that they've just awoken. And it's already happening. Despite Republicans' best efforts to hide what they're doing, despite Republicans' hopes that Americans are stupid, despite Republicans' best efforts to obfuscate this budget so that their actions aren't so explicit, Americans are clearly smarter than the GOP is giving them credit for.
So my advice to Americans: do not forget this moment, February 25th, 2025. Republicans just fucked with our health care. They fucked with the last lifeline for over a 100 million Americans. They are hoping that you aren't paying attention. Remember this day, so that in November of 2026,they will know exactly why they lost hold of power.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:00 pm
Who is Doge's official leader? White House says it's not Musk
by Kayla Epstein
BBC
February 25, 2025
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2erg38vjx8o
On Monday afternoon, a federal judge [Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly] had a simple question for the Trump administration's lawyers: Is tech billionaire Elon Musk the Department of Government Efficiency's administrator?
The agency more popularly known as "Doge" is Musk's brainchild, but the White House insists that he is not its leader - or even employed by it.
Justice department lawyer Bradley Humphreys told the judge that: "I don't have any information beyond he's a close adviser to the president."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on this position at a Tuesday press briefing.
"The president tasked Elon Musk to oversee the Doge effort," she said, but she later added that "career officials" and appointees were helping Musk run Doge, and that people who have "onboarded" as federal employees were working at various agencies.
She declined to provide specific names, but she announced that Musk would attend President Donald Trump's first cabinet secretary meeting alongside the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and other top US political appointees who were vetted and confirmed by the Senate.
The White House later told the BBC that a person named Amy Gleason is the acting administrator. They did not provide additional details about her or when she was appointed.
Ms Gleason declined to comment, CBS News reported.
Musk has been leading an outside effort to aggressively curtail government spending through funding cuts and firings.
"They're playing a game," said Max Stier, president and CEO of the non-partisan Partnership for Public Service, an organisation that has provided past administrations with procedure and ethics guidance.
"If [Musk] were actually the administrator, then this issue about him needing Senate confirmation and his actually having to abide by the conflict of interest laws would be much clearer."
Experts said that Musk has given the impression of being in charge of Doge by staffing the government entity with employees and engineers from his various companies, posting constantly about its work on X, appearing alongside Trump in the Oval Office to promote the cuts it has made to the federal workforce, and representing it on stage at the Conservative Political Action Committee gathering last week while wielding a chainsaw.
"We're in Alice in Wonderland right now," Mr Stier said. "We're through the looking glass."
Trump established Doge by renaming the United States Digital Service -- an agency focused on digital and web infrastructure - to the United States Doge Service via an executive order.
The order establishes Doge's leadership structure, saying that "there shall be a USDS Administrator" that reports up to the White House chief of staff.
It does not name a specific individual for the role. In fact, Musk's name never appears in the executive order, though Trump has credited his work with the team.
Doge's arrival has caused turbulence in the existing US Digital Service ranks. The administration fired several staffers there earlier this month, and the Associated Press reported that 21 employees resigned in protest on Tuesday.
In a letter to management, they alleged Doge employees were creating "significant security risks".
"We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations," their letter stated, according to the AP. "However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments."
BBC News has reviewed the letter but has not been able to verify its contents.
A series of lawsuits challenging Doge have slowed some of the administration's effort to cut the federal workforce, and they have forced the Trump White House to face the question of Musk's status in court.
Until the administration stated that Ms Gleason was the acting administrator late on Tuesday, it gave vague answers about Doge's leadership across multiple lawsuits.
Though she did not rule in the hearing on Monday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly expressed concern about Doge's constitutionality. She noted it might run afoul of the appointment clause of the US Constitution, which sets out nominating procedures for agency leaders.
"It does seem to me if you have people that are not authorised to carry out some of these functions that they're carrying out that does raise an issue," she said.
"I would hope that by now we would know who is the administrator, who is the acting administrator and what authority do they have?"
Experts say that Musk's work does not fit the traditional definition of "special government employee", which has specific rules.
The White House has previously said that Musk "is a special government employee and has abided by all applicable federal laws".
William Resh, a professor who studies the executive branch at the University of Southern California, said typically such employees have been hired as advisers for their relative expertise.
"But they do not hold distinct executive power the way that a Senate-confirmed appointee would, or even a unilateral permanent appointments that a president can make," he said.
While Musk appears to have made several moves regarding the federal workforce largely unencumbered, his recent demand that federal employees list five accomplishments in an email was met with pushback from some Trump-appointed agency leaders.
The directive was walked back as optional at some agencies, over concerns staff could reveal sensitive information and that the order violated federal policies.
Asked whether this showed tension between Doge and Trump's other officials, Leavitt insisted that "everyone is working together as one unified team at the direction of President Trump".
by Kayla Epstein
BBC
February 25, 2025
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2erg38vjx8o
This cabinet meeting photo makes it obvious who is actually in charge. Trump is asleep & Vance doesn't even get a seat at the table.
On Monday afternoon, a federal judge [Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly] had a simple question for the Trump administration's lawyers: Is tech billionaire Elon Musk the Department of Government Efficiency's administrator?
The agency more popularly known as "Doge" is Musk's brainchild, but the White House insists that he is not its leader - or even employed by it.
Justice department lawyer Bradley Humphreys told the judge that: "I don't have any information beyond he's a close adviser to the president."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on this position at a Tuesday press briefing.
"The president tasked Elon Musk to oversee the Doge effort," she said, but she later added that "career officials" and appointees were helping Musk run Doge, and that people who have "onboarded" as federal employees were working at various agencies.
She declined to provide specific names, but she announced that Musk would attend President Donald Trump's first cabinet secretary meeting alongside the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and other top US political appointees who were vetted and confirmed by the Senate.
The White House later told the BBC that a person named Amy Gleason is the acting administrator. They did not provide additional details about her or when she was appointed.
Ms Gleason declined to comment, CBS News reported.
Musk has been leading an outside effort to aggressively curtail government spending through funding cuts and firings.
"They're playing a game," said Max Stier, president and CEO of the non-partisan Partnership for Public Service, an organisation that has provided past administrations with procedure and ethics guidance.
"If [Musk] were actually the administrator, then this issue about him needing Senate confirmation and his actually having to abide by the conflict of interest laws would be much clearer."
Experts said that Musk has given the impression of being in charge of Doge by staffing the government entity with employees and engineers from his various companies, posting constantly about its work on X, appearing alongside Trump in the Oval Office to promote the cuts it has made to the federal workforce, and representing it on stage at the Conservative Political Action Committee gathering last week while wielding a chainsaw.
"We're in Alice in Wonderland right now," Mr Stier said. "We're through the looking glass."
Trump established Doge by renaming the United States Digital Service -- an agency focused on digital and web infrastructure - to the United States Doge Service via an executive order.
The order establishes Doge's leadership structure, saying that "there shall be a USDS Administrator" that reports up to the White House chief of staff.
It does not name a specific individual for the role. In fact, Musk's name never appears in the executive order, though Trump has credited his work with the team.
Doge's arrival has caused turbulence in the existing US Digital Service ranks. The administration fired several staffers there earlier this month, and the Associated Press reported that 21 employees resigned in protest on Tuesday.
In a letter to management, they alleged Doge employees were creating "significant security risks".
"We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations," their letter stated, according to the AP. "However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments."
BBC News has reviewed the letter but has not been able to verify its contents.
A series of lawsuits challenging Doge have slowed some of the administration's effort to cut the federal workforce, and they have forced the Trump White House to face the question of Musk's status in court.
Until the administration stated that Ms Gleason was the acting administrator late on Tuesday, it gave vague answers about Doge's leadership across multiple lawsuits.
Though she did not rule in the hearing on Monday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly expressed concern about Doge's constitutionality. She noted it might run afoul of the appointment clause of the US Constitution, which sets out nominating procedures for agency leaders.
"It does seem to me if you have people that are not authorised to carry out some of these functions that they're carrying out that does raise an issue," she said.
"I would hope that by now we would know who is the administrator, who is the acting administrator and what authority do they have?"
Experts say that Musk's work does not fit the traditional definition of "special government employee", which has specific rules.
The White House has previously said that Musk "is a special government employee and has abided by all applicable federal laws".
William Resh, a professor who studies the executive branch at the University of Southern California, said typically such employees have been hired as advisers for their relative expertise.
"But they do not hold distinct executive power the way that a Senate-confirmed appointee would, or even a unilateral permanent appointments that a president can make," he said.
While Musk appears to have made several moves regarding the federal workforce largely unencumbered, his recent demand that federal employees list five accomplishments in an email was met with pushback from some Trump-appointed agency leaders.
The directive was walked back as optional at some agencies, over concerns staff could reveal sensitive information and that the order violated federal policies.
Asked whether this showed tension between Doge and Trump's other officials, Leavitt insisted that "everyone is working together as one unified team at the direction of President Trump".
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:00 pm
NEW: Judge Issues National Injunction to Block Trump Administration’s Devastating Attempt to Halt Funding For Essential Services
by Democracy Forward
Press Release
February 25, 2025
https://democracyforward.org/updates/ne ... -services/
Preliminary Injunction issued after Democracy Forward filed suit and secured a prior Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE
Washington, DC — Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction of the OMB’s freeze on federal grant disbursements that has put essential services across the nation in jeopardy, in response to a suit filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE.
The motion filed by Democracy Forward sought to continue to block the White House Office of Management and Budget from pausing disbursements from all open agency grants and loans, as revealed in a memo issued January 27, 2025.
In her decision, United States District Judge Loren L. AliKhan said, “Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case… Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members.”
“The preliminary injunction is a tremendous relief for thousands of nonprofit organizations throughout the country that are struggling to continue their vital work in the midst of the chaos and confusion caused by the administration’s attempted federal funding freezes. These organizations have been left to wonder whether they’ll be reimbursed for their vital work, or if they’ll need to shut down essential programs. OMB’s reckless federal funding freeze would cause catastrophic and irreversible harm to nonprofits and the communities and people they serve. This preliminary injunction allows such nonprofits to continue with their important work of providing wildfire mitigation, disaster relief, services to survivors of domestic violence, support for our nation’s veterans, and so much more.” said Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits.
“The continued disbursement of these federal agency grants, previously authorized and funded by Congress, is imperative to the health of the nation,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association. “Today’s ruling is a major victory for the public’s health and the essential health services delivered by governmental and nongovernmental agencies.”
“We’ve been with small business owners on Capitol Hill all day today and a common refrain is the extent to which these freezes not only impact small business operations but also entire communities. This decision shows that organizing and targeted legal action are some of the most impactful ways to hold the Administration accountable for errant decision making that touches Main Street,” said Richard Trent, Main Street Alliance Executive Director.
“We are very pleased with the results of the preliminary injunction hearing,” said Michael Adams, SAGE CEO. “The suspension of the proposed federal funding freeze for the duration of our lawsuit allows SAGE to continue our mission to uplift and advocate for LGBTQ+ elders across the country. While we recognize this fight is far from over, we celebrate today’s important victory for our community’s elders, older Americans in general, and people who rely on essential government-funded services all across the country.”
“The Trump administration’s OMB grant freeze memo plunged people and communities across the country into chaos and uncertainty as they waited to see if critical programs would continue –from childcare, to eldercare, to food services, to health programs, to community initiatives,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “This preliminary injunction will allow our clients to continue to provide services to people across this country. We are pleased that the court issued this ruling, halting the Trump administration’s lawless attempt to harm everyday Americans in service of a political goal.”
Within hours of the OMB memo, plaintiffs filed suit and sought a Temporary Restraining Order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In response to the case, the Court issued an administrative stay, in one of the earliest moves to halt the Trump administration’s harmful policies. On January 29, the Administration purported to rescind its memo, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt citing the litigation as the administration’s reason. On February 3, a judge granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.
– # # # –
Democracy Forward is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit http://www.democracyforward.org.
************************
https://democracyforward.org/wp-content ... -et-al.pdf
by Democracy Forward
Press Release
February 25, 2025
https://democracyforward.org/updates/ne ... -services/
Preliminary Injunction issued after Democracy Forward filed suit and secured a prior Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE
Washington, DC — Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction of the OMB’s freeze on federal grant disbursements that has put essential services across the nation in jeopardy, in response to a suit filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE.
The motion filed by Democracy Forward sought to continue to block the White House Office of Management and Budget from pausing disbursements from all open agency grants and loans, as revealed in a memo issued January 27, 2025.
In her decision, United States District Judge Loren L. AliKhan said, “Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case… Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members.”
“The preliminary injunction is a tremendous relief for thousands of nonprofit organizations throughout the country that are struggling to continue their vital work in the midst of the chaos and confusion caused by the administration’s attempted federal funding freezes. These organizations have been left to wonder whether they’ll be reimbursed for their vital work, or if they’ll need to shut down essential programs. OMB’s reckless federal funding freeze would cause catastrophic and irreversible harm to nonprofits and the communities and people they serve. This preliminary injunction allows such nonprofits to continue with their important work of providing wildfire mitigation, disaster relief, services to survivors of domestic violence, support for our nation’s veterans, and so much more.” said Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits.
“The continued disbursement of these federal agency grants, previously authorized and funded by Congress, is imperative to the health of the nation,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association. “Today’s ruling is a major victory for the public’s health and the essential health services delivered by governmental and nongovernmental agencies.”
“We’ve been with small business owners on Capitol Hill all day today and a common refrain is the extent to which these freezes not only impact small business operations but also entire communities. This decision shows that organizing and targeted legal action are some of the most impactful ways to hold the Administration accountable for errant decision making that touches Main Street,” said Richard Trent, Main Street Alliance Executive Director.
“We are very pleased with the results of the preliminary injunction hearing,” said Michael Adams, SAGE CEO. “The suspension of the proposed federal funding freeze for the duration of our lawsuit allows SAGE to continue our mission to uplift and advocate for LGBTQ+ elders across the country. While we recognize this fight is far from over, we celebrate today’s important victory for our community’s elders, older Americans in general, and people who rely on essential government-funded services all across the country.”
“The Trump administration’s OMB grant freeze memo plunged people and communities across the country into chaos and uncertainty as they waited to see if critical programs would continue –from childcare, to eldercare, to food services, to health programs, to community initiatives,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “This preliminary injunction will allow our clients to continue to provide services to people across this country. We are pleased that the court issued this ruling, halting the Trump administration’s lawless attempt to harm everyday Americans in service of a political goal.”
Within hours of the OMB memo, plaintiffs filed suit and sought a Temporary Restraining Order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In response to the case, the Court issued an administrative stay, in one of the earliest moves to halt the Trump administration’s harmful policies. On January 29, the Administration purported to rescind its memo, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt citing the litigation as the administration’s reason. On February 3, a judge granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.
– # # # –
Democracy Forward is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit http://www.democracyforward.org.
************************
https://democracyforward.org/wp-content ... -et-al.pdf
Highlights:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that “even a temporary pause in funding to their members . . . would destroy their ability to provide [critical] services.” … Many, if not all, of Plaintiffs’ members “need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.” … Some have employees who “live paycheck to paycheck, meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent.” … Others had begun to feel the effects of the freeze even before it was supposed to go into effect: one tribal organization was forced to preemptively lay off two employees on January 28. … Plaintiffs also demonstrated constitutional injury because “Defendants [allegedly] singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.”….
Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case. The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction. In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members….
Rescinding the OMB Pause Memorandum did not moot the case because Defendants could not—and still cannot—show that they will not “resume the challenged activity.” As the court previously observed, the White House Press Secretary appeared to completely contradict the act of rescission by expressly stating that it was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” … By any reading of the Press Secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture. At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course. See Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128 (explaining that the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies with greater force when a party is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute” … Because Plaintiffs’ members were still being frozen out of their funding in the wake of the purported “rescission,” … “it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without . . . ceasing the challenged conduct.”…
Defendants blithely suggest that if they were to revive or reissue the OMB Pause Memorandum at some future point in time, Plaintiffs could simply “file another motion for preliminary relief.” … This proposal completely disregards the mountain of evidence Plaintiffs presented showing that even the threat of a funding freeze was enough to send countless organizations into complete disarray. Hours before the original pause was scheduled to start, organizations were already laying off staff or shuttering programs. … In some cases, this was anticipatory; in others, it was because organizations were already being frozen out of funding portals. … Defendants’ assumption that Plaintiffs can easily rush back before the court for injunctive relief before catastrophe ensues is, quite simply, divorced from reality and the record. Indeed, while turning off funding streams appears to have been alarmingly easy, turning them back on has proven much more difficult…. it took three days to receive funding after entry of the TRO)…
the government is normally entitled to a presumption of good faith on voluntary cessation….But the court will not confer that presumption when the government says one thing while expressly doing another….And it will not reward parties who change appearances without changing conduct….
Under the most generous viewing of the case’s chronology, agencies had maybe four hours (but probably fewer) to actualize the OMB Guidance Document….despite the guidance’s attempt to carve out “program[s] that provide[] direct benefits to individuals,” …The guidance also exempted “[f]unds for small businesses” and “Head Start” payments, … but those fell victim to the freeze, too…Defendants cannot rely on the OMB Guidance Document as a saving grace when it had virtually no effect on the ground….
The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.”… Evaluating funding priorities can be done without needing to starve citizens or deny critical health services….The potential $3 trillion in financial assistance implicated by the freeze is a “breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight.”… “[r]ather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.”… Doing so was not—and could never be—rational, especially when the decision was made without grappling with its catastrophic effects or the logistical nightmare of its implementation….
When an agency suddenly changes course, it must recognize “that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.”…
In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable…. “[ i]t is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them.”). Either way, Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim….
Plaintiffs’ second claim argues that Defendants dramatically overstepped the bounds of their legal authority in ordering a nationwide funding freeze. Agencies “are creatures of statute” and are therefore subject to the limits prescribed by Congress….they “‘literally ha[ve] no power to act’ except to the extent Congress [has] authorized.”…
When an agency seeks to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the “sheer scope of [an agency]’s claimed authority” can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny….
“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” the court “typically greet[s] its announcement with a measure of skepticism.”… Defendants attempted to freeze as much as $3 trillion dollars—the sum total of “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” …That is “no everyday exercise of federal power.”…
The scope of power OMB seeks to claim is “breathtaking,” and its ramifications are massive… there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power …
Plaintiffs’ third claim alleges that Defendants are “threaten[ing] [the] continued receipt of federal financial assistance based explicitly on [the recipients’] exercise of their core First Amendment rights of speech and association.”… Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,”… or “assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas,”…
What is less clear, however, is whether the government may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints….‘Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid.’”… But that calculus could change if individuals or organizations have already been awarded certain funds and grants—as is the case with Plaintiffs’ members here. If Defendants were to unfreeze promised funds only to organizations expressing one view, but not to organizations expressing the opposite view, that could raise First Amendment concerns….
The Supreme Court has held that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech[,] even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.”… the government cannot “leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the [funding] program itself.”… when the government exerts First Amendment pressures that have nothing to do with the actual financial assistance program, that can be a constitutional violation….
The OMB Pause Memorandum made several policy statements that are hostile to concepts like “Marxist equity,” “transgenderism,” and “woke gender ideology.” … It also instructed federal agencies to pause all disbursements that could be connected to these ill-defined categories. There is no indication that expressing viewpoints on these issues (or being associated with them at all) is in any way tied to the “contours of the [funding] program[s] [themselves].”…
The government “may not ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” or “manipulate[]” a subsidy “to have a coercive effect.”… By appearing to target specific recipients because they associate with certain ideas, Defendants may be crossing a constitutional line….
The fact that organizations have been able to draw down funds in the immediate aftermath of the court’s TRO means nothing if the spigot is shut off again. The injunctive relief that Defendants fought so hard to deny is the only thing in this case holding potentially catastrophic harm at bay. The court’s previous order may have bought Plaintiffs a few additional weeks of funding, but they remain just as vulnerable as they were in the first week of February. A single disbursement does not protect a recipient when the next disbursement is equally as vital. …
“Plaintiffs paint[ed] a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze.”… Nonprofits and organizations across the country were left adrift as they scrambled to make sense of the memorandum and its effects…. Entire funding portals were taken offline with no rhyme or reason, generating significant confusion and fear….Many organizations had to resort to desperate measures just to stay operational. The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly, and everyone in between in serious jeopardy. Because the public’s interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here….
Amicus American Center for Law and Justice echoes Defendants’ mootness argument, claiming that “none of [Plaintiffs’] desired terms of the Prayer for Relief can be implemented [because] there is no OMB Memo that can be enjoined, restrained, or vacated.”…
If Amicus were correct, a government agency could order illegal activity, retract that order in name only while continuing to implement its substance, and escape legal liability. The court refuses to ratify such behavior….
Both Defendants and Amicus argue that “[t]emporary funding pauses are not an unusual exercise of executive authority.”… For support, they rely on President Biden’s pause of funding to the southern border wall … and President Obama’s thirty-day delay of Recovery Act funds,…
The court is unpersuaded that targeted pauses of funding for specific projects through an executive order are at all comparable OMB’s nationwide suspension of all federal financial assistance. Again, the court disagrees with Defendants’ and Amicus’s characterization of the pause in this case as “targeted” and “discrete” when the language of the memorandum applied to the “disbursement of all Federal funds under all open awards.”…
Defendants repeatedly reference the memorandum’s limitation that agencies only act “to the extent permissible under applicable law,”… But this does not save them. First, the incantation of magic language cannot justify otherwise-illegal action. Plaintiffs’ entire complaint alleges that Defendants’ instruction was unlawful to begin with. Second, even assuming that this language applies does not change the arbitrary-and-capricious analysis. Just because an agency can do something does not make it rational to do so.
-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA). MEMORANDUM OPINION
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:41 pm
Part 1 of 2
https://democracyforward.org/wp-content ... -et-al.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 3, 2025, the court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting Defendants Russell Vought1 and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) (collectively, “Defendants”) from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name OMB memorandum M-25-13 freezing all federal financial assistance under open awards. ECF No. 30, at 29-30. The court found good cause to extend the TRO under Rule 65(b)(2) on February 6, 2025. Feb. 6, 2025 Minute Order. Plaintiffs, several coalitions of nonprofit organizations, have moved for a preliminary injunction granting similar relief as the TRO. ECF No. 40. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, ECF Nos. 40, 47, 49, an amicus brief from the American Center for Law and Justice, ECF No. 48, the oral argument held on February 20, 2025, Feb. 20, 2025 Minute Entry, and for the reasons explained below, the court will enter a preliminary injunction.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
While most of the following factual background and procedural history was explained in the court’s opinion granting the TRO, ECF No. 30, the court recounts the details here for completeness and adds developments since the court’s February 3, 2025 hearing, TRO Hr’g, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025).
A. Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-25-13
On January 27, 2025, Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director of OMB, issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to “complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders.” Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs (Jan. 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/69QB-VFG8 (“OMB Pause Memorandum,” or “M-25-13”), at 2. The memorandum stated that, “[ i]n the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” Id. Additionally, the memorandum directed that “[e]ach agency must pause: (i) issuance of new awards; (ii) disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; and (iii) other relevant agency actions that may be implicated by the executive orders, to the extent permissible by law.” Id.
The memorandum defined “Federal financial assistance” as: “(i) all forms of assistance listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of this term at 2 [C.F.R. §] 200.1; and (ii) assistance received or administered by recipients or subrecipients of any type except for assistance received directly by individuals.” Id. ¶ 17. This includes all federal assistance in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance. Id. ¶ 18; see 2 C.F.R. § 200.1.2 As relevant executive orders, it listed:
• Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025); • Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth
• to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025); and • Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025).
• OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1-2.
The memorandum stated that “[t]he temporary pause [would] become effective on January 28, 2025 at 5:00 PM.” Id. at 2. During the pause, agencies were directed to “submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects[,] or activities subject to [the] pause” on or before February 10, 2025. Id. at 2.
B. Complaint, Emergency Hearing, and Administrative Stay
Shortly after noon on January 28, Plaintiffs brought this suit against OMB and Acting Director Vaeth arguing that OMB’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the implicated federal grants and funding “are the lifeblood of operations and programs for many . . . nonprofits, and [that] even a short pause in funding . . . could deprive people and communities of their life-saving services.” Id. ¶ 32. They argued that Defendants’ action was arbitrary and capricious, violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and exceeded OMB’s statutory authority. Id. ¶¶ 43-61.
Along with their complaint, Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order “barring the OMB and all of its officers, employees, and agents from taking any steps to implement, apply, or enforce Memo M-25-13.” ECF No. 5, at 18. Defendants entered an appearance, ECF No. 9, and the court held an emergency hearing at 4:00 p.m. on January 28 to discern the parties’ positions with respect to the issuance of a brief administrative stay pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, Jan. 28, 2025 Minute Entry.
Given the extreme time constraints of the litigation and the magnitude of the legal issues, the court entered a brief administrative stay to permit the parties to fully brief the TRO motion and “buy[] the court time to deliberate.”3 ECF No. 13, at 3 (quoting United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring)). The administrative stay was limited in scope and only prohibited Defendants “from implementing OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards” until 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 4-5. The court also set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ TRO motion for 11:00 a.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 5.
C. Rescission of Memorandum M-25-13 and Aftermath
On January 29, the day after the court entered its administrative stay, OMB issued a new memorandum (“M-25-14”) that purported to rescind M-25-13. See ECF Nos. 18, 18-1. The new memorandum consisted of two sentences: “OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded. If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.” ECF No. 18-1.
Shortly after this “rescission” was issued, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced from her official social media account that the new memorandum was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Instead, she stated that “[ c i]t [was] simply a rescission of [OMB memorandum M-25-13].” Id. She further explained that the purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. The entire post may be viewed below:
Id.4
D. Temporary Restraining Order Phase
On January 30, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion and concurrently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 20, 21. Both motions were fully briefed by February 1. ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26.
On the morning of February 3, 2025, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Feb. 3, 2025 Minute Entry. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court explained that it was inclined to grant a TRO and deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Tr. of TRO Hr’g, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, at 58:17-59:15, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). Pursuant to the court’s request, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed TRO order shortly after the hearing concluded, and Defendants responded to the proposed order by mid-afternoon.
Before the administrative stay expired at 5:00 p.m., the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 30. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ motion, that the case was not moot following the purported “rescission” of the OMB Pause Memorandum, and that Plaintiffs had met the heavy burden of showing that they were entitled to a temporary restraining order. Id. at 6-29. Specifically, the court found that Plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on their arbitrary and capricious claim because “Defendants . . . offered no rational explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance—with less than twenty-four-hours’ notice—to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.’” Id. at 23 (quoting OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1).5 The court further determined that Plaintiffs had produced evidence that they would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief because “the funding freeze threaten[ed] the lifeline that keeps countless organizations operational.” Id. at 28. Finally, the court concluded that the “nationwide panic” and widespread chaos caused by the impending freeze tipped the public interest heavily in favor of a temporary restraining order. Id. at 28-29.
The order prohibited Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” ECF No. 30, at 29. Pursuant to the order, Defendants sent written notice “to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed” informing them of the temporary restraining order later that evening. ECF No. 39, at 1.
On February 6, the court set an expedited preliminary injunction briefing schedule and ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on February 20 at 11:00 a.m. Feb. 6, 2025 Minute Order. The court also extended the TRO for good cause until it could resolve Plaintiffs’ forthcoming preliminary injunction motion. Id.
E. Preliminary Injunction Phase
On February 11, Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 40. Defendants filed their opposition on February 15, ECF No. 47, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on February 18, ECF No. 49.6
Some of Plaintiffs’ members submitted new declarations explaining that they have been able to access their previously allocated federal funds since the court’s entry of the TRO. See ECF Nos. 40-1 ¶ 3; 40-2 ¶ 6; 40-3 ¶ 4. Those declarants still maintain, however, that any additional pause in funding will have catastrophic or fatal consequences for their organizations. See ECF Nos. 40-1 ¶¶ 4-5; 40-2 ¶¶ 7-8; 40-3 ¶ 5.
On the morning of February 20, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Feb. 20, 2025 Minute Entry.
F. Parallel Litigation in the District of Rhode Island
On the same day Plaintiffs filed this suit, and several hours before memorandum M-25-13’s pause was to go into effect, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and sought a TRO to halt implementation of the memorandum. See Compl., New York v. Trump, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), ECF No. 1.
The district court held a hearing on January 29 at 3:00 p.m., after OMB had “rescinded” memorandum M-25-13. The court granted the States’ request and issued a TRO on January 31, 2025. TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50. The restraining order prohibited the defendants (President Trump, OMB, and eleven federal agencies) from “paus[ing], freez[ing], imped[ing], block[ing], cancel[ing], or terminat[ing] [their] compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the [plaintiff] States.” Id. at 11. The order also prohibited the defendants “from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the [OMB memorandum M-25-13] under any other name or title, . . . such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.” Id. at 12. Finally, the court directed the States to file their forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction expeditiously. Id. at 11.
On the morning of February 3, the defendants filed a notice of compliance with the District of Rhode Island’s TRO. Notice of Compliance with Court’s TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025), ECF No. 51. In it, the defendants explained that they had provided written notice to all defendant agencies on January 31 to inform them of the TRO and instruct them to comply with its restrictions. Id. ¶ 1. The defendants also notified the court that they believed certain terms of the TRO “constitute[d] significant intrusions on the Executive Branch’s lawful authorities and the separation of powers.” Id. ¶ 2.
The court subsequently set a briefing schedule on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Text Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025). On February 6, the court held a status conference and extended the duration of its TRO until it could rule on the preliminary injunction motion. Text Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 6, 2025). The next day, the States filed an emergency motion to enforce the TRO, citing evidence that they “continue[d] to be denied access to federal funds.” Mot. for Enforcement of the TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 7, 2025), ECF No. 66. The defendants opposed, arguing that their actions “d[id] not run afoul of the Court’s injunction, or at least not a ‘clear and unambiguous command’ in the Court’s injunction.” Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enforce TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 9, 2025), ECF No. 70. On February 10, the court granted the States’ motion and ordered the defendants to “immediately restore frozen funding,” “end any federal funding pause,” and “take every step necessary to effectuate the TRO” during its pendency. Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025), ECF No. 96.
Even though the court had not ruled on the still-pending motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants appealed later that day. Notice of Appeal, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025), ECF No. 98. They sought (1) review of the district court’s TRO order and enforcement orders, and (2) an administrative stay of the district court’s rulings pending the appeal. Emergency Mot. for Immediate Administrative Stay, New York v. Trump, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 10, 2025). The First Circuit assumed that it had jurisdiction over the appeal and unanimously denied the request for an administrative stay without prejudice. Order, New York, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 2025). It expressed uncertainty as to whether such an administrative stay could issue and noted that “the defendants d[id] not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they w[ould] face without their requested administrative stay.” Id. The appellate court did not address the merits of the appeal. Id. The defendants then moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, Mot. to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, New York, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025), which the court granted on February 13. Judgment, New York, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025).
On February 21, the District of Rhode Island held a preliminary injunction hearing. The court took the States’ motion under advisement but “reiterate[d] that the previously entered TRO [remained] in full force and effect.” Minute Entry, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 21, 2025). Litigation remains ongoing.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
The factual situation has shifted somewhat since the court entered its TRO, and Defendants again press their jurisdictional arguments. While the initial funding freeze has begun to thaw, the court concludes that it still retains jurisdiction.
1. Standing
As an initial matter, there is no question that Plaintiffs had standing when they initially brought their complaint. ECF No. 30, at 6-13; see Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship & Immgr. Servs., 168 F. Supp. 3d 50, 65 (D.D.C. 2016) (explaining that standing “is concerned with the presence of injury, causation, and redressability at the time a complaint is filed”). As the court explained in its TRO opinion, Plaintiffs had satisfied each of the three standing requirements: (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact; (2) a causal connection linking the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) a likelihood that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. ECF No. 30, at 6-7 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). While that alone is sufficient to confer standing, the court pauses to note that standing persists.
a. Injury in fact
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that “even a temporary pause in funding to their members . . . would destroy their ability to provide [critical] services.” ECF No. 30, at 7; see ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 33-34, 36-40. Many, if not all, of Plaintiffs’ members “need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.” ECF No. 30, at 8; see, e.g., ECF No. 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. Some have employees who “live paycheck to paycheck, meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent.” ECF No. 30, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted); see ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7. Others had begun to feel the effects of the freeze even before it was supposed to go into effect: one tribal organization was forced to preemptively lay off two employees on January 28. ECF No. 30, at 9; see ECF No. 24-5 ¶ 13. Plaintiffs also demonstrated constitutional injury because “Defendants [allegedly] singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.” ECF No. 30, at 8.
Defendants now try to frame the issue as one of Plaintiffs’ “standing to seek prospective relief.” ECF No. 47, at 11. The court reminds Defendants that the injunctive relief currently in place was issued to temporarily stave off imminent, irreparable harm. Facts have certainly evolved since then, see infra Part II.A.2, but Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case. The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction. In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members. That is sufficient to show an injury-in-fact.
b. Causation
The court previously rejected Defendants’ attempts to break the causal chain between the funding freeze and the OMB Pause Memorandum. ECF No. 30, at 9-12. Plaintiffs convincingly demonstrated that the memorandum—not some other cause—triggered the shutting down of federal funding portals and the suspension of assistance payments. Id. While Defendants have tried to attribute the pauses to individual agency discretion, those pauses did not occur until after the memorandum was issued.
In opposing the TRO, Defendants cited two cases, ECF No. 21-1, at 10-11, but the court was not persuaded then, and it remains unpersuaded. The first featured an executive order that “d[id] not require any action from federal agencies.” Louisiana ex rel. Landry v. Biden, 64 F.4th 674, 681 (5th Cir. 2023). Instead, the order allowed agencies to individually determine whether the guidance applied to their activities. Id. For that reason, causation in Louisiana “hinge[d] on the independent choices of [a] regulated third party” and was not traceable to the defendant. Center for Law & Educ. v. Dep’t of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Nat’l Wrestling Coaches Ass’n v. Dep’t of Educ., 366 F.3d 930, 938 (D.C. Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (en banc)). In contrast, the OMB Pause Memorandum was a clear command. It emphatically stated that all federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. That was a directive, not a suggestion. Just two paragraphs later, it reiterated that agencies “must pause . . . disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” Id. And in the penultimate paragraph, it stated that “OMB may grant exceptions allowing Federal agencies to issue new awards or take other actions on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (emphasis added). On its face, the memorandum does not read like a guidance that leaves funding decisions solely in the hands of independent, third-party agencies.
The second case, on which Defendants no longer rely, was also inapposite. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020), the plaintiffs sought to change the way elections officials were listing gubernatorial candidates, but they had sued a government actor with no actual control over those officials. Id. at 1253. The elections officials were answerable only to voters, not the defendant. Id. Here, however, Defendants try to build their case on the exact opposite premise: that OMB does exercise control over federal financial policies. See ECF No. 21-1, at 16-20. Both Louisiana and Jacobson are therefore inapplicable.
Further undermining Defendants’ position, federal agencies clearly behaved as if the memorandum caused the freeze. In the immediate aftermath of the court’s administrative stay on January 28, the Environmental Protection Agency continued to pause funding disbursements explicitly based on the memorandum. See ECF No. 24-1, at 7 (explaining that the agency was still “working diligently to implement [OMB]’s memorandum” and was therefore “temporarily pausing all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of EPA Federal financial assistance” and working closely “with OMB” to do so).
Undeterred, Defendants vigorously challenge causation again at the preliminary-injunction stage. They start by rehashing the independent-agency theory, claiming that the memorandum “did not itself temporarily pause any federal financial assistance.” ECF No. 47, at 13. For that to be true, Defendants would have the court believe that countless federal agencies, none of which had acted to cut off financial assistance before January 28, suddenly began exercising their own discretion to suspend funding across the board at the exact same time. That would be a remarkable—and unfathomable—coincidence. That this uniform freeze occurred just hours after the memorandum’s issuance would be quite the happenstance, too. Indeed, the record belies Defendants’ assertions. It reflects that after OMB issued its memorandum on January 27, agencies immediately began freezing funds, and after this court entered its TRO, some of those funds were released. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 40-3 ¶ 4 (organization able to draw down funds on February 4, one day after entry of the TRO); 40-1 ¶ 3 (organization able to draw down funds on February 5, two days after entry of the TRO); 40-2 ¶ 6 (organization received funds on February 6, three days after entry of the TRO).
Defendants try to downplay the fact that the freeze began to thaw after the court entered its TRO. They claim that this “could equally be because such funds were not intended to be paused under the OMB Memo and OMB Guidance, or because of a broader court order entered by the district court in Rhode Island.” ECF No. 47, at 13. But this argument requires the exact same coincidental assumptions as above, just in reverse. And it contradicts the record, which indicates that agencies explicitly relied on the memorandum when responding to funding inquiries. See ECF No. 24-1, at 7. Adopting Defendants’ view would require reading the memorandum differently than how it was written. Its directive was broad and mandatory, and that is exactly how the agencies interpreted it. See infra Part II.A.2.a.
Defendants also argue that the memorandum “d[id] not determine which funds or grants should be paused” and instead “require[d] that agencies make that determination, consistent with their own authorities.” ECF No. 47, at 13. In a manner of speaking, Defendants are right that the memorandum did not identify specific funds to be paused. Instead, it simply paused them all. OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. Defendants cannot show that this directive left any room for agency discretion, especially on the nearly nonexistent timetable it provided. Agencies were not given an option on whether to continue honoring their payment obligations; they simply had to stop. And even if the agencies thought they had discretion to act, they were given roughly half a day to evaluate up to $3 trillion in grants, loans, and other programs. That is not discretion.
When Plaintiffs filed suit, they alleged that Defendants had illegally ordered all federal agencies to suspend payments on open awards. Plaintiffs provided evidence that those agencies only started freezing funds after the memorandum was issued and—in some cases—expressly relied on the memorandum to do so. Within days of this court’s TRO (and Defendants’ written notice to all federal agencies), payments began to resume. Defendants ask the court to overlook the simplest, most logical explanation for that sequence of events. The court declines to do so.
c. Redressability
Redressability is closely related to causation, and Plaintiffs have satisfied it. Defendants claim that “[Plaintiffs’] funding is not administered by OMB” and that an injunction against it “would not give [them] legally enforceable protection from the allegedly imminent harm.” ECF No. 47, at 14 (quoting Haalend v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 293 (2023)).
But Plaintiffs seek an injunction barring Defendants from directing agencies to freeze federal funding nationwide in a blanket fashion. Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025). As the court previously explained, a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor would force agencies “to behave as if the memorandum were never issued.” ECF No. 30, at 13. Any pauses premised on the memorandum would cease, thus granting Plaintiffs significant relief. Whether individual agencies later exercise their individual discretion to stop funding on another basis does not defeat redressability as it pertains to the OMB Pause Memorandum.
2. Mootness
Mootness, sometimes defined as “standing set in a time frame,” asks whether a case continues to present a live controversy as it progresses. U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (quoting Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)). As the court explained in its earlier opinion, despite the purported “recission” of the OMB Pause Memorandum, the case was not moot at the time the court entered its TRO. ECF No. 30, at 13-19. While Defendants continue to argue mootness in light of recent factual developments, the court’s previous analysis still applies today.
a. Rescission of the memorandum
Defendants begin by again relying on the rescission of the OMB Pause Memorandum, which occurred on January 29. ECF No. 47, at 8. That “rescission,” however, had already taken place when Defendants last made this same argument. The court rejected the claim then, and it rejects the claim now.
First, the doctrine of voluntary cessation still applies. A party’s decision to stop “a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine [its] legality.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). This doctrine exists to protect plaintiffs and prevent a defendant from “return[ing] to [its] old ways” as soon as a case gets dismissed. Id. (quoting City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289). To overcome it, a defendant must meet a heavy burden: it must show that it is “absolutely clear [that] the allegedly wrongful behavior [cannot] reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (emphasis added) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189).
Rescinding the OMB Pause Memorandum did not moot the case because Defendants could not—and still cannot—show that they will not “resume the challenged activity.” Id. As the court previously observed, the White House Press Secretary appeared to completely contradict the act of rescission by expressly stating that it was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. By any reading of the Press Secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture. At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course. See Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128 (explaining that the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies with greater force when a party is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam))). Because Plaintiffs’ members were still being frozen out of their funding in the wake of the purported “rescission,” see ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 12; 24-5 ¶ 24; 24-11 ¶ 19, “it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without . . . ceasing the challenged conduct.” ECF No. 30, at 16.7
Defendants and Amicus now say that factual developments have made the voluntary-cessation doctrine inapplicable. ECF No. 47, at 9-10. Specifically, they say that “there is no reason to think OMB [will] reissue the challenged Memo” because the President’s executive orders— which Plaintiffs do not challenge—remain in place. Id. at 10; see ECF No. 48, at 4 (Amicus arguing that the “executive orders related to federal funding” independently “order[ed] federal agencies to engage in certain specified pauses”). In other words, the memorandum would have no added benefit. But this argument ignores the fact that the effects of the OMB Pause Memorandum and the President’s executive orders were not coextensive. At the TRO hearing, Defendants could not explain all the frozen funding by relying on the executive orders alone. See ECF No. 30, at 18 (“Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the scope of frozen funds appears to extend far beyond the reach of the executive orders[.]”), 19 (“At oral argument, when asked about another declarant who was receiving a grant from the National Science Foundation, Defendants could not give a clear answer as to why that recipient would be denied funds pursuant to the executive orders.” (citation omitted)). Defendants insist that this overreach may have been because agencies overzealously implemented the freeze. But that is a problem of Defendants’ own creation. Their memo was written, interpreted, and executed as a blanket pause. See, e.g., Tr. of TRO Hr’g, at 16:1-5, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025) (“[T]he way that the OMB order has been implemented in many cases . . . is [not by] pausing individual grants but by freezing the platforms, the online portals[.]”). Defendants cannot shift the blame onto federal agencies because those agencies followed Defendants’ own orders.
Attempting to put the agencies’ real-world interpretations aside, Defendants assert that the memorandum’s language was clearly limited only to activities covered by the seven executive orders referenced in the memorandum. See Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 26:25-29:17, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2025). The court is unconvinced for several reasons. The memorandum’s primary directive (“must temporarily pause”) targeted “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. OMB’s decision to separate the first and second clauses indicated that they were to be treated as distinct categories for the pause. If both clauses were meant to be limited to the executive orders, it is not clear why OMB would distinguish “all activities related to obligation or disbursement” from “other relevant agency activities.” Id. Conceivably, OMB would have simply instructed agencies to pause all funding activities related to the executive orders and leave it at that.
Furthermore, the whole purpose of the pause was to give agencies time “to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders.” Id. (emphasis added). The pause was to apply “[ i]n the interim”—in other words, while that identification took place. It would make little sense for agencies to only pause activities associated with the executive orders while evaluating what activities are even associated with the executive orders in the first place. The narrower reading that Defendants endorse would require agencies to already know what activities “may be implicated” by the executive orders. For the memorandum’s order of operations to be logical, then, the court would need to read it the way Plaintiffs do: OMB told agencies to assess funding for consistency with the President’s executive orders and, “[ i]n the interim,” “temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of Federal financial assistance” while that assessment was underway. Id.
Additionally, if the memorandum’s language were obviously limited to the executive orders, the court does not understand why OMB included a footnote carving out Social Security and Medicare, see id. at 1 n.2, or subsequently issued an entirely new document clarifying the original directive, ECF No. 11-1. None of the executive orders addresses Social Security or Medicare at all. If it were apparent that the pause did not extend beyond the executive orders, the footnote is entirely unnecessary. And as for the subsequent guidance, it does not make sense for Defendants to claim that an initial instruction is unambiguous but then feel a need to clarify it only hours later.
In sum, the doctrine of voluntary cessation still applies. Defendants have not made it “absolutely clear” that they will refrain from resuming the challenged activity given their postcomplaint actions and overly restrictive reading of the memorandum’s language. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128.
b. Resumption of funding
Second, Defendants try to argue that the gradual thawing of the freeze indicates mootness. ECF No. 47, at 9-11. The court disagrees. It is true that some of Plaintiffs’ members are now receiving federal funds again, but that does not render their case, or their request for injunctive relief, moot.
At the preliminary injunction stage, Defendants cannot simply “claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because [they have] ‘ceased [their] wrongful conduct.’” Costa v. Bazron, 464 F. Supp. 3d 132, 141 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Taylor v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 56 F.3d 1497, (D.C. Cir. 1995)). This rings especially true when the cessation “follow[s] the entry of a TRO.” Id. The “court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct” because the “purpose . . . is to prevent future violations.” Dep’t of Just. v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132, 143 (D.D.C. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)).
Defendants instructed agencies to disregard the directives of the memorandum, as they were required to do so by two different courts’ orders. See ECF No. 30, at 29 (directing Defendants to issue written notice to all agencies); ECF No. 39-1 (Defendants’ written notice); TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50. But Defendants cannot now rely on this court-ordered compliance to argue that a court order is unnecessary. As Plaintiffs point out, and as other judges of this court have recognized, adopting Defendants’ position would mean that no TRO could ever become a preliminary injunction. See Costa, 464 F. Supp. 3d at 142 (“If compliance with the terms of a TRO were sufficient to defeat entry of a preliminary injunction, few—if any—cases would make it past the TRO stage.”).
Defendants blithely suggest that if they were to revive or reissue the OMB Pause Memorandum at some future point in time, Plaintiffs could simply “file another motion for preliminary relief.” ECF No. 47, at 11. This proposal completely disregards the mountain of evidence Plaintiffs presented showing that even the threat of a funding freeze was enough to send countless organizations into complete disarray. Hours before the original pause was scheduled to start, organizations were already laying off staff or shuttering programs. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-5 ¶ 13; 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. In some cases, this was anticipatory; in others, it was because organizations were already being frozen out of funding portals. See ECF Nos. 24-8 ¶¶ 8-9; 24-6 ¶ 15; 24-7 ¶ 13; 24-8 ¶ 9. Defendants’ assumption that Plaintiffs can easily rush back before the court for injunctive relief before catastrophe ensues is, quite simply, divorced from reality and the record. Indeed, while turning off funding streams appears to have been alarmingly easy, turning them back on has proven much more difficult. See ECF No. 40-2 ¶ 6 (explaining that it took three days to receive funding after entry of the TRO); Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 3:9-10, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025) (“Unfreezing of funds in response to that order has not always been smooth; in some cases, we think maybe imperfect and incomplete.”).
Additionally, other intervening developments since the court issued its TRO seem to increase the urgency of injunctive relief. On February 10, the judge in the District of Rhode Island case was forced to issue an order enforcing its TRO after the States “presented evidence . . . that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.” Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025), ECF No. 96. The court did not mince words, concluding that “[t]hese pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.” Id. Defendants cannot convincingly tell this court that there is no longer a need for injunctive relief after they were found to be in violation of another court’s order.
For all these reasons, the court remains unpersuaded by Defendants’ mootness arguments. To be sure, the government is normally entitled to a presumption of good faith on voluntary cessation. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128-29 (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)). But the court will not confer that presumption when the government says one thing while expressly doing another. Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. And it will not reward parties who change appearances without changing conduct.
3. Ripeness
At the preliminary injunction stage, Defendants raise a new jurisdictional argument based on ripeness. They claim that Plaintiffs’ claims are currently “too amorphous” for judicial review, and that the court should delay adjudication until further factual developments. ECF No. 47, at 14.8
Under the ripeness doctrine, courts conduct a two-pronged inquiry that evaluates (1) “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision,” and (2) “the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Abbott Lab’ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). But when “a threatened injury is sufficiently ‘imminent’ to establish standing, the constitutional requirements of the ripeness doctrine will necessarily be satisfied.” Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs have already established concrete, particularized, and non-speculative injuries— injuries that had devastating effects, persisted after the OMB Pause Memorandum was stayed, and loom over Plaintiffs to this day. In arguing to the contrary, Defendants ask the court to ignore the fact that agencies continued implementing OMB’s freeze or that the District of Rhode Island had to enforce its TRO mere days after it was entered. In the instant litigation, the only reason that harm stopped was because of injunctive relief issued by this court—relief that Defendants insist is unnecessary. Defendants’ ripeness arguments, like their mootness arguments, wholly disregard the factual circumstances of this case and its context.
https://democracyforward.org/wp-content ... -et-al.pdf
Highlights:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that “even a temporary pause in funding to their members . . . would destroy their ability to provide [critical] services.” … Many, if not all, of Plaintiffs’ members “need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.” … Some have employees who “live paycheck to paycheck, meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent.” … Others had begun to feel the effects of the freeze even before it was supposed to go into effect: one tribal organization was forced to preemptively lay off two employees on January 28. … Plaintiffs also demonstrated constitutional injury because “Defendants [allegedly] singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.”….
Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case. The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction. In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members….
Rescinding the OMB Pause Memorandum did not moot the case because Defendants could not—and still cannot—show that they will not “resume the challenged activity.” As the court previously observed, the White House Press Secretary appeared to completely contradict the act of rescission by expressly stating that it was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” … By any reading of the Press Secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture. At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course. ... the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies with greater force when a party is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute” … Because Plaintiffs’ members were still being frozen out of their funding in the wake of the purported “rescission,” … “it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without . . . ceasing the challenged conduct.”…
Defendants blithely suggest that if they were to revive or reissue the OMB Pause Memorandum at some future point in time, Plaintiffs could simply “file another motion for preliminary relief.” … This proposal completely disregards the mountain of evidence Plaintiffs presented showing that even the threat of a funding freeze was enough to send countless organizations into complete disarray. Hours before the original pause was scheduled to start, organizations were already laying off staff or shuttering programs. … In some cases, this was anticipatory; in others, it was because organizations were already being frozen out of funding portals. … Defendants’ assumption that Plaintiffs can easily rush back before the court for injunctive relief before catastrophe ensues is, quite simply, divorced from reality and the record. Indeed, while turning off funding streams appears to have been alarmingly easy, turning them back on has proven much more difficult…. it took three days to receive funding after entry of the TRO)…
the government is normally entitled to a presumption of good faith on voluntary cessation….But the court will not confer that presumption when the government says one thing while expressly doing another….And it will not reward parties who change appearances without changing conduct….
Under the most generous viewing of the case’s chronology, agencies had maybe four hours (but probably fewer) to actualize the OMB Guidance Document….despite the guidance’s attempt to carve out “program[s] that provide[] direct benefits to individuals,” …The guidance also exempted “[f]unds for small businesses” and “Head Start” payments, … but those fell victim to the freeze, too…Defendants cannot rely on the OMB Guidance Document as a saving grace when it had virtually no effect on the ground….
The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.”… Evaluating funding priorities can be done without needing to starve citizens or deny critical health services….The potential $3 trillion in financial assistance implicated by the freeze is a “breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight.”… “[r]ather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.”… Doing so was not—and could never be—rational, especially when the decision was made without grappling with its catastrophic effects or the logistical nightmare of its implementation….
When an agency suddenly changes course, it must recognize “that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.”…
In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable…. “[ i]t is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them.”). Either way, Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim….
Plaintiffs’ second claim argues that Defendants dramatically overstepped the bounds of their legal authority in ordering a nationwide funding freeze. Agencies “are creatures of statute” and are therefore subject to the limits prescribed by Congress….they “‘literally ha[ve] no power to act’ except to the extent Congress [has] authorized.”…
When an agency seeks to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the “sheer scope of [an agency]’s claimed authority” can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny….
“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” the court “typically greet[s] its announcement with a measure of skepticism.”… Defendants attempted to freeze as much as $3 trillion dollars—the sum total of “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” …That is “no everyday exercise of federal power.”…
The scope of power OMB seeks to claim is “breathtaking,” and its ramifications are massive… there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power …
Plaintiffs’ third claim alleges that Defendants are “threaten[ing] [the] continued receipt of federal financial assistance based explicitly on [the recipients’] exercise of their core First Amendment rights of speech and association.”… Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,”… or “assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas,”…
What is less clear, however, is whether the government may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints….‘Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid.’”… But that calculus could change if individuals or organizations have already been awarded certain funds and grants—as is the case with Plaintiffs’ members here. If Defendants were to unfreeze promised funds only to organizations expressing one view, but not to organizations expressing the opposite view, that could raise First Amendment concerns….
The Supreme Court has held that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech[,] even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.”… the government cannot “leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the [funding] program itself.”… when the government exerts First Amendment pressures that have nothing to do with the actual financial assistance program, that can be a constitutional violation….
The OMB Pause Memorandum made several policy statements that are hostile to concepts like “Marxist equity,” “transgenderism,” and “woke gender ideology.” … It also instructed federal agencies to pause all disbursements that could be connected to these ill-defined categories. There is no indication that expressing viewpoints on these issues (or being associated with them at all) is in any way tied to the “contours of the [funding] program[s] [themselves].”…
The government “may not ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” or “manipulate[]” a subsidy “to have a coercive effect.”… By appearing to target specific recipients because they associate with certain ideas, Defendants may be crossing a constitutional line….
The fact that organizations have been able to draw down funds in the immediate aftermath of the court’s TRO means nothing if the spigot is shut off again. The injunctive relief that Defendants fought so hard to deny is the only thing in this case holding potentially catastrophic harm at bay. The court’s previous order may have bought Plaintiffs a few additional weeks of funding, but they remain just as vulnerable as they were in the first week of February. A single disbursement does not protect a recipient when the next disbursement is equally as vital. …
“Plaintiffs paint[ed] a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze.”… Nonprofits and organizations across the country were left adrift as they scrambled to make sense of the memorandum and its effects…. Entire funding portals were taken offline with no rhyme or reason, generating significant confusion and fear….Many organizations had to resort to desperate measures just to stay operational. The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly, and everyone in between in serious jeopardy. Because the public’s interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here….
Amicus American Center for Law and Justice echoes Defendants’ mootness argument, claiming that “none of [Plaintiffs’] desired terms of the Prayer for Relief can be implemented [because] there is no OMB Memo that can be enjoined, restrained, or vacated.”…
If Amicus were correct, a government agency could order illegal activity, retract that order in name only while continuing to implement its substance, and escape legal liability. The court refuses to ratify such behavior….
Both Defendants and Amicus argue that “[t]emporary funding pauses are not an unusual exercise of executive authority.”… For support, they rely on President Biden’s pause of funding to the southern border wall … and President Obama’s thirty-day delay of Recovery Act funds,…
The court is unpersuaded that targeted pauses of funding for specific projects through an executive order are at all comparable OMB’s nationwide suspension of all federal financial assistance. Again, the court disagrees with Defendants’ and Amicus’s characterization of the pause in this case as “targeted” and “discrete” when the language of the memorandum applied to the “disbursement of all Federal funds under all open awards.”…
Defendants repeatedly reference the memorandum’s limitation that agencies only act “to the extent permissible under applicable law,”… But this does not save them. First, the incantation of magic language cannot justify otherwise-illegal action. Plaintiffs’ entire complaint alleges that Defendants’ instruction was unlawful to begin with. Second, even assuming that this language applies does not change the arbitrary-and-capricious analysis. Just because an agency can do something does not make it rational to do so.
-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA). MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 3, 2025, the court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting Defendants Russell Vought1 and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) (collectively, “Defendants”) from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name OMB memorandum M-25-13 freezing all federal financial assistance under open awards. ECF No. 30, at 29-30. The court found good cause to extend the TRO under Rule 65(b)(2) on February 6, 2025. Feb. 6, 2025 Minute Order. Plaintiffs, several coalitions of nonprofit organizations, have moved for a preliminary injunction granting similar relief as the TRO. ECF No. 40. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, ECF Nos. 40, 47, 49, an amicus brief from the American Center for Law and Justice, ECF No. 48, the oral argument held on February 20, 2025, Feb. 20, 2025 Minute Entry, and for the reasons explained below, the court will enter a preliminary injunction.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
While most of the following factual background and procedural history was explained in the court’s opinion granting the TRO, ECF No. 30, the court recounts the details here for completeness and adds developments since the court’s February 3, 2025 hearing, TRO Hr’g, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025).
A. Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-25-13
On January 27, 2025, Matthew J. Vaeth, Acting Director of OMB, issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to “complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders.” Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs (Jan. 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/69QB-VFG8 (“OMB Pause Memorandum,” or “M-25-13”), at 2. The memorandum stated that, “[ i]n the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” Id. Additionally, the memorandum directed that “[e]ach agency must pause: (i) issuance of new awards; (ii) disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; and (iii) other relevant agency actions that may be implicated by the executive orders, to the extent permissible by law.” Id.
The memorandum defined “Federal financial assistance” as: “(i) all forms of assistance listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of this term at 2 [C.F.R. §] 200.1; and (ii) assistance received or administered by recipients or subrecipients of any type except for assistance received directly by individuals.” Id. ¶ 17. This includes all federal assistance in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance. Id. ¶ 18; see 2 C.F.R. § 200.1.2 As relevant executive orders, it listed:
• Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025); • Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025);
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth
• to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025); and • Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025).
• OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1-2.
The memorandum stated that “[t]he temporary pause [would] become effective on January 28, 2025 at 5:00 PM.” Id. at 2. During the pause, agencies were directed to “submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects[,] or activities subject to [the] pause” on or before February 10, 2025. Id. at 2.
B. Complaint, Emergency Hearing, and Administrative Stay
Shortly after noon on January 28, Plaintiffs brought this suit against OMB and Acting Director Vaeth arguing that OMB’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the implicated federal grants and funding “are the lifeblood of operations and programs for many . . . nonprofits, and [that] even a short pause in funding . . . could deprive people and communities of their life-saving services.” Id. ¶ 32. They argued that Defendants’ action was arbitrary and capricious, violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and exceeded OMB’s statutory authority. Id. ¶¶ 43-61.
Along with their complaint, Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order “barring the OMB and all of its officers, employees, and agents from taking any steps to implement, apply, or enforce Memo M-25-13.” ECF No. 5, at 18. Defendants entered an appearance, ECF No. 9, and the court held an emergency hearing at 4:00 p.m. on January 28 to discern the parties’ positions with respect to the issuance of a brief administrative stay pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, Jan. 28, 2025 Minute Entry.
Given the extreme time constraints of the litigation and the magnitude of the legal issues, the court entered a brief administrative stay to permit the parties to fully brief the TRO motion and “buy[] the court time to deliberate.”3 ECF No. 13, at 3 (quoting United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring)). The administrative stay was limited in scope and only prohibited Defendants “from implementing OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards” until 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 4-5. The court also set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ TRO motion for 11:00 a.m. on February 3, 2025. Id. at 5.
C. Rescission of Memorandum M-25-13 and Aftermath
On January 29, the day after the court entered its administrative stay, OMB issued a new memorandum (“M-25-14”) that purported to rescind M-25-13. See ECF Nos. 18, 18-1. The new memorandum consisted of two sentences: “OMB Memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded. If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.” ECF No. 18-1.
Shortly after this “rescission” was issued, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced from her official social media account that the new memorandum was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Instead, she stated that “[ c i]t [was] simply a rescission of [OMB memorandum M-25-13].” Id. She further explained that the purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. The entire post may be viewed below:
Karoline Leavitt
@PressSec
This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.
It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.
Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction.
The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.
1:40 PM · Jan 29, 2025
Id.4
D. Temporary Restraining Order Phase
On January 30, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion and concurrently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 20, 21. Both motions were fully briefed by February 1. ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26.
On the morning of February 3, 2025, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Feb. 3, 2025 Minute Entry. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court explained that it was inclined to grant a TRO and deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Tr. of TRO Hr’g, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, at 58:17-59:15, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025). Pursuant to the court’s request, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed TRO order shortly after the hearing concluded, and Defendants responded to the proposed order by mid-afternoon.
Before the administrative stay expired at 5:00 p.m., the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 30. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ motion, that the case was not moot following the purported “rescission” of the OMB Pause Memorandum, and that Plaintiffs had met the heavy burden of showing that they were entitled to a temporary restraining order. Id. at 6-29. Specifically, the court found that Plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on their arbitrary and capricious claim because “Defendants . . . offered no rational explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance—with less than twenty-four-hours’ notice—to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.’” Id. at 23 (quoting OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1).5 The court further determined that Plaintiffs had produced evidence that they would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief because “the funding freeze threaten[ed] the lifeline that keeps countless organizations operational.” Id. at 28. Finally, the court concluded that the “nationwide panic” and widespread chaos caused by the impending freeze tipped the public interest heavily in favor of a temporary restraining order. Id. at 28-29.
The order prohibited Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” ECF No. 30, at 29. Pursuant to the order, Defendants sent written notice “to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed” informing them of the temporary restraining order later that evening. ECF No. 39, at 1.
On February 6, the court set an expedited preliminary injunction briefing schedule and ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on February 20 at 11:00 a.m. Feb. 6, 2025 Minute Order. The court also extended the TRO for good cause until it could resolve Plaintiffs’ forthcoming preliminary injunction motion. Id.
E. Preliminary Injunction Phase
On February 11, Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 40. Defendants filed their opposition on February 15, ECF No. 47, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on February 18, ECF No. 49.6
Some of Plaintiffs’ members submitted new declarations explaining that they have been able to access their previously allocated federal funds since the court’s entry of the TRO. See ECF Nos. 40-1 ¶ 3; 40-2 ¶ 6; 40-3 ¶ 4. Those declarants still maintain, however, that any additional pause in funding will have catastrophic or fatal consequences for their organizations. See ECF Nos. 40-1 ¶¶ 4-5; 40-2 ¶¶ 7-8; 40-3 ¶ 5.
On the morning of February 20, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Feb. 20, 2025 Minute Entry.
F. Parallel Litigation in the District of Rhode Island
On the same day Plaintiffs filed this suit, and several hours before memorandum M-25-13’s pause was to go into effect, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and sought a TRO to halt implementation of the memorandum. See Compl., New York v. Trump, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025), ECF No. 1.
The district court held a hearing on January 29 at 3:00 p.m., after OMB had “rescinded” memorandum M-25-13. The court granted the States’ request and issued a TRO on January 31, 2025. TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50. The restraining order prohibited the defendants (President Trump, OMB, and eleven federal agencies) from “paus[ing], freez[ing], imped[ing], block[ing], cancel[ing], or terminat[ing] [their] compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the [plaintiff] States.” Id. at 11. The order also prohibited the defendants “from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the [OMB memorandum M-25-13] under any other name or title, . . . such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.” Id. at 12. Finally, the court directed the States to file their forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction expeditiously. Id. at 11.
On the morning of February 3, the defendants filed a notice of compliance with the District of Rhode Island’s TRO. Notice of Compliance with Court’s TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025), ECF No. 51. In it, the defendants explained that they had provided written notice to all defendant agencies on January 31 to inform them of the TRO and instruct them to comply with its restrictions. Id. ¶ 1. The defendants also notified the court that they believed certain terms of the TRO “constitute[d] significant intrusions on the Executive Branch’s lawful authorities and the separation of powers.” Id. ¶ 2.
The court subsequently set a briefing schedule on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Text Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2025). On February 6, the court held a status conference and extended the duration of its TRO until it could rule on the preliminary injunction motion. Text Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 6, 2025). The next day, the States filed an emergency motion to enforce the TRO, citing evidence that they “continue[d] to be denied access to federal funds.” Mot. for Enforcement of the TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 7, 2025), ECF No. 66. The defendants opposed, arguing that their actions “d[id] not run afoul of the Court’s injunction, or at least not a ‘clear and unambiguous command’ in the Court’s injunction.” Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enforce TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 9, 2025), ECF No. 70. On February 10, the court granted the States’ motion and ordered the defendants to “immediately restore frozen funding,” “end any federal funding pause,” and “take every step necessary to effectuate the TRO” during its pendency. Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025), ECF No. 96.
Even though the court had not ruled on the still-pending motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants appealed later that day. Notice of Appeal, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025), ECF No. 98. They sought (1) review of the district court’s TRO order and enforcement orders, and (2) an administrative stay of the district court’s rulings pending the appeal. Emergency Mot. for Immediate Administrative Stay, New York v. Trump, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 10, 2025). The First Circuit assumed that it had jurisdiction over the appeal and unanimously denied the request for an administrative stay without prejudice. Order, New York, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 2025). It expressed uncertainty as to whether such an administrative stay could issue and noted that “the defendants d[id] not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they w[ould] face without their requested administrative stay.” Id. The appellate court did not address the merits of the appeal. Id. The defendants then moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, Mot. to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, New York, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025), which the court granted on February 13. Judgment, New York, No. 23-1138 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025).
On February 21, the District of Rhode Island held a preliminary injunction hearing. The court took the States’ motion under advisement but “reiterate[d] that the previously entered TRO [remained] in full force and effect.” Minute Entry, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 21, 2025). Litigation remains ongoing.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
The factual situation has shifted somewhat since the court entered its TRO, and Defendants again press their jurisdictional arguments. While the initial funding freeze has begun to thaw, the court concludes that it still retains jurisdiction.
1. Standing
As an initial matter, there is no question that Plaintiffs had standing when they initially brought their complaint. ECF No. 30, at 6-13; see Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship & Immgr. Servs., 168 F. Supp. 3d 50, 65 (D.D.C. 2016) (explaining that standing “is concerned with the presence of injury, causation, and redressability at the time a complaint is filed”). As the court explained in its TRO opinion, Plaintiffs had satisfied each of the three standing requirements: (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact; (2) a causal connection linking the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) a likelihood that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. ECF No. 30, at 6-7 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). While that alone is sufficient to confer standing, the court pauses to note that standing persists.
a. Injury in fact
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that “even a temporary pause in funding to their members . . . would destroy their ability to provide [critical] services.” ECF No. 30, at 7; see ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 33-34, 36-40. Many, if not all, of Plaintiffs’ members “need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.” ECF No. 30, at 8; see, e.g., ECF No. 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. Some have employees who “live paycheck to paycheck, meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent.” ECF No. 30, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted); see ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7. Others had begun to feel the effects of the freeze even before it was supposed to go into effect: one tribal organization was forced to preemptively lay off two employees on January 28. ECF No. 30, at 9; see ECF No. 24-5 ¶ 13. Plaintiffs also demonstrated constitutional injury because “Defendants [allegedly] singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.” ECF No. 30, at 8.
Defendants now try to frame the issue as one of Plaintiffs’ “standing to seek prospective relief.” ECF No. 47, at 11. The court reminds Defendants that the injunctive relief currently in place was issued to temporarily stave off imminent, irreparable harm. Facts have certainly evolved since then, see infra Part II.A.2, but Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case. The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction. In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members. That is sufficient to show an injury-in-fact.
b. Causation
The court previously rejected Defendants’ attempts to break the causal chain between the funding freeze and the OMB Pause Memorandum. ECF No. 30, at 9-12. Plaintiffs convincingly demonstrated that the memorandum—not some other cause—triggered the shutting down of federal funding portals and the suspension of assistance payments. Id. While Defendants have tried to attribute the pauses to individual agency discretion, those pauses did not occur until after the memorandum was issued.
In opposing the TRO, Defendants cited two cases, ECF No. 21-1, at 10-11, but the court was not persuaded then, and it remains unpersuaded. The first featured an executive order that “d[id] not require any action from federal agencies.” Louisiana ex rel. Landry v. Biden, 64 F.4th 674, 681 (5th Cir. 2023). Instead, the order allowed agencies to individually determine whether the guidance applied to their activities. Id. For that reason, causation in Louisiana “hinge[d] on the independent choices of [a] regulated third party” and was not traceable to the defendant. Center for Law & Educ. v. Dep’t of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Nat’l Wrestling Coaches Ass’n v. Dep’t of Educ., 366 F.3d 930, 938 (D.C. Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (en banc)). In contrast, the OMB Pause Memorandum was a clear command. It emphatically stated that all federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. That was a directive, not a suggestion. Just two paragraphs later, it reiterated that agencies “must pause . . . disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” Id. And in the penultimate paragraph, it stated that “OMB may grant exceptions allowing Federal agencies to issue new awards or take other actions on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (emphasis added). On its face, the memorandum does not read like a guidance that leaves funding decisions solely in the hands of independent, third-party agencies.
The second case, on which Defendants no longer rely, was also inapposite. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020), the plaintiffs sought to change the way elections officials were listing gubernatorial candidates, but they had sued a government actor with no actual control over those officials. Id. at 1253. The elections officials were answerable only to voters, not the defendant. Id. Here, however, Defendants try to build their case on the exact opposite premise: that OMB does exercise control over federal financial policies. See ECF No. 21-1, at 16-20. Both Louisiana and Jacobson are therefore inapplicable.
Further undermining Defendants’ position, federal agencies clearly behaved as if the memorandum caused the freeze. In the immediate aftermath of the court’s administrative stay on January 28, the Environmental Protection Agency continued to pause funding disbursements explicitly based on the memorandum. See ECF No. 24-1, at 7 (explaining that the agency was still “working diligently to implement [OMB]’s memorandum” and was therefore “temporarily pausing all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of EPA Federal financial assistance” and working closely “with OMB” to do so).
Undeterred, Defendants vigorously challenge causation again at the preliminary-injunction stage. They start by rehashing the independent-agency theory, claiming that the memorandum “did not itself temporarily pause any federal financial assistance.” ECF No. 47, at 13. For that to be true, Defendants would have the court believe that countless federal agencies, none of which had acted to cut off financial assistance before January 28, suddenly began exercising their own discretion to suspend funding across the board at the exact same time. That would be a remarkable—and unfathomable—coincidence. That this uniform freeze occurred just hours after the memorandum’s issuance would be quite the happenstance, too. Indeed, the record belies Defendants’ assertions. It reflects that after OMB issued its memorandum on January 27, agencies immediately began freezing funds, and after this court entered its TRO, some of those funds were released. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 40-3 ¶ 4 (organization able to draw down funds on February 4, one day after entry of the TRO); 40-1 ¶ 3 (organization able to draw down funds on February 5, two days after entry of the TRO); 40-2 ¶ 6 (organization received funds on February 6, three days after entry of the TRO).
Defendants try to downplay the fact that the freeze began to thaw after the court entered its TRO. They claim that this “could equally be because such funds were not intended to be paused under the OMB Memo and OMB Guidance, or because of a broader court order entered by the district court in Rhode Island.” ECF No. 47, at 13. But this argument requires the exact same coincidental assumptions as above, just in reverse. And it contradicts the record, which indicates that agencies explicitly relied on the memorandum when responding to funding inquiries. See ECF No. 24-1, at 7. Adopting Defendants’ view would require reading the memorandum differently than how it was written. Its directive was broad and mandatory, and that is exactly how the agencies interpreted it. See infra Part II.A.2.a.
Defendants also argue that the memorandum “d[id] not determine which funds or grants should be paused” and instead “require[d] that agencies make that determination, consistent with their own authorities.” ECF No. 47, at 13. In a manner of speaking, Defendants are right that the memorandum did not identify specific funds to be paused. Instead, it simply paused them all. OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. Defendants cannot show that this directive left any room for agency discretion, especially on the nearly nonexistent timetable it provided. Agencies were not given an option on whether to continue honoring their payment obligations; they simply had to stop. And even if the agencies thought they had discretion to act, they were given roughly half a day to evaluate up to $3 trillion in grants, loans, and other programs. That is not discretion.
When Plaintiffs filed suit, they alleged that Defendants had illegally ordered all federal agencies to suspend payments on open awards. Plaintiffs provided evidence that those agencies only started freezing funds after the memorandum was issued and—in some cases—expressly relied on the memorandum to do so. Within days of this court’s TRO (and Defendants’ written notice to all federal agencies), payments began to resume. Defendants ask the court to overlook the simplest, most logical explanation for that sequence of events. The court declines to do so.
c. Redressability
Redressability is closely related to causation, and Plaintiffs have satisfied it. Defendants claim that “[Plaintiffs’] funding is not administered by OMB” and that an injunction against it “would not give [them] legally enforceable protection from the allegedly imminent harm.” ECF No. 47, at 14 (quoting Haalend v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 293 (2023)).
But Plaintiffs seek an injunction barring Defendants from directing agencies to freeze federal funding nationwide in a blanket fashion. Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025). As the court previously explained, a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor would force agencies “to behave as if the memorandum were never issued.” ECF No. 30, at 13. Any pauses premised on the memorandum would cease, thus granting Plaintiffs significant relief. Whether individual agencies later exercise their individual discretion to stop funding on another basis does not defeat redressability as it pertains to the OMB Pause Memorandum.
2. Mootness
Mootness, sometimes defined as “standing set in a time frame,” asks whether a case continues to present a live controversy as it progresses. U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (quoting Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)). As the court explained in its earlier opinion, despite the purported “recission” of the OMB Pause Memorandum, the case was not moot at the time the court entered its TRO. ECF No. 30, at 13-19. While Defendants continue to argue mootness in light of recent factual developments, the court’s previous analysis still applies today.
a. Rescission of the memorandum
Defendants begin by again relying on the rescission of the OMB Pause Memorandum, which occurred on January 29. ECF No. 47, at 8. That “rescission,” however, had already taken place when Defendants last made this same argument. The court rejected the claim then, and it rejects the claim now.
First, the doctrine of voluntary cessation still applies. A party’s decision to stop “a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine [its] legality.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). This doctrine exists to protect plaintiffs and prevent a defendant from “return[ing] to [its] old ways” as soon as a case gets dismissed. Id. (quoting City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289). To overcome it, a defendant must meet a heavy burden: it must show that it is “absolutely clear [that] the allegedly wrongful behavior [cannot] reasonably be expected to recur.” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, 92 F.4th 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (emphasis added) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189).
Rescinding the OMB Pause Memorandum did not moot the case because Defendants could not—and still cannot—show that they will not “resume the challenged activity.” Id. As the court previously observed, the White House Press Secretary appeared to completely contradict the act of rescission by expressly stating that it was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. By any reading of the Press Secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture. At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course. See Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128 (explaining that the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies with greater force when a party is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam))). Because Plaintiffs’ members were still being frozen out of their funding in the wake of the purported “rescission,” see ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 12; 24-5 ¶ 24; 24-11 ¶ 19, “it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without . . . ceasing the challenged conduct.” ECF No. 30, at 16.7
Defendants and Amicus now say that factual developments have made the voluntary-cessation doctrine inapplicable. ECF No. 47, at 9-10. Specifically, they say that “there is no reason to think OMB [will] reissue the challenged Memo” because the President’s executive orders— which Plaintiffs do not challenge—remain in place. Id. at 10; see ECF No. 48, at 4 (Amicus arguing that the “executive orders related to federal funding” independently “order[ed] federal agencies to engage in certain specified pauses”). In other words, the memorandum would have no added benefit. But this argument ignores the fact that the effects of the OMB Pause Memorandum and the President’s executive orders were not coextensive. At the TRO hearing, Defendants could not explain all the frozen funding by relying on the executive orders alone. See ECF No. 30, at 18 (“Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the scope of frozen funds appears to extend far beyond the reach of the executive orders[.]”), 19 (“At oral argument, when asked about another declarant who was receiving a grant from the National Science Foundation, Defendants could not give a clear answer as to why that recipient would be denied funds pursuant to the executive orders.” (citation omitted)). Defendants insist that this overreach may have been because agencies overzealously implemented the freeze. But that is a problem of Defendants’ own creation. Their memo was written, interpreted, and executed as a blanket pause. See, e.g., Tr. of TRO Hr’g, at 16:1-5, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2025) (“[T]he way that the OMB order has been implemented in many cases . . . is [not by] pausing individual grants but by freezing the platforms, the online portals[.]”). Defendants cannot shift the blame onto federal agencies because those agencies followed Defendants’ own orders.
Attempting to put the agencies’ real-world interpretations aside, Defendants assert that the memorandum’s language was clearly limited only to activities covered by the seven executive orders referenced in the memorandum. See Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 26:25-29:17, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2025). The court is unconvinced for several reasons. The memorandum’s primary directive (“must temporarily pause”) targeted “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. OMB’s decision to separate the first and second clauses indicated that they were to be treated as distinct categories for the pause. If both clauses were meant to be limited to the executive orders, it is not clear why OMB would distinguish “all activities related to obligation or disbursement” from “other relevant agency activities.” Id. Conceivably, OMB would have simply instructed agencies to pause all funding activities related to the executive orders and leave it at that.
Furthermore, the whole purpose of the pause was to give agencies time “to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders.” Id. (emphasis added). The pause was to apply “[ i]n the interim”—in other words, while that identification took place. It would make little sense for agencies to only pause activities associated with the executive orders while evaluating what activities are even associated with the executive orders in the first place. The narrower reading that Defendants endorse would require agencies to already know what activities “may be implicated” by the executive orders. For the memorandum’s order of operations to be logical, then, the court would need to read it the way Plaintiffs do: OMB told agencies to assess funding for consistency with the President’s executive orders and, “[ i]n the interim,” “temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of Federal financial assistance” while that assessment was underway. Id.
Additionally, if the memorandum’s language were obviously limited to the executive orders, the court does not understand why OMB included a footnote carving out Social Security and Medicare, see id. at 1 n.2, or subsequently issued an entirely new document clarifying the original directive, ECF No. 11-1. None of the executive orders addresses Social Security or Medicare at all. If it were apparent that the pause did not extend beyond the executive orders, the footnote is entirely unnecessary. And as for the subsequent guidance, it does not make sense for Defendants to claim that an initial instruction is unambiguous but then feel a need to clarify it only hours later.
In sum, the doctrine of voluntary cessation still applies. Defendants have not made it “absolutely clear” that they will refrain from resuming the challenged activity given their postcomplaint actions and overly restrictive reading of the memorandum’s language. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128.
b. Resumption of funding
Second, Defendants try to argue that the gradual thawing of the freeze indicates mootness. ECF No. 47, at 9-11. The court disagrees. It is true that some of Plaintiffs’ members are now receiving federal funds again, but that does not render their case, or their request for injunctive relief, moot.
At the preliminary injunction stage, Defendants cannot simply “claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because [they have] ‘ceased [their] wrongful conduct.’” Costa v. Bazron, 464 F. Supp. 3d 132, 141 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Taylor v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 56 F.3d 1497, (D.C. Cir. 1995)). This rings especially true when the cessation “follow[s] the entry of a TRO.” Id. The “court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct” because the “purpose . . . is to prevent future violations.” Dep’t of Just. v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132, 143 (D.D.C. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)).
Defendants instructed agencies to disregard the directives of the memorandum, as they were required to do so by two different courts’ orders. See ECF No. 30, at 29 (directing Defendants to issue written notice to all agencies); ECF No. 39-1 (Defendants’ written notice); TRO, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025), ECF No. 50. But Defendants cannot now rely on this court-ordered compliance to argue that a court order is unnecessary. As Plaintiffs point out, and as other judges of this court have recognized, adopting Defendants’ position would mean that no TRO could ever become a preliminary injunction. See Costa, 464 F. Supp. 3d at 142 (“If compliance with the terms of a TRO were sufficient to defeat entry of a preliminary injunction, few—if any—cases would make it past the TRO stage.”).
Defendants blithely suggest that if they were to revive or reissue the OMB Pause Memorandum at some future point in time, Plaintiffs could simply “file another motion for preliminary relief.” ECF No. 47, at 11. This proposal completely disregards the mountain of evidence Plaintiffs presented showing that even the threat of a funding freeze was enough to send countless organizations into complete disarray. Hours before the original pause was scheduled to start, organizations were already laying off staff or shuttering programs. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-5 ¶ 13; 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. In some cases, this was anticipatory; in others, it was because organizations were already being frozen out of funding portals. See ECF Nos. 24-8 ¶¶ 8-9; 24-6 ¶ 15; 24-7 ¶ 13; 24-8 ¶ 9. Defendants’ assumption that Plaintiffs can easily rush back before the court for injunctive relief before catastrophe ensues is, quite simply, divorced from reality and the record. Indeed, while turning off funding streams appears to have been alarmingly easy, turning them back on has proven much more difficult. See ECF No. 40-2 ¶ 6 (explaining that it took three days to receive funding after entry of the TRO); Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 3:9-10, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025) (“Unfreezing of funds in response to that order has not always been smooth; in some cases, we think maybe imperfect and incomplete.”).
Additionally, other intervening developments since the court issued its TRO seem to increase the urgency of injunctive relief. On February 10, the judge in the District of Rhode Island case was forced to issue an order enforcing its TRO after the States “presented evidence . . . that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.” Order, New York, No. 25-CV-39 (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025), ECF No. 96. The court did not mince words, concluding that “[t]hese pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.” Id. Defendants cannot convincingly tell this court that there is no longer a need for injunctive relief after they were found to be in violation of another court’s order.
For all these reasons, the court remains unpersuaded by Defendants’ mootness arguments. To be sure, the government is normally entitled to a presumption of good faith on voluntary cessation. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128-29 (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)). But the court will not confer that presumption when the government says one thing while expressly doing another. Karoline Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. And it will not reward parties who change appearances without changing conduct.
3. Ripeness
At the preliminary injunction stage, Defendants raise a new jurisdictional argument based on ripeness. They claim that Plaintiffs’ claims are currently “too amorphous” for judicial review, and that the court should delay adjudication until further factual developments. ECF No. 47, at 14.8
Under the ripeness doctrine, courts conduct a two-pronged inquiry that evaluates (1) “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision,” and (2) “the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Abbott Lab’ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). But when “a threatened injury is sufficiently ‘imminent’ to establish standing, the constitutional requirements of the ripeness doctrine will necessarily be satisfied.” Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs have already established concrete, particularized, and non-speculative injuries— injuries that had devastating effects, persisted after the OMB Pause Memorandum was stayed, and loom over Plaintiffs to this day. In arguing to the contrary, Defendants ask the court to ignore the fact that agencies continued implementing OMB’s freeze or that the District of Rhode Island had to enforce its TRO mere days after it was entered. In the instant litigation, the only reason that harm stopped was because of injunctive relief issued by this court—relief that Defendants insist is unnecessary. Defendants’ ripeness arguments, like their mootness arguments, wholly disregard the factual circumstances of this case and its context.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:42 pm
Part 2 of 2
B. Preliminary Injunction
While they differ in duration, temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are subject to the same substantive legal standards. See, e.g., Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 223 (D.D.C. 2016). Courts may either grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) or, in APA cases, may “issue all necessary and appropriate process to . . . preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings” when doing so is “necessary to prevent irreparable injury.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. Both provisions provide a mechanism for issuing injunctive relief and operate under the same four-factor test. District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 444 F. Supp. 3d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2020).
To obtain a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
These four considerations are factors, not elements. “A district court must ‘balance the strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas.’” Id. (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). When a government entity is a party to the case, the third and fourth factors merge. Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), courts in this Circuit tended to employ a “sliding scale” method in which “a strong showing on one factor could make up for a weaker showing on another.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011). While the D.C. Circuit has considered abandoning the sliding-scale method for one that treats the substantial likelihood prong as “an independent, free-standing requirement,” id. at 393, it has yet to decide one way or the other, see Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 716, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022). At the very least, however, the plaintiff must present a “serious legal question on the merits.” Raimondo, 40 F.4th at 726 (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 398). Given the ambiguity with respect to the sliding-scale approach, the court will consider all factors and delve into their relative weight only if it would affect the outcome. See Costa, 456 F. Supp. 3d at 133.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
On the merits, Defendants largely repeat the same arguments they made at the TRO stage. See ECF No. 47, at 14-16 (final agency action), 25-31 (arbitrary and capricious), 31-34 (statutory authority), 34-36 (First Amendment). The court begins by addressing OMB’s guidance document, which the parties discussed at length in their preliminary injunction briefing and at oral argument. See ECF No. 47, at 20-25; ECF No. 49, at 4-6; Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 6:19-9:14, 29:21-32:24, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2025). It then turns to final agency action, followed by the substantive merits of Plaintiffs’ three claims.
a. The role of the OMB Guidance
Defendants spill considerable ink about OMB’s issuance of a guidance document, ECF No. 11-1 (“OMB Guidance Document”), which supposedly limited the scope of the OMB Pause Memorandum, see ECF No. 47, at 20-25. They assert that the original memorandum, when read in tandem with the OMB Guidance Document, stops short of unlawful agency action. Id. at 21 (noting the OMB Guidance Document’s statement that “the pause does not apply across-the-board” and “is expressly limited to programs, projects, and activities implicated by the President’s Executive Orders”). This argument sounds persuasive in theory but clashes with how Defendants’ directives were actually written and implemented.
As an initial matter, the language of the OMB Guidance Document appears to contradict that of the original memorandum. The guidance document sought to carve out numerous programs and portray the initial command as much more limited, but the original memorandum mandated (in bold typeface, no less) that all federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum. It also required agencies to stop the “disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” Id. 26 (emphasis added). As the court explained previously, supra Part II.A.2.a, this language conveyed a clear directive to implement a blanket pause of federal financial assistance. That flatly contravenes the OMB Guidance Document’s pronouncement that the pause “d[id] not apply across-the-board.” OMB Guidance Document, at 1.
Furthermore, regardless of how Defendants would have liked their guidance to apply, that is a far cry from how it was administered in practice. As far as the parties and this court are aware, the guidance was issued at some point on January 28 (the same day the funding freeze was to take effect). Plaintiffs only received a copy of the guidance around 1:30 p.m., see ECF No. 11, at 2, and even Defendants did not know exactly when it was originally issued or distributed to federal agencies, Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 25:5-9, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025). Under the most generous viewing of the case’s chronology, agencies had maybe four hours (but probably fewer) to actualize the OMB Guidance Document. Clearly, that was not enough time.9 Agencies still implemented the original memorandum as written. For example, despite the guidance’s attempt to carve out “program[s] that provide[] direct benefits to individuals,” OMB Guidance Document, at 1, financial assistance for such programs was still suspended, see ECF Nos. 24-5 ¶¶ 14-16; 27-1 ¶¶ 4-5. The guidance also exempted “[f]unds for small businesses” and “Head Start” payments, OMB Guidance Document, at 2, but those fell victim to the freeze, too, see ECF Nos. 24-3, at 74; 24-6. Defendants cannot rely on the OMB Guidance Document as a saving grace when it had virtually no effect on the ground.
This theme—that Plaintiffs are trying to enjoin a far-reaching version of the OMB Pause Memorandum that never existed—pervades all of Defendants’ briefing and argument. See ECF No. 47, at 10 (mootness), 13 (causation), 20-25 (role of the OMB Guidance Document); 27 (arbitrary and capricious). But Defendants cannot take a memorandum that was drafted broadly, interpreted expansively, and implemented categorically and fault Plaintiffs for “overreading” that directive.
b. Final agency action
Defendants, now joined by Amicus, again dispute whether the OMB Pause Memorandum was final agency action. Like before, the court is unpersuaded.
Finality is a prerequisite to the judicial review of an APA claim. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. Agency actions, as a general matter, must be “circumscribed [and] discrete.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 62 (2004). Final agency action, in particular, “must mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and determine “rights or obligations . . . from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948), then quoting Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 (1970)). The APA does not, for example, allow a court to review an agency’s “day-to-day operations.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 899 (1990).
Echoing points from their causation argument, Defendants claim that any instruction from OMB could not have been final because it was the individual agencies that carried out the funding freeze. To the extent this repeats the causation analysis, the court has already addressed it. See supra Part II.A.1.b.
Defendants and Amicus further accuse Plaintiffs of improperly advancing a “‘broad programmatic attack’ on an agency’s operations” by targeting a policy “consisting [principally] of . . . many individual actions.” ECF No. 48, at 5 (second alteration in original) (first quoting Norton, 542 U.S. at 64, then quoting Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. at 892-93); see ECF No. 47, at 15-16. But Plaintiffs only challenge one specific act by OMB: ordering a nationwide pause on federal financial assistance. And, as explained, supra Part II.B.1.a, Defendants and Amicus cannot rely on a theoretical version or application of OMB’s directives. The initial memorandum was drafted and interpreted broadly in accordance with its text, and what little clarity the guidance offered—if any—came far too late. As the court explained in its earlier opinion, the OMB Pause Memorandum issued a mandatory command to other federal agencies that produced legal consequences for Plaintiffs and others. See ECF No. 30, at 21-23.
c. Arbitrary and capricious
Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). To pass muster, the agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action[,] including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Agency action is generally deemed unlawful if it “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id.
The arbitrary-and-capricious review at this stage of the litigation remains largely unchanged from the court’s earlier opinion. The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1. Evaluating funding priorities can be done without needing to starve citizens or deny critical health services. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 6; 24-11 ¶¶ 6-7. The potential $3 trillion in financial assistance implicated by the freeze is a “breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight.” ECF No. 30, at 24. And “[r]ather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.” Id. Doing so was not—and could never be—rational, especially when the decision was made without grappling with its catastrophic effects or the logistical nightmare of its implementation.10 See Bus. Roundtable v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 647 F.3d 1144, 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (explaining that an agency’s failure to “apprise itself . . . of the economic consequences” of potential action is “arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law” (quoting Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 412 F.3d 133, 144 (D.C. Cir. 2005))). Defendants essentially adopted a “freeze first, ask questions later” approach that “entirely failed to consider [multiple] important aspect[s] of the problem.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43.11
Defendants also ignored significant reliance interests. Plaintiffs—who only challenge the pausing of already allocated funds—produced substantial evidence that numerous organizations need consistent disbursements of funds to even operate. Missing a single payment could require immediate firings or the discontinuation of entire programs. See ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶¶ 4, 6; 24-5 ¶ 13. When an agency suddenly changes course, it must recognize “that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016)). Defendants entirely failed to do so.
In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable. See ECF No. 30, at 17 (“[ i]t is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them.”). Either way, Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim.
d. Excess of statutory authority
Plaintiffs’ second claim argues that Defendants dramatically overstepped the bounds of their legal authority in ordering a nationwide funding freeze.12 Agencies “are creatures of statute” and are therefore subject to the limits prescribed by Congress. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (“OSHA”). In other words, they “‘literally ha[ve] no power to act’ except to the extent Congress [has] authorized.” Marin Audubon Soc’y v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 121 F.4th 902, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (first alteration in original) (quoting Fed. Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 301 (2022)). If an agency exceeds that power, the court must set aside its action under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
OMB’s organic statute is 31 U.S.C. § 503. Within it, Defendants primarily rely on subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5), but neither appears to grant the expansive authority that OMB tried to exercise here. Under subsection (a)(2), OMB may “[p]rovide overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial management matters by establishing financial management policies and requirements.” Id. § 503(a)(2). But providing overall direction and establishing financial management policies do not clearly confer the power to halt all finances, full-stop, on a moment’s notice. Indeed, the structure and provisions of Section 503 strongly suggest that OMB occupies an oversight role. Defendants have not pointed to specific authority that allows it to unilaterally pull the plug on nearly all federal monetary flows.
Subsection (a)(5) further indicates that OMB’s role is mainly supervisory, rather than directly active. That subsection permits OMB to “monitor the financial execution of the budget in relation to actual expenditures.” Id. § 503(a)(5). Such language falls well short of actively deciding whether agencies “must temporarily pause” all federal financial assistance. Defendants cannot convincingly argue that “monitor” rises to that level of affirmative control. See Monitor, The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989) (defining “monitor” as “to observe, supervise, or keep under review”).
When an agency seeks to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the “sheer scope of [an agency]’s claimed authority” can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 764 (2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). In such situations, the court “expect[s] Congress to speak clearly” when conferring such authority. OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (quoting Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764). The Supreme Court has referred to this principle as the “major questions doctrine.” Id. at 122 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Based on the cases in which the Supreme Court has invoked the doctrine, this case easily qualifies. See Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764 (applying the doctrine where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented a nationwide eviction moratorium affecting up to 17 million tenants); OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117-18 (applying the doctrine where OSHA required all federal employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations).
“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” the court “typically greet[s] its announcement with a measure of skepticism.” Util. Air Regul. Auth. Grp., 573 U.S. at 324 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000)). Here, Defendants attempted to freeze as much as $3 trillion dollars—the sum total of “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. That is “no everyday exercise of federal power.” OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 20 F.4th 264, 272 (6th Cir. 2021) (Sutton, C.J., dissenting)).
The scope of power OMB seeks to claim is “breathtaking,” and its ramifications are massive. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764. Because there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.
e. First Amendment
Plaintiffs’ third claim alleges that Defendants are “threaten[ing] [the] continued receipt of federal financial assistance based explicitly on [the recipients’] exercise of their core First Amendment rights of speech and association.” ECF No. 40, at 26. Defendants counter that the government may “selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities” without simultaneously “funding an alternative program [that] deal[s] with the problem in another way.” ECF No. 47, at 34 (quoting Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 193 (1991)). Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,” Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 450 (1991), or “assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas,” Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353, 358 (2009). And refusing to pay for certain speech generally does not inflict a First Amendment harm. See Rust, 500 U.S. at 193.
What is less clear, however, is whether the government may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints. Rust and similar decisions by the Supreme Court “are grounded in the notion that the ‘Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid.’” J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 507 (1989)). But that calculus could change if individuals or organizations have already been awarded certain funds and grants—as is the case with Plaintiffs’ members here. If Defendants were to unfreeze promised funds only to organizations expressing one view, but not to organizations expressing the opposite view, that could raise First Amendment concerns.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech[,] even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.” Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013) (“USAID”) (emphasis added) (quoting Rumsfeld v. F. for Acad. & Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47, 59 (2006)). It has also made clear that the government cannot “leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the [funding] program itself.” Id. at 214-15 (emphasis added). In other words, when the government exerts First Amendment pressures that have nothing to do with the actual financial assistance program, that can be a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs rely on that principle here. Defendants respond by arguing that the OMB Pause Memorandum is solely framed around “focusing taxpayer dollars” and “[t]he use of federal resources,” rather than governing speech beyond the scope of federal financial assistance. ECF No. 47, at 34-35 (alteration in original) (citing OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1).
While the answer is not obvious at this early stage, Plaintiffs have shown some likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim. The Supreme Court has remarked that the line between proper subsidization and improper coercion “is hardly clear . . . because the definition of a particular program can always be manipulated to subsume the challenged condition.” USAID, 570 U.S. at 215. That said, the government “cannot recast a condition on funding as a mere definition of its program in every case, lest the First Amendment be reduced to a simple semantic exercise.” Id. (quoting Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 547 (2001)). The OMB Pause Memorandum made several policy statements that are hostile to concepts like “Marxist equity,” “transgenderism,” and “woke gender ideology.” OMB Memorandum, at 2. It also instructed federal agencies to pause all disbursements that could be connected to these ill-defined categories. Id. There is no indication that expressing viewpoints on these issues (or being associated with them at all) is in any way tied to the “contours of the [funding] program[s] [themselves].” USAID, 570 U.S. at 214-15.
The government “may not ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” or “manipulate[]” a subsidy “to have a coercive effect.” Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 587 (1998) (brackets omitted) (first quoting Regan v. Tax’n Without Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 550 (1983), then quoting Ark. Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 237 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). By appearing to target specific recipients because they associate with certain ideas, Defendants may be crossing a constitutional line.
2. Irreparable Harm
While irreparable injury is “a high standard,” England, 454 F.3d at 297, the court’s analysis of this factor remains unchanged from the TRO stage. Defendants have not introduced arguments or evidence sufficient to undercut Plaintiffs’ strong showing of irreparable harm.
To qualify for injunctive relief, the alleged injury “must be both certain and great,” “actual and not theoretical,” and “of such imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for equitable relief.” Id. (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). It must also “be beyond remediation,” meaning that “[t]he possibility [of] adequate compensatory or other corrective relief . . . at a later date . . . weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.” Id. at 297-98 (quoting Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674).
Here, Plaintiffs have produced significant evidence that a pause on federal funding will “threaten[] the very existence of [their members’] business.” Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674. A freeze will not simply inconvenience them, it will devastate them. The court recounts its findings from before, which still hold true today:
ECF No. 30, at 27.
While funds have resumed flowing to some recipients, that does not erase the imminence or irreparability of what another pause would entail. As at least one declarant explained, the resumption of funding “came in under the wire: had it been one day later, we would not have been able to make payroll on Friday, February 7.” ECF No. 40-3 ¶ 4. As discussed previously, all of these organizations rely on continued funding in order to keep their doors open.
The fact that organizations have been able to draw down funds in the immediate aftermath of the court’s TRO means nothing if the spigot is shut off again. The injunctive relief that Defendants fought so hard to deny is the only thing in this case holding potentially catastrophic harm at bay.13 The court’s previous order may have bought Plaintiffs a few additional weeks of funding, but they remain just as vulnerable as they were in the first week of February. A single disbursement does not protect a recipient when the next disbursement is equally as vital. Plaintiffs have easily shown irreparable harm.
3. Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest
As is the case with irreparable harm, the balance of the equities and the public interest continue to weigh heavily in favor of injunctive relief. “Plaintiffs paint[ed] a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze.” ECF No. 30, at 28. Nonprofits and organizations across the country were left adrift as they scrambled to make sense of the memorandum and its effects. See ECF Nos. 24-4, 24-5, 24-6, 24-7, 24-8, 24-9, 24-10, 24-11. Entire funding portals were taken offline with no rhyme or reason, generating significant confusion and fear. See ECF Nos. 24-8 ¶¶ 8-9; 24-6 ¶ 15; 24-7 ¶ 13; 24-8 ¶ 9. Many organizations had to resort to desperate measures just to stay operational. The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly, and everyone in between in serious jeopardy. Because the public’s interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here.
4. Bond
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) states that the court may issue a TRO or preliminary injunction “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Here, Defendants ask the court to require Plaintiffs to “post a bond commensurate with the scope of the relief ordered.” ECF No. 47, at 44-45. The court declines. Rule 65(c) “has been read to vest broad discretion in the district court to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond,” DSE, Inc. v. United States, 169 F.3d 21, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1999), “including the discretion to require no bond at all,” P.J.E.S. ex rel. Escobar Francisco v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 520 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 107 (D.D.C. 2012)). A bond “is not necessary where requiring [one] would have the effect of denying the plaintiffs their right to judicial review of administrative action.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Morton, 337 F. Supp. 167, 168 (D.D.C. 1971) (collecting cases); cf. Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump, No. 25-CV-333, 2025 WL 573764, at *29 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025) (setting a nominal bond of zero dollars because granting the defendants’ request “would essentially forestall [the] [p]laintiffs’ access to judicial review”). In a case where the government is alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients, it would defy logic—and contravene the very basis of this opinion—to hold Plaintiffs hostage for the resulting harm. That is especially so when Defendants—OMB and its director—will personally face no monetary injury from the injunction.14
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter a preliminary injunction. A separate order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 25, 2025
**********
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED to the extent that it is
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must provide written notice of the court’s preliminary injunction to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed. The written notice shall instruct those agencies that they may not take any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal Funds under all open awards. It shall also instruct those agencies to continue releasing any disbursements on open awards that were paused due to OMB Memorandum M-25-13; it is further
ORDERED that this Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a status report on or before February 28, 2025, apprising the court of the status of their compliance with this Order, including by providing a copy of the written notice described above; it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report proposing next steps in this proceeding on or before February 28, 2025; and it is further
ORDERED that Beatrice Adams’s Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 19, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 25, 2025
_______________
Notes:
1 Although Plaintiffs originally named then-Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Matthew Vaeth as a defendant, Russell Vought—who was confirmed by the Senate on February 6, 2025—“is automatically substituted as a party” in Mr. Vaeth’s place pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
2 The memorandum included a footnote stating: “Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1 n.2.
3 The court issued the administrative stay from the bench shortly before the “temporary pause” of federal funding was set to take effect at 5:00 p.m. Tr. of Emergency Hr’g, at 23:21-24:5, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025).
4 The same day, Beatrice Adams moved to intervene on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. ECF No. 19. She sought to dissolve the court’s then-active administrative stay, arguing that child-welfare funding was being used to “facilitate the separation of children from loving homes.” Id. at 3-4. Both parties oppose Ms. Adams’s intervention. ECF Nos. 41, 42. The court will deny Ms. Adams’s motion. To the extent she only seeks to challenge the administrative stay, Ms. Adams’s motion to intervene is now moot. In any event, Ms. Adams’s claims are too factually and legally attenuated from those alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and Defendants are “already adequately representing the Government’s interests in ensuring that all federal funding is administered appropriately.” ECF No. 42, at 1.
5 While the court did not fully address Plaintiffs’ other two claims (that Defendants’ actions were in excess of statutory authority and violated the First Amendment), it noted that they had shown at least some likelihood of success on both. ECF No. 30, at 20 n.6.
6 In the interim, on February 14, the American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Defendants. ECF No. 46.
7 Amicus American Center for Law and Justice echoes Defendants’ mootness argument, claiming that “none of [Plaintiffs’] desired terms of the Prayer for Relief can be implemented [because] there is no OMB Memo that can be enjoined, restrained, or vacated.” ECF No. 48, at 3. The court has already rejected this argument. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief is limited only to the memorandum, they have shown that the rescission had no real effect on Defendants’ actions. For days after the memorandum purportedly ceased to exist, agencies continued to withhold funds pursuant to its authority. See ECF No. 24-1, at 7. If Amicus were correct, a government agency could order illegal activity, retract that order in name only while continuing to implement its substance, and escape legal liability. The court refuses to ratify such behavior. Amicus goes on to argue that “Plaintiffs cannot use a Complaint directed against the OMB Memo as a basis for obtaining relief against all pauses of whatever basis,” ECF No. 48, at 5, but this misconstrues the requested injunctive relief. Plaintiffs made clear at the preliminary injunction hearing that they only seek to prevent Defendants from ordering or implementing unilateral, blanket pauses across the entire federal funding apparatus. See Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 55:15-18, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025) (proposing an order that would enjoin a “unilateral[] . . . freeze on the payment of open awards on a non-individualized basis”). In other words, Plaintiffs wish to use a complaint directed against an agency-ordered blanket freeze to obtain relief against that precise action.
8 Defendants acknowledge, however, that Plaintiffs’ statutory claim—whether OMB has the power and authority to order “a government-wide halt on trillions of dollars in grants, loans, and other forms of financial assistance”—does not raise ripeness concerns. ECF No. 47, at 20 n.2.
9 Indeed, some agencies froze funding portals and resources even before the OMB Guidance Document was issued. Those agencies were necessarily operating pursuant to the original OMB Pause Memorandum, not the subsequent guidance. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 8 (unable to access funding portal during the day on January 28, before Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed around noon); 24-7 ¶ 13 (same); 24-8 ¶ 9 (unable to access fund portal as early as January 27).
10 Both Defendants and Amicus argue that “[t]emporary funding pauses are not an unusual exercise of executive authority.” ECF No. 48, at 6; see ECF No. 47, at 26-28, 30-31. For support, they rely on President Biden’s pause of funding to the southern border wall, Proclamation No. 10,142, Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction, 86 Fed. Reg. 7225 (Jan. 20, 2021), and President Obama’s thirty-day delay of Recovery Act funds, Mem. No. E9-6754, Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds, 74 Fed. Reg. 12531 (Mar. 20, 2009). Without passing judgment on the merits of any hypothetical challenges to those executive decrees, the court is unpersuaded that targeted pauses of funding for specific projects through an executive order are at all comparable OMB’s nationwide suspension of all federal financial assistance. Again, the court disagrees with Defendants’ and Amicus’s characterization of the pause in this case as “targeted” and “discrete” when the language of the memorandum applied to the “disbursement of all Federal funds under all open awards.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2.
11 Defendants repeatedly reference the memorandum’s limitation that agencies only act “to the extent permissible under applicable law,” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2, but this does not save them. First, the incantation of magic language cannot justify otherwise-illegal action. Plaintiffs’ entire complaint alleges that Defendants’ instruction was unlawful to begin with. Second, even assuming that this language applies does not change the arbitrary-and-capricious analysis. Just because an agency can do something does not make it rational to do so.
12 As was the case at the TRO stage, a plaintiff who brings multiple claims only needs to show a likelihood of success on one of them to obtain injunctive relief. See Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 (D.D.C.), appeal filed, No. 24-7059 (D.C. Cir. 2024). In the interest of being thorough, the court will address each of Plaintiffs’ claims here.
13 The court reiterates that the District of Rhode Island’s TRO does not lessen the severity of the potential irreparable harm in this case. This court has no control over the District of Rhode Island’s decisions and a TRO in that case does “not block this court from entering a TRO of its own.” ECF No. 30, at 28 n.9; see Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1, 60 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[C]ourts routinely grant follow-on injunctions against the Government, even in instances when an earlier nationwide injunction has already provided plaintiffs in the later action with their desired relief.”) (collecting cases).
14 The court also denies Defendants’ request for an administrative stay pending appeal as premature. Id. at 45. If Defendants, after reviewing this opinion and its accompanying order, believe that a stay pending appeal is warranted, they may make a request consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.
B. Preliminary Injunction
While they differ in duration, temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are subject to the same substantive legal standards. See, e.g., Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 223 (D.D.C. 2016). Courts may either grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) or, in APA cases, may “issue all necessary and appropriate process to . . . preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings” when doing so is “necessary to prevent irreparable injury.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. Both provisions provide a mechanism for issuing injunctive relief and operate under the same four-factor test. District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 444 F. Supp. 3d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2020).
To obtain a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
These four considerations are factors, not elements. “A district court must ‘balance the strengths of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas.’” Id. (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). When a government entity is a party to the case, the third and fourth factors merge. Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), courts in this Circuit tended to employ a “sliding scale” method in which “a strong showing on one factor could make up for a weaker showing on another.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011). While the D.C. Circuit has considered abandoning the sliding-scale method for one that treats the substantial likelihood prong as “an independent, free-standing requirement,” id. at 393, it has yet to decide one way or the other, see Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 716, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022). At the very least, however, the plaintiff must present a “serious legal question on the merits.” Raimondo, 40 F.4th at 726 (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 398). Given the ambiguity with respect to the sliding-scale approach, the court will consider all factors and delve into their relative weight only if it would affect the outcome. See Costa, 456 F. Supp. 3d at 133.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
On the merits, Defendants largely repeat the same arguments they made at the TRO stage. See ECF No. 47, at 14-16 (final agency action), 25-31 (arbitrary and capricious), 31-34 (statutory authority), 34-36 (First Amendment). The court begins by addressing OMB’s guidance document, which the parties discussed at length in their preliminary injunction briefing and at oral argument. See ECF No. 47, at 20-25; ECF No. 49, at 4-6; Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 6:19-9:14, 29:21-32:24, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2025). It then turns to final agency action, followed by the substantive merits of Plaintiffs’ three claims.
a. The role of the OMB Guidance
Defendants spill considerable ink about OMB’s issuance of a guidance document, ECF No. 11-1 (“OMB Guidance Document”), which supposedly limited the scope of the OMB Pause Memorandum, see ECF No. 47, at 20-25. They assert that the original memorandum, when read in tandem with the OMB Guidance Document, stops short of unlawful agency action. Id. at 21 (noting the OMB Guidance Document’s statement that “the pause does not apply across-the-board” and “is expressly limited to programs, projects, and activities implicated by the President’s Executive Orders”). This argument sounds persuasive in theory but clashes with how Defendants’ directives were actually written and implemented.
As an initial matter, the language of the OMB Guidance Document appears to contradict that of the original memorandum. The guidance document sought to carve out numerous programs and portray the initial command as much more limited, but the original memorandum mandated (in bold typeface, no less) that all federal agencies “must temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum. It also required agencies to stop the “disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.” Id. 26 (emphasis added). As the court explained previously, supra Part II.A.2.a, this language conveyed a clear directive to implement a blanket pause of federal financial assistance. That flatly contravenes the OMB Guidance Document’s pronouncement that the pause “d[id] not apply across-the-board.” OMB Guidance Document, at 1.
Furthermore, regardless of how Defendants would have liked their guidance to apply, that is a far cry from how it was administered in practice. As far as the parties and this court are aware, the guidance was issued at some point on January 28 (the same day the funding freeze was to take effect). Plaintiffs only received a copy of the guidance around 1:30 p.m., see ECF No. 11, at 2, and even Defendants did not know exactly when it was originally issued or distributed to federal agencies, Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 25:5-9, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025). Under the most generous viewing of the case’s chronology, agencies had maybe four hours (but probably fewer) to actualize the OMB Guidance Document. Clearly, that was not enough time.9 Agencies still implemented the original memorandum as written. For example, despite the guidance’s attempt to carve out “program[s] that provide[] direct benefits to individuals,” OMB Guidance Document, at 1, financial assistance for such programs was still suspended, see ECF Nos. 24-5 ¶¶ 14-16; 27-1 ¶¶ 4-5. The guidance also exempted “[f]unds for small businesses” and “Head Start” payments, OMB Guidance Document, at 2, but those fell victim to the freeze, too, see ECF Nos. 24-3, at 74; 24-6. Defendants cannot rely on the OMB Guidance Document as a saving grace when it had virtually no effect on the ground.
This theme—that Plaintiffs are trying to enjoin a far-reaching version of the OMB Pause Memorandum that never existed—pervades all of Defendants’ briefing and argument. See ECF No. 47, at 10 (mootness), 13 (causation), 20-25 (role of the OMB Guidance Document); 27 (arbitrary and capricious). But Defendants cannot take a memorandum that was drafted broadly, interpreted expansively, and implemented categorically and fault Plaintiffs for “overreading” that directive.
b. Final agency action
Defendants, now joined by Amicus, again dispute whether the OMB Pause Memorandum was final agency action. Like before, the court is unpersuaded.
Finality is a prerequisite to the judicial review of an APA claim. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. Agency actions, as a general matter, must be “circumscribed [and] discrete.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 62 (2004). Final agency action, in particular, “must mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and determine “rights or obligations . . . from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948), then quoting Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 (1970)). The APA does not, for example, allow a court to review an agency’s “day-to-day operations.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 899 (1990).
Echoing points from their causation argument, Defendants claim that any instruction from OMB could not have been final because it was the individual agencies that carried out the funding freeze. To the extent this repeats the causation analysis, the court has already addressed it. See supra Part II.A.1.b.
Defendants and Amicus further accuse Plaintiffs of improperly advancing a “‘broad programmatic attack’ on an agency’s operations” by targeting a policy “consisting [principally] of . . . many individual actions.” ECF No. 48, at 5 (second alteration in original) (first quoting Norton, 542 U.S. at 64, then quoting Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. at 892-93); see ECF No. 47, at 15-16. But Plaintiffs only challenge one specific act by OMB: ordering a nationwide pause on federal financial assistance. And, as explained, supra Part II.B.1.a, Defendants and Amicus cannot rely on a theoretical version or application of OMB’s directives. The initial memorandum was drafted and interpreted broadly in accordance with its text, and what little clarity the guidance offered—if any—came far too late. As the court explained in its earlier opinion, the OMB Pause Memorandum issued a mandatory command to other federal agencies that produced legal consequences for Plaintiffs and others. See ECF No. 30, at 21-23.
c. Arbitrary and capricious
Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). To pass muster, the agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action[,] including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Agency action is generally deemed unlawful if it “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id.
The arbitrary-and-capricious review at this stage of the litigation remains largely unchanged from the court’s earlier opinion. The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1. Evaluating funding priorities can be done without needing to starve citizens or deny critical health services. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 6; 24-11 ¶¶ 6-7. The potential $3 trillion in financial assistance implicated by the freeze is a “breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight.” ECF No. 30, at 24. And “[r]ather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.” Id. Doing so was not—and could never be—rational, especially when the decision was made without grappling with its catastrophic effects or the logistical nightmare of its implementation.10 See Bus. Roundtable v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 647 F.3d 1144, 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (explaining that an agency’s failure to “apprise itself . . . of the economic consequences” of potential action is “arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law” (quoting Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 412 F.3d 133, 144 (D.C. Cir. 2005))). Defendants essentially adopted a “freeze first, ask questions later” approach that “entirely failed to consider [multiple] important aspect[s] of the problem.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43.11
Defendants also ignored significant reliance interests. Plaintiffs—who only challenge the pausing of already allocated funds—produced substantial evidence that numerous organizations need consistent disbursements of funds to even operate. Missing a single payment could require immediate firings or the discontinuation of entire programs. See ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶¶ 4, 6; 24-5 ¶ 13. When an agency suddenly changes course, it must recognize “that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016)). Defendants entirely failed to do so.
In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable. See ECF No. 30, at 17 (“[ i]t is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them.”). Either way, Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim.
d. Excess of statutory authority
Plaintiffs’ second claim argues that Defendants dramatically overstepped the bounds of their legal authority in ordering a nationwide funding freeze.12 Agencies “are creatures of statute” and are therefore subject to the limits prescribed by Congress. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (“OSHA”). In other words, they “‘literally ha[ve] no power to act’ except to the extent Congress [has] authorized.” Marin Audubon Soc’y v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 121 F.4th 902, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (first alteration in original) (quoting Fed. Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 301 (2022)). If an agency exceeds that power, the court must set aside its action under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
OMB’s organic statute is 31 U.S.C. § 503. Within it, Defendants primarily rely on subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5), but neither appears to grant the expansive authority that OMB tried to exercise here. Under subsection (a)(2), OMB may “[p]rovide overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial management matters by establishing financial management policies and requirements.” Id. § 503(a)(2). But providing overall direction and establishing financial management policies do not clearly confer the power to halt all finances, full-stop, on a moment’s notice. Indeed, the structure and provisions of Section 503 strongly suggest that OMB occupies an oversight role. Defendants have not pointed to specific authority that allows it to unilaterally pull the plug on nearly all federal monetary flows.
Subsection (a)(5) further indicates that OMB’s role is mainly supervisory, rather than directly active. That subsection permits OMB to “monitor the financial execution of the budget in relation to actual expenditures.” Id. § 503(a)(5). Such language falls well short of actively deciding whether agencies “must temporarily pause” all federal financial assistance. Defendants cannot convincingly argue that “monitor” rises to that level of affirmative control. See Monitor, The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989) (defining “monitor” as “to observe, supervise, or keep under review”).
When an agency seeks to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the “sheer scope of [an agency]’s claimed authority” can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 764 (2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). In such situations, the court “expect[s] Congress to speak clearly” when conferring such authority. OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (quoting Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764). The Supreme Court has referred to this principle as the “major questions doctrine.” Id. at 122 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Based on the cases in which the Supreme Court has invoked the doctrine, this case easily qualifies. See Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764 (applying the doctrine where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented a nationwide eviction moratorium affecting up to 17 million tenants); OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117-18 (applying the doctrine where OSHA required all federal employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations).
“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” the court “typically greet[s] its announcement with a measure of skepticism.” Util. Air Regul. Auth. Grp., 573 U.S. at 324 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000)). Here, Defendants attempted to freeze as much as $3 trillion dollars—the sum total of “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2. That is “no everyday exercise of federal power.” OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 20 F.4th 264, 272 (6th Cir. 2021) (Sutton, C.J., dissenting)).
The scope of power OMB seeks to claim is “breathtaking,” and its ramifications are massive. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764. Because there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.
e. First Amendment
Plaintiffs’ third claim alleges that Defendants are “threaten[ing] [the] continued receipt of federal financial assistance based explicitly on [the recipients’] exercise of their core First Amendment rights of speech and association.” ECF No. 40, at 26. Defendants counter that the government may “selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities” without simultaneously “funding an alternative program [that] deal[s] with the problem in another way.” ECF No. 47, at 34 (quoting Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 193 (1991)). Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,” Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 450 (1991), or “assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas,” Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353, 358 (2009). And refusing to pay for certain speech generally does not inflict a First Amendment harm. See Rust, 500 U.S. at 193.
What is less clear, however, is whether the government may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints. Rust and similar decisions by the Supreme Court “are grounded in the notion that the ‘Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid.’” J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 507 (1989)). But that calculus could change if individuals or organizations have already been awarded certain funds and grants—as is the case with Plaintiffs’ members here. If Defendants were to unfreeze promised funds only to organizations expressing one view, but not to organizations expressing the opposite view, that could raise First Amendment concerns.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech[,] even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.” Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013) (“USAID”) (emphasis added) (quoting Rumsfeld v. F. for Acad. & Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47, 59 (2006)). It has also made clear that the government cannot “leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the [funding] program itself.” Id. at 214-15 (emphasis added). In other words, when the government exerts First Amendment pressures that have nothing to do with the actual financial assistance program, that can be a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs rely on that principle here. Defendants respond by arguing that the OMB Pause Memorandum is solely framed around “focusing taxpayer dollars” and “[t]he use of federal resources,” rather than governing speech beyond the scope of federal financial assistance. ECF No. 47, at 34-35 (alteration in original) (citing OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1).
While the answer is not obvious at this early stage, Plaintiffs have shown some likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim. The Supreme Court has remarked that the line between proper subsidization and improper coercion “is hardly clear . . . because the definition of a particular program can always be manipulated to subsume the challenged condition.” USAID, 570 U.S. at 215. That said, the government “cannot recast a condition on funding as a mere definition of its program in every case, lest the First Amendment be reduced to a simple semantic exercise.” Id. (quoting Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 547 (2001)). The OMB Pause Memorandum made several policy statements that are hostile to concepts like “Marxist equity,” “transgenderism,” and “woke gender ideology.” OMB Memorandum, at 2. It also instructed federal agencies to pause all disbursements that could be connected to these ill-defined categories. Id. There is no indication that expressing viewpoints on these issues (or being associated with them at all) is in any way tied to the “contours of the [funding] program[s] [themselves].” USAID, 570 U.S. at 214-15.
The government “may not ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” or “manipulate[]” a subsidy “to have a coercive effect.” Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 587 (1998) (brackets omitted) (first quoting Regan v. Tax’n Without Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 550 (1983), then quoting Ark. Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 237 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). By appearing to target specific recipients because they associate with certain ideas, Defendants may be crossing a constitutional line.
2. Irreparable Harm
While irreparable injury is “a high standard,” England, 454 F.3d at 297, the court’s analysis of this factor remains unchanged from the TRO stage. Defendants have not introduced arguments or evidence sufficient to undercut Plaintiffs’ strong showing of irreparable harm.
To qualify for injunctive relief, the alleged injury “must be both certain and great,” “actual and not theoretical,” and “of such imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for equitable relief.” Id. (quoting Wis. Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). It must also “be beyond remediation,” meaning that “[t]he possibility [of] adequate compensatory or other corrective relief . . . at a later date . . . weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.” Id. at 297-98 (quoting Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674).
Here, Plaintiffs have produced significant evidence that a pause on federal funding will “threaten[] the very existence of [their members’] business.” Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674. A freeze will not simply inconvenience them, it will devastate them. The court recounts its findings from before, which still hold true today:
If the freeze were to remain in effect [or recur], Plaintiffs’ members will suffer “existential injuries” and some programs may “simply disappear.” ECF No. 5-1, at 12. Their workers may be unable to pay for housing or food. ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7 (“A lot of our staff live paycheck to paycheck, and if they can’t get paid, then they are unable to pay rent or buy groceries.”). Some have already been forced to “shutter [their] programs” just to make payroll. ECF No. 24-7 ¶¶ 20-21. And patients or customers that rely on their services may be denied care when it is most needed. ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 16; 24-5 ¶ 21. For some, these are harms for which “there can be no do over and no redress.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 9 (quoting League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014)); see ECF No. 24-4 ¶ 7 (“[ I]f my Health Center loses physicians, dentist, or nurse practitioners, then it will be virtually impossible to recruit replacements to a rural Health System that is suddenly an unreliable source of income.”).
ECF No. 30, at 27.
While funds have resumed flowing to some recipients, that does not erase the imminence or irreparability of what another pause would entail. As at least one declarant explained, the resumption of funding “came in under the wire: had it been one day later, we would not have been able to make payroll on Friday, February 7.” ECF No. 40-3 ¶ 4. As discussed previously, all of these organizations rely on continued funding in order to keep their doors open.
The fact that organizations have been able to draw down funds in the immediate aftermath of the court’s TRO means nothing if the spigot is shut off again. The injunctive relief that Defendants fought so hard to deny is the only thing in this case holding potentially catastrophic harm at bay.13 The court’s previous order may have bought Plaintiffs a few additional weeks of funding, but they remain just as vulnerable as they were in the first week of February. A single disbursement does not protect a recipient when the next disbursement is equally as vital. Plaintiffs have easily shown irreparable harm.
3. Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest
As is the case with irreparable harm, the balance of the equities and the public interest continue to weigh heavily in favor of injunctive relief. “Plaintiffs paint[ed] a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze.” ECF No. 30, at 28. Nonprofits and organizations across the country were left adrift as they scrambled to make sense of the memorandum and its effects. See ECF Nos. 24-4, 24-5, 24-6, 24-7, 24-8, 24-9, 24-10, 24-11. Entire funding portals were taken offline with no rhyme or reason, generating significant confusion and fear. See ECF Nos. 24-8 ¶¶ 8-9; 24-6 ¶ 15; 24-7 ¶ 13; 24-8 ¶ 9. Many organizations had to resort to desperate measures just to stay operational. The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly, and everyone in between in serious jeopardy. Because the public’s interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here.
4. Bond
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) states that the court may issue a TRO or preliminary injunction “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Here, Defendants ask the court to require Plaintiffs to “post a bond commensurate with the scope of the relief ordered.” ECF No. 47, at 44-45. The court declines. Rule 65(c) “has been read to vest broad discretion in the district court to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond,” DSE, Inc. v. United States, 169 F.3d 21, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1999), “including the discretion to require no bond at all,” P.J.E.S. ex rel. Escobar Francisco v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 520 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 107 (D.D.C. 2012)). A bond “is not necessary where requiring [one] would have the effect of denying the plaintiffs their right to judicial review of administrative action.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Morton, 337 F. Supp. 167, 168 (D.D.C. 1971) (collecting cases); cf. Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump, No. 25-CV-333, 2025 WL 573764, at *29 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025) (setting a nominal bond of zero dollars because granting the defendants’ request “would essentially forestall [the] [p]laintiffs’ access to judicial review”). In a case where the government is alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients, it would defy logic—and contravene the very basis of this opinion—to hold Plaintiffs hostage for the resulting harm. That is especially so when Defendants—OMB and its director—will personally face no monetary injury from the injunction.14
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter a preliminary injunction. A separate order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 25, 2025
**********
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED to the extent that it is
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must provide written notice of the court’s preliminary injunction to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed. The written notice shall instruct those agencies that they may not take any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal Funds under all open awards. It shall also instruct those agencies to continue releasing any disbursements on open awards that were paused due to OMB Memorandum M-25-13; it is further
ORDERED that this Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a status report on or before February 28, 2025, apprising the court of the status of their compliance with this Order, including by providing a copy of the written notice described above; it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report proposing next steps in this proceeding on or before February 28, 2025; and it is further
ORDERED that Beatrice Adams’s Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 19, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 25, 2025
_______________
Notes:
1 Although Plaintiffs originally named then-Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Matthew Vaeth as a defendant, Russell Vought—who was confirmed by the Senate on February 6, 2025—“is automatically substituted as a party” in Mr. Vaeth’s place pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
2 The memorandum included a footnote stating: “Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1 n.2.
3 The court issued the administrative stay from the bench shortly before the “temporary pause” of federal funding was set to take effect at 5:00 p.m. Tr. of Emergency Hr’g, at 23:21-24:5, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025).
4 The same day, Beatrice Adams moved to intervene on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. ECF No. 19. She sought to dissolve the court’s then-active administrative stay, arguing that child-welfare funding was being used to “facilitate the separation of children from loving homes.” Id. at 3-4. Both parties oppose Ms. Adams’s intervention. ECF Nos. 41, 42. The court will deny Ms. Adams’s motion. To the extent she only seeks to challenge the administrative stay, Ms. Adams’s motion to intervene is now moot. In any event, Ms. Adams’s claims are too factually and legally attenuated from those alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and Defendants are “already adequately representing the Government’s interests in ensuring that all federal funding is administered appropriately.” ECF No. 42, at 1.
5 While the court did not fully address Plaintiffs’ other two claims (that Defendants’ actions were in excess of statutory authority and violated the First Amendment), it noted that they had shown at least some likelihood of success on both. ECF No. 30, at 20 n.6.
6 In the interim, on February 14, the American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Defendants. ECF No. 46.
7 Amicus American Center for Law and Justice echoes Defendants’ mootness argument, claiming that “none of [Plaintiffs’] desired terms of the Prayer for Relief can be implemented [because] there is no OMB Memo that can be enjoined, restrained, or vacated.” ECF No. 48, at 3. The court has already rejected this argument. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief is limited only to the memorandum, they have shown that the rescission had no real effect on Defendants’ actions. For days after the memorandum purportedly ceased to exist, agencies continued to withhold funds pursuant to its authority. See ECF No. 24-1, at 7. If Amicus were correct, a government agency could order illegal activity, retract that order in name only while continuing to implement its substance, and escape legal liability. The court refuses to ratify such behavior. Amicus goes on to argue that “Plaintiffs cannot use a Complaint directed against the OMB Memo as a basis for obtaining relief against all pauses of whatever basis,” ECF No. 48, at 5, but this misconstrues the requested injunctive relief. Plaintiffs made clear at the preliminary injunction hearing that they only seek to prevent Defendants from ordering or implementing unilateral, blanket pauses across the entire federal funding apparatus. See Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, at 55:15-18, Nat’l Council of Nonprofits, No. 25-CV-239 (Feb. 20, 2025) (proposing an order that would enjoin a “unilateral[] . . . freeze on the payment of open awards on a non-individualized basis”). In other words, Plaintiffs wish to use a complaint directed against an agency-ordered blanket freeze to obtain relief against that precise action.
8 Defendants acknowledge, however, that Plaintiffs’ statutory claim—whether OMB has the power and authority to order “a government-wide halt on trillions of dollars in grants, loans, and other forms of financial assistance”—does not raise ripeness concerns. ECF No. 47, at 20 n.2.
9 Indeed, some agencies froze funding portals and resources even before the OMB Guidance Document was issued. Those agencies were necessarily operating pursuant to the original OMB Pause Memorandum, not the subsequent guidance. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 8 (unable to access funding portal during the day on January 28, before Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed around noon); 24-7 ¶ 13 (same); 24-8 ¶ 9 (unable to access fund portal as early as January 27).
10 Both Defendants and Amicus argue that “[t]emporary funding pauses are not an unusual exercise of executive authority.” ECF No. 48, at 6; see ECF No. 47, at 26-28, 30-31. For support, they rely on President Biden’s pause of funding to the southern border wall, Proclamation No. 10,142, Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction, 86 Fed. Reg. 7225 (Jan. 20, 2021), and President Obama’s thirty-day delay of Recovery Act funds, Mem. No. E9-6754, Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds, 74 Fed. Reg. 12531 (Mar. 20, 2009). Without passing judgment on the merits of any hypothetical challenges to those executive decrees, the court is unpersuaded that targeted pauses of funding for specific projects through an executive order are at all comparable OMB’s nationwide suspension of all federal financial assistance. Again, the court disagrees with Defendants’ and Amicus’s characterization of the pause in this case as “targeted” and “discrete” when the language of the memorandum applied to the “disbursement of all Federal funds under all open awards.” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2.
11 Defendants repeatedly reference the memorandum’s limitation that agencies only act “to the extent permissible under applicable law,” OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2, but this does not save them. First, the incantation of magic language cannot justify otherwise-illegal action. Plaintiffs’ entire complaint alleges that Defendants’ instruction was unlawful to begin with. Second, even assuming that this language applies does not change the arbitrary-and-capricious analysis. Just because an agency can do something does not make it rational to do so.
12 As was the case at the TRO stage, a plaintiff who brings multiple claims only needs to show a likelihood of success on one of them to obtain injunctive relief. See Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 (D.D.C.), appeal filed, No. 24-7059 (D.C. Cir. 2024). In the interest of being thorough, the court will address each of Plaintiffs’ claims here.
13 The court reiterates that the District of Rhode Island’s TRO does not lessen the severity of the potential irreparable harm in this case. This court has no control over the District of Rhode Island’s decisions and a TRO in that case does “not block this court from entering a TRO of its own.” ECF No. 30, at 28 n.9; see Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1, 60 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[C]ourts routinely grant follow-on injunctions against the Government, even in instances when an earlier nationwide injunction has already provided plaintiffs in the later action with their desired relief.”) (collecting cases).
14 The court also denies Defendants’ request for an administrative stay pending appeal as premature. Id. at 45. If Defendants, after reviewing this opinion and its accompanying order, believe that a stay pending appeal is warranted, they may make a request consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:57 am
Highlights: Memorandum Opinion
National Council of Nonprofits, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al., Case No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
by Judge Loren L. Alikhan,
United States District Judge
February 25, 2025
National Council of Nonprofits, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al., Case No. 25 - 239 (LLA)
by Judge Loren L. Alikhan,
United States District Judge
February 25, 2025
Highlights:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that “even a temporary pause in funding to their members . . . would destroy their ability to provide [critical] services.” … Many, if not all, of Plaintiffs’ members “need weekly injections of federal funds in order to continue operating.” … Some have employees who “live paycheck to paycheck, meaning that a single missed payment could prevent them from buying groceries or paying rent.” … Others had begun to feel the effects of the freeze even before it was supposed to go into effect: one tribal organization was forced to preemptively lay off two employees on January 28. … Plaintiffs also demonstrated constitutional injury because “Defendants [allegedly] singled out their funding programs (in other words, their economic lifelines) based on their exercise of speech and association.”….
Defendants cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case. The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction. In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic—and in some circumstances, fatal— to their members….
Rescinding the OMB Pause Memorandum did not moot the case because Defendants could not—and still cannot—show that they will not “resume the challenged activity.” As the court previously observed, the White House Press Secretary appeared to completely contradict the act of rescission by expressly stating that it was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.” … By any reading of the Press Secretary’s remarks, the memorandum’s retraction was an empty gesture. At best, it was meaningless. At worst, it was a brazen attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction without actually altering course. ... the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies with greater force when a party is suspected of “manipulating the judicial process through the false pretense of singlehandedly ending a dispute” … Because Plaintiffs’ members were still being frozen out of their funding in the wake of the purported “rescission,” … “it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without . . . ceasing the challenged conduct.”…
Defendants blithely suggest that if they were to revive or reissue the OMB Pause Memorandum at some future point in time, Plaintiffs could simply “file another motion for preliminary relief.” … This proposal completely disregards the mountain of evidence Plaintiffs presented showing that even the threat of a funding freeze was enough to send countless organizations into complete disarray. Hours before the original pause was scheduled to start, organizations were already laying off staff or shuttering programs. … In some cases, this was anticipatory; in others, it was because organizations were already being frozen out of funding portals. … Defendants’ assumption that Plaintiffs can easily rush back before the court for injunctive relief before catastrophe ensues is, quite simply, divorced from reality and the record. Indeed, while turning off funding streams appears to have been alarmingly easy, turning them back on has proven much more difficult…. it took three days to receive funding after entry of the TRO)…
the government is normally entitled to a presumption of good faith on voluntary cessation….But the court will not confer that presumption when the government says one thing while expressly doing another….And it will not reward parties who change appearances without changing conduct….
Under the most generous viewing of the case’s chronology, agencies had maybe four hours (but probably fewer) to actualize the OMB Guidance Document….despite the guidance’s attempt to carve out “program[s] that provide[] direct benefits to individuals,” …The guidance also exempted “[f]unds for small businesses” and “Head Start” payments, … but those fell victim to the freeze, too…Defendants cannot rely on the OMB Guidance Document as a saving grace when it had virtually no effect on the ground….
The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to “safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.”… Evaluating funding priorities can be done without needing to starve citizens or deny critical health services….The potential $3 trillion in financial assistance implicated by the freeze is a “breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight.”… “[r]ather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.”… Doing so was not—and could never be—rational, especially when the decision was made without grappling with its catastrophic effects or the logistical nightmare of its implementation….
When an agency suddenly changes course, it must recognize “that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.”…
In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable…. “[ i]t is unclear whether twenty-four hours is sufficient time for an agency to independently review a single grant, let alone hundreds of thousands of them.”). Either way, Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim….
Plaintiffs’ second claim argues that Defendants dramatically overstepped the bounds of their legal authority in ordering a nationwide funding freeze. Agencies “are creatures of statute” and are therefore subject to the limits prescribed by Congress….they “‘literally ha[ve] no power to act’ except to the extent Congress [has] authorized.”…
When an agency seeks to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the “sheer scope of [an agency]’s claimed authority” can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny….
“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” the court “typically greet[s] its announcement with a measure of skepticism.”… Defendants attempted to freeze as much as $3 trillion dollars—the sum total of “all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” …That is “no everyday exercise of federal power.”…
The scope of power OMB seeks to claim is “breathtaking,” and its ramifications are massive… there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power …
Plaintiffs’ third claim alleges that Defendants are “threaten[ing] [the] continued receipt of federal financial assistance based explicitly on [the recipients’] exercise of their core First Amendment rights of speech and association.”… Defendants are correct that the government “is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights,”… or “assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas,”…
What is less clear, however, is whether the government may deliberately withhold funds that have already been earmarked for certain recipients based exclusively on the recipient’s viewpoints….‘Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid.’”… But that calculus could change if individuals or organizations have already been awarded certain funds and grants—as is the case with Plaintiffs’ members here. If Defendants were to unfreeze promised funds only to organizations expressing one view, but not to organizations expressing the opposite view, that could raise First Amendment concerns….
The Supreme Court has held that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech[,] even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.”… the government cannot “leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the [funding] program itself.”… when the government exerts First Amendment pressures that have nothing to do with the actual financial assistance program, that can be a constitutional violation….
The OMB Pause Memorandum made several policy statements that are hostile to concepts like “Marxist equity,” “transgenderism,” and “woke gender ideology.” … It also instructed federal agencies to pause all disbursements that could be connected to these ill-defined categories. There is no indication that expressing viewpoints on these issues (or being associated with them at all) is in any way tied to the “contours of the [funding] program[s] [themselves].”…
The government “may not ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” or “manipulate[]” a subsidy “to have a coercive effect.”… By appearing to target specific recipients because they associate with certain ideas, Defendants may be crossing a constitutional line….
The fact that organizations have been able to draw down funds in the immediate aftermath of the court’s TRO means nothing if the spigot is shut off again. The injunctive relief that Defendants fought so hard to deny is the only thing in this case holding potentially catastrophic harm at bay. The court’s previous order may have bought Plaintiffs a few additional weeks of funding, but they remain just as vulnerable as they were in the first week of February. A single disbursement does not protect a recipient when the next disbursement is equally as vital. …
“Plaintiffs paint[ed] a stark picture of nationwide panic in the wake of the funding freeze.”… Nonprofits and organizations across the country were left adrift as they scrambled to make sense of the memorandum and its effects…. Entire funding portals were taken offline with no rhyme or reason, generating significant confusion and fear….Many organizations had to resort to desperate measures just to stay operational. The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly, and everyone in between in serious jeopardy. Because the public’s interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here….
Amicus American Center for Law and Justice echoes Defendants’ mootness argument, claiming that “none of [Plaintiffs’] desired terms of the Prayer for Relief can be implemented [because] there is no OMB Memo that can be enjoined, restrained, or vacated.”…
If Amicus were correct, a government agency could order illegal activity, retract that order in name only while continuing to implement its substance, and escape legal liability. The court refuses to ratify such behavior….
Both Defendants and Amicus argue that “[t]emporary funding pauses are not an unusual exercise of executive authority.”… For support, they rely on President Biden’s pause of funding to the southern border wall … and President Obama’s thirty-day delay of Recovery Act funds,…
The court is unpersuaded that targeted pauses of funding for specific projects through an executive order are at all comparable OMB’s nationwide suspension of all federal financial assistance. Again, the court disagrees with Defendants’ and Amicus’s characterization of the pause in this case as “targeted” and “discrete” when the language of the memorandum applied to the “disbursement of all Federal funds under all open awards.”…
Defendants repeatedly reference the memorandum’s limitation that agencies only act “to the extent permissible under applicable law,”… But this does not save them. First, the incantation of magic language cannot justify otherwise-illegal action. Plaintiffs’ entire complaint alleges that Defendants’ instruction was unlawful to begin with. Second, even assuming that this language applies does not change the arbitrary-and-capricious analysis. Just because an agency can do something does not make it rational to do so.
-- Memorandum Opinion, National Council of Nonprofits, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al., Case No. 25 - 239 (LLA), by Judge Loren L. Alikhan, United States District Judge, February 25, 2025
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:06 pm
US Supreme Court allows Trump's freeze of foreign aid funding temporarily
by Brendan Pierson and John Kruzel
Reuters
February 27, 2025 12:21 PM MST Updated an hour ago
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-adm ... 025-02-26/
Summary
• Plaintiffs say Trump actions violate US law, Constitution
• Administration had asked US Supreme Court to intervene
WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a federal judge's order requiring President Donald Trump's administration to pay foreign aid funds to contractors and grant recipients.
Roberts issued an interim order placing on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's action that had imposed a deadline of 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday night. Roberts provided no rationale for the order, known as an administrative stay, which will give the court additional time to consider the administration's more formal request to block Ali's ruling.
Roberts asked for a response from the plaintiffs -- organizations that contract with or receive grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department -- by noon on Friday.
The order came after Trump's administration said in a court filing on Wednesday it had made final decisions terminating most U.S. foreign aid contracts and grants, while maintaining that it cannot meet Ali's court-ordered deadline.
The administration is cutting more than 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development's foreign aid contracts and over $58 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, a State Department spokesperson said separately, calling the cuts part of Trump's "America First agenda."
The foreign aid funding dispute arose from a pair of lawsuits brought by the aid organizations, alleging that the agencies have illegally frozen all foreign aid payments.
The Trump administration has kept those payments largely frozen despite a February 13 temporary restraining order from Ali that they be released, and multiple subsequent orders that the administration comply, culminating in the Wednesday night deadline.
Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department have maintained that the administration has a right to suspend its agreements while it reviews them to determine whether they comply with administration policy.
That review is now complete, the administration said in its new filing. It said USAID has made final decisions to cancel nearly 5,800 awards, while keeping more than 500, and that the State Department has canceled about 4,100 awards, while keeping about 2,700.
An administration official said in an earlier court filing that grounds for terminating contracts include that they were related to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility efforts, or were deemed wasteful.
Trump has taken a hard line on programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion, signing an executive order in his second day in office last month directing federal agency chiefs to dismantle DEI policies.
The administration said on Wednesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had ordered that past-due invoices from the plaintiffs for work before January 24, when the payment freeze began, to be "expedited for payment without the ordinary vetting procedures, in a good-faith effort to comply" with Ali's order. It said that while some money would be paid on Wednesday, full payments could take weeks.
FUNDING FREEZE UNDERMINES RELIEF EFFORTS
Trump, a Republican, ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid on his first day in office last month. That order, and ensuing stop-work orders halting USAID operations around the world, have jeopardized the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid, throwing global humanitarian relief efforts into chaos.
USAID administers some 60% of U.S. foreign assistance and disbursed $43.79 billion in fiscal 2023. According to a Congressional Research Service report this month, its workforce of 10,000, of which about two-thirds serves overseas, assisted about 130 countries.
Trump's administration on Sunday said it was placing all but leaders and critical staff at USAID on paid administrative leave and eliminating 1,600 positions. Employee unions have sued to challenge the cuts, though a judge last week allowed them to go ahead.
Ali, who was appointed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden, issued his temporary restraining order to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs while he considers their claims.
The plaintiffs allege Trump has exceeded his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent agency and canceling spending authorized by Congress.
The plaintiffs have said the administration has not done anything to comply with the restraining order, and some have said they will shut down within days if they are not paid.
"The lengths that the government is willing to go to flout a court order, all for the goal of ending life-saving humanitarian assistance, is staggering," said Allison Zieve, a lawyer representing two plaintiffs, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, on Wednesday.
Other plaintiffs include international development company DAI Global and refugee assistance organization HIAS.
Both Ali and a Rhode Island federal judge [John J. McConnell, Jr.] in a separate case over a broader federal payment freeze have castigated the Trump administration for failing to follow their orders. The administration in both cases has maintained it is trying in good faith to interpret and comply with the orders.
***********************************
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... d-j-trump/
Feb 25, 2025: Minute Entry and Order for proceedings held via Zoom before Judge Amir H. Ali: Motion Hearing held on 2/25/2025 re 36 Emergency MOTION to Enforce Temporary Restraining Order filed by GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, DAI GLOBAL LLC, DEMOCRACY INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES, CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., MANAGEMENT SCIENCES FOR HEALTH, INC., HIAS. Oral arguments HEARD, motion GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record. The restrained defendants are ordered to comply as discussed by 11:59 p.m. on February 26, 2025. (Court Reporter Bryan Wayne) (znbn)
****************
GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL v. DONALD J. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00402) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... d-j-trump/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-00402 (AHA)
Order Denying Motion To Stay Pending Appeal
On February 13, 2025, this Court granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), finding Plaintiffs had shown that Defendants’ blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds would cause them irreparable harm and was likely arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for failing to consider the immense reliance interests at stake. Glob. Health, ECF No. 21; AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 17. While the Court did not grant Plaintiffs the full scope of emergency relief they sought, it enjoined Defendants from continuing a blanket freeze of the congressionally appropriated funds. Over the nearly two weeks since, Plaintiffs have moved multiple times to enforce the Court’s TRO and hold Defendants in contempt, each time attaching evidence that Defendants have continued their funding freeze and evidence of the irreparable harm to businesses and organizations across the country that justified the TRO. In response to those motions, the Court declined to hold Defendants in contempt and reaffirmed certain flexibility and authority Defendants reserved, consistent with the TRO. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 30; AIDS Vaccine, Feb. 25, 2025, Min. Entry; see also AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 34 (addressing Defendants’ motion for clarification). However, the Court twice reiterated in its orders: “[T]o the extent Defendants have continued the blanket suspension, they are ordered to immediately cease it and to take all necessary steps to honor the terms of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other federal foreign assistance awards that were in existence as of January 19, 2025, including but not limited to disbursing all funds payable under those terms.” AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 34 at 5; AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 30 at 5. The Court’s TRO and these subsequent orders remain in effect and unchallenged. Neither Defendants’ recent notice of appeal nor the instant motion to stay pending appeal challenges the terms of the TRO or these prior orders.
Defendants have filed the instant motion to stay the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ latest motions to enforce the TRO. In those motions, Plaintiffs again provided evidence that Defendants have simply continued their blanket funding freeze and further documentation of the irreparable harm they are suffering, including attestations of severe harm that will manifest before the end of the week. Plaintiffs explained that they tailored their motion to enforce to address only the most acute irreparable harm, seeking compliance with the TRO by unfreezing the congressionally appropriated funds at least for all work completed prior to February 13, the date of the Court’s TRO. Upon receiving the motion, and now twelve days since the TRO had been granted, the Court held a prompt hearing to hear from all parties in both cases on the state of compliance. At the hearing, counsel for Defendants acknowledged that the Court’s TRO foreclosed Defendants from giving any effect to suspensions or terminations that were issued before February 13. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 35 at 33–34. The Court asked counsel for Defendants if he was “aware of steps taken to actually release those funds,” consistent with the TRO and subsequent orders. Id. at 35. Counsel responded that he was “not in a position to answer that.” Id. For this and additional reasons stated on the record, the Court orally granted Plaintiffs’ second round of motions to enforce the TRO. The Court ordered Defendants to unfreeze funds for work completed prior to February 13, consistent with the terms of the TRO and the Court’s subsequent orders, giving Defendants an additional 36 hours to do so. The Court made clear that, although it was focusing on this specific aspect of the TRO that was the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and which was a consequence of the TRO’s injunctive relief, the Court was “in no way limiting the scope of the TRO or modifying its terms.” Id. at 55–56. The Court further ordered the parties to provide a joint status report the next day, updating the Court on the circumstances and providing documentation necessary for the parties and Court to assess the state of compliance.
Defendants’ principal basis for staying the Court’s ruling pending appeal appears to be that they can only partially unfreeze funds within the additional 36 hours that the Court gave them, and that they need more time to unfreeze the funds at issue in Plaintiffs’ latest motion to enforce. See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 37 at 2–3 (stating it is “not possible for Defendants to comply” within 36 hours). This is not something that Defendants have previously raised in this Court, whether at the hearing or any time before filing their notice of appeal and seeking a stay pending appeal. That is so even though Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce explicitly proposed compliance on this time frame. If Defendants wanted to propose a different schedule for achieving compliance, that is something they could have proposed to this Court and that the Court could have considered alongside Plaintiffs’ showings. Any such schedule would have to take into account that Defendants have already had nearly two weeks to come into compliance, apparently without taking any meaningful steps to unfreeze funds. Moreover, particularly given Defendants’ delay and the imminent harm Plaintiffs have documented, it would require far greater specificity than has been provided in the motion to stay pending appeal, including significant, concrete steps in the immediate term toward reaching compliance. This is not nearly grounds for a stay pending appeal—to the contrary, a stay would directly contradict that purpose.
Defendants’ remaining arguments in the motion for stay pending appeal demonstrate the shifting ground at this early stage and simply highlight the need for expeditious resolution of the preliminary injunction motions in these cases, which the Court has agreed to consider on the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Defendants state, for instance, that injunctive relief here “intrudes deeply into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the discretion committed to the President under Article II,” asserting that “Executive Branch leadership harbors concerns about the possibility of waste and fraud and is in the process of developing revised payment processing systems to address those concerns.” AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 37 at 4. But the blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated funding that has been challenged and temporarily enjoined was the result of a categorical order, not any specific finding “about the possibility of waste and fraud.” Indeed, in defending the challenged action at the Court’s TRO hearing, Defendants did not even attempt to argue that the agency action was or could be justified based on waste or fraud. And, to date, Defendants have not adduced any evidence “about the possibility of waste and fraud” beyond conclusory statements like the one in their motion.
Moreover, although Defendants’ motion to stay refers to “the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the discretion committed to the President under Article II,” it does so without offering meaningful depth to analyze the argument, including not identifying the particular constitutional prerogatives they rely on. For instance, Defendants do not explain how the described prerogatives bear on likely violation of the APA, the statutory authority on which the TRO was based and whose constitutional validity has not been challenged. As written, the argument seems to simply presume that Defendants will prevail on the separation of powers questions that Plaintiffs have raised, without nearly enough analytical depth. See, e.g., Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 21 (2015) (“The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.”); id. at 62 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (recognizing that “[t]he Constitution allocates some foreign policy powers to the Executive, grants some to the Legislature, and enjoins the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’”).
Defendants’ arguments that injunctive relief under the APA runs into a sovereign immunity problem given the monetary consequences, and that remedies may be available under the Contract Disputes Act or the Tucker Act, are similarly undeveloped and an attempt to pretermit the preliminary injunction stage. Defendants state that the Court has “refus[ed] to consider its own jurisdiction” before entering its TRO. That is not so. At the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, the Court simply noted that the purpose of the hearing was to understand Defendants’ compliance, not to relitigate the TRO. See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 35 at 47 (explaining that “this is not an opportunity to relitigate the TRO. The TRO is in effect, it hasn’t been stayed or overturned in any sort of way. I do want to make that clear.”). However, the Court has considered its jurisdiction at each stage of this case. Defendants’ undeveloped arguments on this point to date have not persuaded the Court that they would affect the Court’s prior likelihood of success analysis as it relates to the TRO. For example, Defendants’ instant motion does not meaningfully engage with the large body of precedent on this question. See, e.g., Kidwell v. Dep’t of Army, 56 F.3d 279, 285 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (reviewing this body of case law and recognizing that although “a victory for the plaintiffs may well have required the government to pay them money, the Tucker Act was not implicated” because monetary benefits would not come “from the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction but from the structure of” statutory and regulatory requirements); Am.’s Cmty. Bankers v. FDIC, 200 F.3d 822, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Not all forms of monetary relief are money damages.”); Robles v. Kerry, 74 F. Supp. 3d 254, 260 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that APA waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking “relief other than money damages” but that money damages “are categorically exclusive of specific relief—which includes monetary relief sought as a statutory entitlement”). Parties regularly raise jurisdictional arguments at the TRO phase—or, like here, well after a TRO has been granted—and the conclusion that such arguments do not alter the Court’s analysis is not a basis for staying the TRO pending appeal.
To be sure, the parties requested a briefing schedule to develop these arguments for the preliminary injunction phase, which the Court has adopted and is still in progress. Under that schedule, Defendants recently filed their preliminary injunction brief, and the Court shortened Plaintiffs’ deadline to reply to noon tomorrow, in the interest of proceeding as expeditiously as possible. The Court is prepared to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motions in both cases by March 4, 2025, and issue an opinion considering the full record and arguments before it with full dispatch. The Court has set the expiration date for the TRO at 11:59 p.m. on March 10, 2025, or the date the Court resolves the preliminary injunction motions, whichever is sooner.
The purpose of temporary emergency relief was to restore the status quo as it existed before Defendants’ blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated funds, given Plaintiffs’ strong showing of irreparable harm and that Defendants’ blanket suspension of funds was likely arbitrary and capricious. A stay pending appeal would run directly contrary to that purpose and, indeed, would have the opposite effect of rendering the Court’s TRO—unchallenged in the appeal or stay motion—a nullity. The Court accordingly denies Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal.
SO ORDERED.
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
Date: February 26, 2025
**********************************
Three Trump Court Losses Within 90 minutes, But A (Temporary) Save By The Supreme Court
Glenn Kirschner
Feb 27, 2025
Three federal judges ruled against Trump and his administration's positions, including telling Trump that the federal government can't just stop paying on contracts it entered into to provide certain US aid overseas.
Just when we thought Trump would be required to act lawfully, in steps Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and pauses the lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to release the funds and make good on the federal government's financial obligations.
Which raises the question: who will ever trust the United States government in the future?
Transcript
So friends, in the span of just 90
minutes, Donald Trump and his
administration lost three federal court
cases, but in one of those cases, Chief
Justice John Roberts came sprinting to
the aid of Donald Trump and his
lawlessness. Let's talk about that
because Justice matters.
[Music]
hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends
let's start with some good news on the
legal front Donald Trump and his
administration is getting crushed in
case after case after
case let's start with the new reporting
this from from
CNN:
Headline for Trump three court
losses in 90
minutes and that article begins three
different federal judges delivered legal
setbacks and slapd downs to president
Donald Trump in the span of an hour and
a half on Tuesday in a series of cases
challenging controversial moves taken
during the early days of his second term
the rulings from judges in Washington DC
and Washington state are the latest to
pump the brakes on Trump's agenda
underscoring the critical role courts
have taken on for foes of trump looking
to frustrate his
actions you know friends I would phrase
that a little differently I would say it
underscores the critical role courts
have taken on to prevent Trump
lawlessness my editorial Edition
the article continues in DC judge Lauren
alian issued a preliminary injunction
that indefinitely blocks the
administration from freezing federal
grants and Loans the ruling expands on
an earlier block the appointee of former
President Joe Biden issued last month
shortly after the White House ordered
the funding freeze quote in the simplest
terms the freeze was Ill conceived from
the beginning
defendants either wanted to pause up to
$3 trillion in federal spending
practically overnight or they expected
each Federal agency to review every
single one of its grants loans and funds
for compliance in less than 24 hours the
breadth of that command is almost
unfathomable judge Ali KH con wrote in
her
ruling she went on to say that the
spending freeze was irrational imprudent
and precipitated a nationwide crisis
shortly before Ali Khan issued her
ruling a separate jurist in the DC
federal courthouse judge Amir Ali
ordered the Trump Administration to pay
foreign aid related money owed to
government contractors and nonprofit
groups by Wednesday night amid the legal
fight over the freezing of us AI ID and
state department funds that order
amounted to a legal reprimand after the
plaintiffs in the cases repeatedly
accused the Trump administration of not
complying with Ali's earlier temporary
restraining order that revived the
funding contracts and grants that
existed at the end of the Biden
Administration meanwhile across the
country in Washington state a federal
judge in Seattle issued a preliminary
injunction on Tuesday that halts Trump's
executive order suspending Refugee
Admissions and
funding judge Jamal Whitehead who was
also appointed by Biden said that
Trump's actions amount to an effective
nullification of congressional will in
establishing the nation's Refugee
admissions program quote while the
president has substantial discretion to
suspend Refugee admissions that
Authority is not Limitless the judge
said and friends just as quick as
federal court judges essentially ordered
the Trump Administration to comply with
its damn contractual obligations pay the
money you owe to
contractors and the judges didn't put it
in exactly those terms those are my
words but in substance they told the
Trump Administration
just act
lawfully just you know abide by the
contracts you entered into just as soon
as they issued those orders well the
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
came in and said no no no not so fast
we're going to go ahead and pause all
that and let the Trump
Administration you know default on these
contracts violate the terms of the
agreements they entered into with these
contractors you know a little bit of
lawlessness by Trump and his
administration is just fine by Supreme
Court Justice John
Roberts here's the new reporting on that
from
HuffPost headline Supreme Court for now
won't require Trump Administration to
release billions in foreign aid the
Supreme Court has temporarily blocked
the judge's order giving the Trump
Administration a midnight deadline to
release billions of dollars in US
foreign
aid and that article
Begins the Trump Administration said
Wednesday it is eliminating more than
90% of the US agency for International
development's foreign aid contracts and
$60 billion in overall us assistance
around the world putting numbers on its
plans to eliminate the majority of us
development and humanitarian help
abroad the cuts detailed by the
administration would leave few surviving
us Aid projects for Advocates to try to
save in what are ongoing Court battles
with the
administration the Trump Administration
outlined its plans in both an internal
memo obtained by the Associated Press
and filings in one of those fed Federal
lawsuits
Wednesday the Supreme Court intervened
in that case late Wednesday and
temporarily blocked a court order
requiring the administration to release
billions of dollars in foreign aid by
midnight Wednesday's disclosures also
give an idea of the scale of the
administration's Retreat from us Aid and
development assistance overseas and from
Decades of us policy that foreign aid
helps us interests by stabilizing other
countries and economies and building
alliances in the federal court filings
Wednesday nonprofits owed money on
contracts with us Aid described both
Trump political appointees and members
of musk's Team terminating us AIDS
contracts around the world at break next
speed
without time for any meaningful review
they
say the nonprofits among thousands of
contractors owed billions of dollars in
payment since the freeze began called
the unmas contract terminations a
maneuver to get around complying with
the order to lift the funding freeze
temporarily so did a democratic lawmaker
quote the administration is brazenly
attempting to blow through Congress and
the courts by announcing the completion
of their sham review of foreign aid and
the immediate termination of thousands
of Aid programs all over the world said
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee but US District Judge Amir
Ali's order to unfreeze billions of
dollars by midnight Wednesday will
remain on hold until the Supreme
court has a chance to weigh in more
fully according to the brief order
signed by Chief Justice John
Roberts that's right friends the US
government made commitments to
contractors around the world to provide
certain funding and now Donald Trump
swoops in and just says yeah we're just
going to default on all of those
contracts just pull the carpet right out
from under underneath all of those
people and organizations to whom we made
commitments kind of sounds like the way
Donald Trump did business as a
businessman right stiffing his
contractors left and
right but ordinarily the courts could
step in and hold Donald Trump
accountable to the contracts he
entered but the US Supreme Court
now Chief Justice John Roberts said
we're just going to go ahead and endure
and indorse at least
temporarily Donald Trump's
lawlessness his refusal to comply with
contracts the United States entered you
know friends Donald Trump is not only
making us the laughing stock of the
world he is
damaging the varability of the United
States to do business around the globe
who in the hell is going to trust the
word of the Executive Branch the federal
government when not only is Donald Trump
willing to for no damn good reason
default on our promises and contractual
obligations but when he's got a handful
of Supreme Court Justices who are
willing to put their stamp of approval
on Donald Trump's
defaults his
corruption his
lawlessness this is not sustainable for
the United States of
America and it's up to us and our
elected officials to do everything we
can to make sure this does not long
stand because
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
*******************************
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 24A831
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL.
Applicants
v.
AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL.
ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,
IT IS ORDERED that the February 25, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-00400 and 1:25-cv-00402, are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Friday, February 28, 2025, by 12 p.m. (EST).
/s/ John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States
Dated this 26th day of February, 2025.
by Brendan Pierson and John Kruzel
Reuters
February 27, 2025 12:21 PM MST Updated an hour ago
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-adm ... 025-02-26/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628254/global-health-council-v-donald-j-trump/
Summary
• Plaintiffs say Trump actions violate US law, Constitution
• Administration had asked US Supreme Court to intervene
WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a federal judge's order requiring President Donald Trump's administration to pay foreign aid funds to contractors and grant recipients.
Roberts issued an interim order placing on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's action that had imposed a deadline of 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday night. Roberts provided no rationale for the order, known as an administrative stay, which will give the court additional time to consider the administration's more formal request to block Ali's ruling.
Roberts asked for a response from the plaintiffs -- organizations that contract with or receive grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department -- by noon on Friday.
The order came after Trump's administration said in a court filing on Wednesday it had made final decisions terminating most U.S. foreign aid contracts and grants, while maintaining that it cannot meet Ali's court-ordered deadline.
Without explanation or substantiation, “operational and administrative reasons” for lengthy delays in restoring funding is incredible, particularly given the speed and efficiency with which hundreds of funding streams were frozen in the immediate wake of the OMB Directive. When OMB issued the Directive in the evening on January 27, 2025, it required the temporary pause to “become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM.” Compl. Ex. A. Contemporaneous reporting and Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrate that funding shutoffs began almost immediately after the OMB Directive issued. It is inexplicable why the federal government, which apparently determined it feasible to pause almost all federal funding within 24 hours, has not universally restored access to funds after nearly a week. As explained in the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 34, even a momentary delay in the intricate accounting dance that underpins our cooperative federal system can result in failures to make payroll and the potential shuttering of programs and nonprofit entities that provide vital health and human services to the residents of the Plaintiff States.
-- Request for Emergency Relief to Enforce Temporary Restraining Order of January 31, 2025 Upon Evidence of Violation; Plaintiff States' Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order, USDC Rhode Island, State of New York, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00039
The administration is cutting more than 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development's foreign aid contracts and over $58 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, a State Department spokesperson said separately, calling the cuts part of Trump's "America First agenda."
The foreign aid funding dispute arose from a pair of lawsuits brought by the aid organizations, alleging that the agencies have illegally frozen all foreign aid payments.
The Trump administration has kept those payments largely frozen despite a February 13 temporary restraining order from Ali that they be released, and multiple subsequent orders that the administration comply, culminating in the Wednesday night deadline.
Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department have maintained that the administration has a right to suspend its agreements while it reviews them to determine whether they comply with administration policy.
That review is now complete, the administration said in its new filing. It said USAID has made final decisions to cancel nearly 5,800 awards, while keeping more than 500, and that the State Department has canceled about 4,100 awards, while keeping about 2,700.
An administration official said in an earlier court filing that grounds for terminating contracts include that they were related to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility efforts, or were deemed wasteful.
Trump has taken a hard line on programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion, signing an executive order in his second day in office last month directing federal agency chiefs to dismantle DEI policies.
The administration said on Wednesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had ordered that past-due invoices from the plaintiffs for work before January 24, when the payment freeze began, to be "expedited for payment without the ordinary vetting procedures, in a good-faith effort to comply" with Ali's order. It said that while some money would be paid on Wednesday, full payments could take weeks.
FUNDING FREEZE UNDERMINES RELIEF EFFORTS
Trump, a Republican, ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid on his first day in office last month. That order, and ensuing stop-work orders halting USAID operations around the world, have jeopardized the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid, throwing global humanitarian relief efforts into chaos.
USAID administers some 60% of U.S. foreign assistance and disbursed $43.79 billion in fiscal 2023. According to a Congressional Research Service report this month, its workforce of 10,000, of which about two-thirds serves overseas, assisted about 130 countries.
Trump's administration on Sunday said it was placing all but leaders and critical staff at USAID on paid administrative leave and eliminating 1,600 positions. Employee unions have sued to challenge the cuts, though a judge last week allowed them to go ahead.
Ali, who was appointed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden, issued his temporary restraining order to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs while he considers their claims.
The plaintiffs allege Trump has exceeded his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent agency and canceling spending authorized by Congress.
The plaintiffs have said the administration has not done anything to comply with the restraining order, and some have said they will shut down within days if they are not paid.
"The lengths that the government is willing to go to flout a court order, all for the goal of ending life-saving humanitarian assistance, is staggering," said Allison Zieve, a lawyer representing two plaintiffs, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, on Wednesday.
Other plaintiffs include international development company DAI Global and refugee assistance organization HIAS.
Both Ali and a Rhode Island federal judge [John J. McConnell, Jr.] in a separate case over a broader federal payment freeze have castigated the Trump administration for failing to follow their orders. The administration in both cases has maintained it is trying in good faith to interpret and comply with the orders.
***********************************
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... d-j-trump/
Feb 25, 2025: Minute Entry and Order for proceedings held via Zoom before Judge Amir H. Ali: Motion Hearing held on 2/25/2025 re 36 Emergency MOTION to Enforce Temporary Restraining Order filed by GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, DAI GLOBAL LLC, DEMOCRACY INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES, CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., MANAGEMENT SCIENCES FOR HEALTH, INC., HIAS. Oral arguments HEARD, motion GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record. The restrained defendants are ordered to comply as discussed by 11:59 p.m. on February 26, 2025. (Court Reporter Bryan Wayne) (znbn)
****************
GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL v. DONALD J. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00402) District Court, District of Columbia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... d-j-trump/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-00402 (AHA)
Order Denying Motion To Stay Pending Appeal
On February 13, 2025, this Court granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), finding Plaintiffs had shown that Defendants’ blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds would cause them irreparable harm and was likely arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for failing to consider the immense reliance interests at stake. Glob. Health, ECF No. 21; AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 17. While the Court did not grant Plaintiffs the full scope of emergency relief they sought, it enjoined Defendants from continuing a blanket freeze of the congressionally appropriated funds. Over the nearly two weeks since, Plaintiffs have moved multiple times to enforce the Court’s TRO and hold Defendants in contempt, each time attaching evidence that Defendants have continued their funding freeze and evidence of the irreparable harm to businesses and organizations across the country that justified the TRO. In response to those motions, the Court declined to hold Defendants in contempt and reaffirmed certain flexibility and authority Defendants reserved, consistent with the TRO. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 30; AIDS Vaccine, Feb. 25, 2025, Min. Entry; see also AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 34 (addressing Defendants’ motion for clarification). However, the Court twice reiterated in its orders: “[T]o the extent Defendants have continued the blanket suspension, they are ordered to immediately cease it and to take all necessary steps to honor the terms of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other federal foreign assistance awards that were in existence as of January 19, 2025, including but not limited to disbursing all funds payable under those terms.” AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 34 at 5; AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 30 at 5. The Court’s TRO and these subsequent orders remain in effect and unchallenged. Neither Defendants’ recent notice of appeal nor the instant motion to stay pending appeal challenges the terms of the TRO or these prior orders.
Defendants have filed the instant motion to stay the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ latest motions to enforce the TRO. In those motions, Plaintiffs again provided evidence that Defendants have simply continued their blanket funding freeze and further documentation of the irreparable harm they are suffering, including attestations of severe harm that will manifest before the end of the week. Plaintiffs explained that they tailored their motion to enforce to address only the most acute irreparable harm, seeking compliance with the TRO by unfreezing the congressionally appropriated funds at least for all work completed prior to February 13, the date of the Court’s TRO. Upon receiving the motion, and now twelve days since the TRO had been granted, the Court held a prompt hearing to hear from all parties in both cases on the state of compliance. At the hearing, counsel for Defendants acknowledged that the Court’s TRO foreclosed Defendants from giving any effect to suspensions or terminations that were issued before February 13. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 35 at 33–34. The Court asked counsel for Defendants if he was “aware of steps taken to actually release those funds,” consistent with the TRO and subsequent orders. Id. at 35. Counsel responded that he was “not in a position to answer that.” Id. For this and additional reasons stated on the record, the Court orally granted Plaintiffs’ second round of motions to enforce the TRO. The Court ordered Defendants to unfreeze funds for work completed prior to February 13, consistent with the terms of the TRO and the Court’s subsequent orders, giving Defendants an additional 36 hours to do so. The Court made clear that, although it was focusing on this specific aspect of the TRO that was the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and which was a consequence of the TRO’s injunctive relief, the Court was “in no way limiting the scope of the TRO or modifying its terms.” Id. at 55–56. The Court further ordered the parties to provide a joint status report the next day, updating the Court on the circumstances and providing documentation necessary for the parties and Court to assess the state of compliance.
Defendants’ principal basis for staying the Court’s ruling pending appeal appears to be that they can only partially unfreeze funds within the additional 36 hours that the Court gave them, and that they need more time to unfreeze the funds at issue in Plaintiffs’ latest motion to enforce. See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 37 at 2–3 (stating it is “not possible for Defendants to comply” within 36 hours). This is not something that Defendants have previously raised in this Court, whether at the hearing or any time before filing their notice of appeal and seeking a stay pending appeal. That is so even though Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce explicitly proposed compliance on this time frame. If Defendants wanted to propose a different schedule for achieving compliance, that is something they could have proposed to this Court and that the Court could have considered alongside Plaintiffs’ showings. Any such schedule would have to take into account that Defendants have already had nearly two weeks to come into compliance, apparently without taking any meaningful steps to unfreeze funds. Moreover, particularly given Defendants’ delay and the imminent harm Plaintiffs have documented, it would require far greater specificity than has been provided in the motion to stay pending appeal, including significant, concrete steps in the immediate term toward reaching compliance. This is not nearly grounds for a stay pending appeal—to the contrary, a stay would directly contradict that purpose.
Defendants’ remaining arguments in the motion for stay pending appeal demonstrate the shifting ground at this early stage and simply highlight the need for expeditious resolution of the preliminary injunction motions in these cases, which the Court has agreed to consider on the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Defendants state, for instance, that injunctive relief here “intrudes deeply into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the discretion committed to the President under Article II,” asserting that “Executive Branch leadership harbors concerns about the possibility of waste and fraud and is in the process of developing revised payment processing systems to address those concerns.” AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 37 at 4. But the blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated funding that has been challenged and temporarily enjoined was the result of a categorical order, not any specific finding “about the possibility of waste and fraud.” Indeed, in defending the challenged action at the Court’s TRO hearing, Defendants did not even attempt to argue that the agency action was or could be justified based on waste or fraud. And, to date, Defendants have not adduced any evidence “about the possibility of waste and fraud” beyond conclusory statements like the one in their motion.
Moreover, although Defendants’ motion to stay refers to “the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the discretion committed to the President under Article II,” it does so without offering meaningful depth to analyze the argument, including not identifying the particular constitutional prerogatives they rely on. For instance, Defendants do not explain how the described prerogatives bear on likely violation of the APA, the statutory authority on which the TRO was based and whose constitutional validity has not been challenged. As written, the argument seems to simply presume that Defendants will prevail on the separation of powers questions that Plaintiffs have raised, without nearly enough analytical depth. See, e.g., Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 21 (2015) (“The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.”); id. at 62 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (recognizing that “[t]he Constitution allocates some foreign policy powers to the Executive, grants some to the Legislature, and enjoins the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’”).
Defendants’ arguments that injunctive relief under the APA runs into a sovereign immunity problem given the monetary consequences, and that remedies may be available under the Contract Disputes Act or the Tucker Act, are similarly undeveloped and an attempt to pretermit the preliminary injunction stage. Defendants state that the Court has “refus[ed] to consider its own jurisdiction” before entering its TRO. That is not so. At the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, the Court simply noted that the purpose of the hearing was to understand Defendants’ compliance, not to relitigate the TRO. See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 35 at 47 (explaining that “this is not an opportunity to relitigate the TRO. The TRO is in effect, it hasn’t been stayed or overturned in any sort of way. I do want to make that clear.”). However, the Court has considered its jurisdiction at each stage of this case. Defendants’ undeveloped arguments on this point to date have not persuaded the Court that they would affect the Court’s prior likelihood of success analysis as it relates to the TRO. For example, Defendants’ instant motion does not meaningfully engage with the large body of precedent on this question. See, e.g., Kidwell v. Dep’t of Army, 56 F.3d 279, 285 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (reviewing this body of case law and recognizing that although “a victory for the plaintiffs may well have required the government to pay them money, the Tucker Act was not implicated” because monetary benefits would not come “from the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction but from the structure of” statutory and regulatory requirements); Am.’s Cmty. Bankers v. FDIC, 200 F.3d 822, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Not all forms of monetary relief are money damages.”); Robles v. Kerry, 74 F. Supp. 3d 254, 260 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that APA waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking “relief other than money damages” but that money damages “are categorically exclusive of specific relief—which includes monetary relief sought as a statutory entitlement”). Parties regularly raise jurisdictional arguments at the TRO phase—or, like here, well after a TRO has been granted—and the conclusion that such arguments do not alter the Court’s analysis is not a basis for staying the TRO pending appeal.
To be sure, the parties requested a briefing schedule to develop these arguments for the preliminary injunction phase, which the Court has adopted and is still in progress. Under that schedule, Defendants recently filed their preliminary injunction brief, and the Court shortened Plaintiffs’ deadline to reply to noon tomorrow, in the interest of proceeding as expeditiously as possible. The Court is prepared to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motions in both cases by March 4, 2025, and issue an opinion considering the full record and arguments before it with full dispatch. The Court has set the expiration date for the TRO at 11:59 p.m. on March 10, 2025, or the date the Court resolves the preliminary injunction motions, whichever is sooner.
The purpose of temporary emergency relief was to restore the status quo as it existed before Defendants’ blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated funds, given Plaintiffs’ strong showing of irreparable harm and that Defendants’ blanket suspension of funds was likely arbitrary and capricious. A stay pending appeal would run directly contrary to that purpose and, indeed, would have the opposite effect of rendering the Court’s TRO—unchallenged in the appeal or stay motion—a nullity. The Court accordingly denies Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal.
SO ORDERED.
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
Date: February 26, 2025
**********************************
Three Trump Court Losses Within 90 minutes, But A (Temporary) Save By The Supreme Court
Glenn Kirschner
Feb 27, 2025
Three federal judges ruled against Trump and his administration's positions, including telling Trump that the federal government can't just stop paying on contracts it entered into to provide certain US aid overseas.
Just when we thought Trump would be required to act lawfully, in steps Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and pauses the lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to release the funds and make good on the federal government's financial obligations.
Which raises the question: who will ever trust the United States government in the future?
Transcript
So friends, in the span of just 90
minutes, Donald Trump and his
administration lost three federal court
cases, but in one of those cases, Chief
Justice John Roberts came sprinting to
the aid of Donald Trump and his
lawlessness. Let's talk about that
because Justice matters.
[Music]
hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends
let's start with some good news on the
legal front Donald Trump and his
administration is getting crushed in
case after case after
case let's start with the new reporting
this from from
CNN:
For Trump, 3 court losses in 90 minutes
by Devan Cole
CNN
Updated 5:20 PM EST, Tue February 25, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/25/politics ... index.html
Three different federal judges delivered legal setbacks and slap downs to President Donald Trump in the span of an hour and a half on Tuesday in a series of cases challenging controversial moves taken during the early days of his second term.
The rulings from judges in Washington, DC, and Washington state are the latest to pump the brakes on Trump’s agenda, underscoring the critical role courts have taken on for foes of Trump looking to frustrate his actions.
In DC, Judge Loren AliKhan issued a preliminary injunction that indefinitely blocks the administration from freezing federal grants and loans. The ruling expands an earlier block the appointee of former President Joe Biden issued last month shortly after the White House ordered the funding freeze.
“In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable,” AliKhan wrote in her ruling.
She went on to say that the spending freeze was “irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
The issue of withholding federal funds has become a major flashpoint during the opening weeks of Trump’s second term, with other pending cases challenging the White House’s decision to suspend all foreign assistance.
Shortly before AliKhan issued her ruling, a separate jurist in the DC federal courthouse – Judge Amir Ali – ordered the Trump administration to pay foreign aid-related money owed to government contractors and nonprofit groups by Wednesday night, amid the legal fight over the freezing of USAID and State Department funds.
That order amounted to a legal reprimand after the plaintiffs in the cases repeatedly accused the administration of not complying with Ali’s earlier temporary restraining order that revived the funding contracts and grants that existed at the end of the Biden administration.
Ali – also a Biden appointee – rebuffed an earlier call by the challengers for the administration to be held in contempt for its alleged non-compliance. But he issued a new order requiring, in more forceful terms, that the government pay money owed to contractors and non-profits for work that had already been completed by the February 13 order.
Meanwhile, across the country in Washington state, a federal judge in Seattle issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that halts Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions and funding.
Judge Jamal Whitehead, who was also appointed by Biden, said that Trump’s “actions amount to an effective nullification of congressional will in establishing the nation’s refugee admissions program.”
“While the president has substantial discretion to suspend refugee admissions, that authority is not limitless,” the judge said.
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office, also directed a review of the refugee program and stated that resettlement should only resume if deemed to be in the “national interest” – a move critics argue is a de facto refugee ban.
Cases advance to next stages
The administration is facing at least 80 cases challenging a range of actions taken during Trump’s first few weeks back in office.
The plaintiffs behind those challenges have seen some success as they’ve pressed judges to issue emergency relief during the early stages of the litigation. But the White House, too, has scored some court victories in cases brought against the administration’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter the US’ foreign aid agency.
Many of the cases are finally getting a more thorough review by judges who are mulling whether to issue preliminary injunctions to block the contested government action. Such a decision is often the final trial court-level ruling issued in cases before they’re appealed by the losing side.
As AliKhan explained her reasoning for issuing the preliminary injunction in the funding freeze case, she said the nonprofits that brought the case were likely to succeed on their claims that the freeze was unlawful.
“The scope of power (the Office of Management and Budget) seeks to claim is ‘breathtaking,’ and its ramifications are massive,” she wrote. “Because there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.”
And AliKhan noted that her earlier order temporarily halting the funding freeze was just that – temporary.
“The relief Plaintiffs now seek is a more durable version of the relief they sought then, when their members were on the brink of extinction,” she wrote. “In sum, Plaintiffs have marshalled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic – and in some circumstances, fatal – to their members.”
CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Angelica Franganillo Diaz contributed to this report.
Headline for Trump three court
losses in 90
minutes and that article begins three
different federal judges delivered legal
setbacks and slapd downs to president
Donald Trump in the span of an hour and
a half on Tuesday in a series of cases
challenging controversial moves taken
during the early days of his second term
the rulings from judges in Washington DC
and Washington state are the latest to
pump the brakes on Trump's agenda
underscoring the critical role courts
have taken on for foes of trump looking
to frustrate his
actions you know friends I would phrase
that a little differently I would say it
underscores the critical role courts
have taken on to prevent Trump
lawlessness my editorial Edition
the article continues in DC judge Lauren
alian issued a preliminary injunction
that indefinitely blocks the
administration from freezing federal
grants and Loans the ruling expands on
an earlier block the appointee of former
President Joe Biden issued last month
shortly after the White House ordered
the funding freeze quote in the simplest
terms the freeze was Ill conceived from
the beginning
defendants either wanted to pause up to
$3 trillion in federal spending
practically overnight or they expected
each Federal agency to review every
single one of its grants loans and funds
for compliance in less than 24 hours the
breadth of that command is almost
unfathomable judge Ali KH con wrote in
her
ruling she went on to say that the
spending freeze was irrational imprudent
and precipitated a nationwide crisis
shortly before Ali Khan issued her
ruling a separate jurist in the DC
federal courthouse judge Amir Ali
ordered the Trump Administration to pay
foreign aid related money owed to
government contractors and nonprofit
groups by Wednesday night amid the legal
fight over the freezing of us AI ID and
state department funds that order
amounted to a legal reprimand after the
plaintiffs in the cases repeatedly
accused the Trump administration of not
complying with Ali's earlier temporary
restraining order that revived the
funding contracts and grants that
existed at the end of the Biden
Administration meanwhile across the
country in Washington state a federal
judge in Seattle issued a preliminary
injunction on Tuesday that halts Trump's
executive order suspending Refugee
Admissions and
funding judge Jamal Whitehead who was
also appointed by Biden said that
Trump's actions amount to an effective
nullification of congressional will in
establishing the nation's Refugee
admissions program quote while the
president has substantial discretion to
suspend Refugee admissions that
Authority is not Limitless the judge
said and friends just as quick as
federal court judges essentially ordered
the Trump Administration to comply with
its damn contractual obligations pay the
money you owe to
contractors and the judges didn't put it
in exactly those terms those are my
words but in substance they told the
Trump Administration
just act
lawfully just you know abide by the
contracts you entered into just as soon
as they issued those orders well the
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
came in and said no no no not so fast
we're going to go ahead and pause all
that and let the Trump
Administration you know default on these
contracts violate the terms of the
agreements they entered into with these
contractors you know a little bit of
lawlessness by Trump and his
administration is just fine by Supreme
Court Justice John
Roberts here's the new reporting on that
from
HuffPost headline Supreme Court for now
won't require Trump Administration to
release billions in foreign aid the
Supreme Court has temporarily blocked
the judge's order giving the Trump
Administration a midnight deadline to
release billions of dollars in US
foreign
aid and that article
Begins the Trump Administration said
Wednesday it is eliminating more than
90% of the US agency for International
development's foreign aid contracts and
$60 billion in overall us assistance
around the world putting numbers on its
plans to eliminate the majority of us
development and humanitarian help
abroad the cuts detailed by the
administration would leave few surviving
us Aid projects for Advocates to try to
save in what are ongoing Court battles
with the
administration the Trump Administration
outlined its plans in both an internal
memo obtained by the Associated Press
and filings in one of those fed Federal
lawsuits
Wednesday the Supreme Court intervened
in that case late Wednesday and
temporarily blocked a court order
requiring the administration to release
billions of dollars in foreign aid by
midnight Wednesday's disclosures also
give an idea of the scale of the
administration's Retreat from us Aid and
development assistance overseas and from
Decades of us policy that foreign aid
helps us interests by stabilizing other
countries and economies and building
alliances in the federal court filings
Wednesday nonprofits owed money on
contracts with us Aid described both
Trump political appointees and members
of musk's Team terminating us AIDS
contracts around the world at break next
speed
without time for any meaningful review
they
say the nonprofits among thousands of
contractors owed billions of dollars in
payment since the freeze began called
the unmas contract terminations a
maneuver to get around complying with
the order to lift the funding freeze
temporarily so did a democratic lawmaker
quote the administration is brazenly
attempting to blow through Congress and
the courts by announcing the completion
of their sham review of foreign aid and
the immediate termination of thousands
of Aid programs all over the world said
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee but US District Judge Amir
Ali's order to unfreeze billions of
dollars by midnight Wednesday will
remain on hold until the Supreme
court has a chance to weigh in more
fully according to the brief order
signed by Chief Justice John
Roberts that's right friends the US
government made commitments to
contractors around the world to provide
certain funding and now Donald Trump
swoops in and just says yeah we're just
going to default on all of those
contracts just pull the carpet right out
from under underneath all of those
people and organizations to whom we made
commitments kind of sounds like the way
Donald Trump did business as a
businessman right stiffing his
contractors left and
right but ordinarily the courts could
step in and hold Donald Trump
accountable to the contracts he
entered but the US Supreme Court
now Chief Justice John Roberts said
we're just going to go ahead and endure
and indorse at least
temporarily Donald Trump's
lawlessness his refusal to comply with
contracts the United States entered you
know friends Donald Trump is not only
making us the laughing stock of the
world he is
damaging the varability of the United
States to do business around the globe
who in the hell is going to trust the
word of the Executive Branch the federal
government when not only is Donald Trump
willing to for no damn good reason
default on our promises and contractual
obligations but when he's got a handful
of Supreme Court Justices who are
willing to put their stamp of approval
on Donald Trump's
defaults his
corruption his
lawlessness this is not sustainable for
the United States of
America and it's up to us and our
elected officials to do everything we
can to make sure this does not long
stand because
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
*******************************
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 24A831
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL.
Applicants
v.
AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL.
ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,
IT IS ORDERED that the February 25, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-00400 and 1:25-cv-00402, are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Friday, February 28, 2025, by 12 p.m. (EST).
/s/ John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States
Dated this 26th day of February, 2025.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests