Trump confirms retribution campaign against law firms that clash with his agenda: The president says his administration is ‘going after’ law firms he claims are ‘dishonest’ and ‘bad for the country’ by Alex Woodward UKIndependent Sunday 09 March 2025 21:11 GMT https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 11843.html
Donald Trump is punishing law firms that have represented what he perceives as his political enemies by stripping their security clearances and access to government buildings, delivering severe legal retribution against people he believes are threatening his agenda.
“We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people,” the president told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo in an interview that aired on Sunday Morning Features on Sunday.
“They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point. And it was so bad for our country. And we have a lot of law firms we’re going after,” Trump said.
SundayMorningFutures@SundayFutures
Today exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, President Trump @POTUS @realDonaldTrump spoke about expanding space exploration and the future of the Department of Education. @FoxNews 9:36 AM · Mar 9, 2025
The interview aired days after he signed another executive order targeting a prominent law firm, which opponents fear is designed to cast a chilling effect that threatens representation for groups and individuals who are challenging the administration’s agenda in court.
Last month, Trump signed a similar measure attacking the firm Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono assistance to special counsel Jack Smith in his personal capacity as he handled federal criminal investigations into the president’s alleged election interference and unlawful retention of classified documents.
This time, the president went further by blocking lawyers with the firm Perkins Coie from federal buildings entirely and barring federal agencies and contractors from working with it.
His apparent beef with Perkins Coie dates back to a federal investigation into connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian agents to determine whether aides and officials had conspired to influence the outcome of that election. The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee and worked with a research firm that produced the now-discredited dossier that alleged contacts between Trump and Russia.
Perkins Coie contracted Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research, which Fusion enlisted former British spy Christopher Steele to perform. Steele’s dossier, which was later turned over to the FBI, alleged Russia’s years-long campaign to compile compromising information against then-candidate Trump.
Now-former Perkins lawyers Marc Elias and Michael Sussman were both named in Trump’s order. Neither have worked for the firm in years. Since 2020, Elias has led the voting rights and civil rights litigation-tracking platform Democracy Docket, which has tracked hundreds of Trump-related cases.
Donald Trump has signed executive orders stripping two high-profile law firms of security clearances after their work with his opponents (EPA)
“This is an absolute honor to sign,” Trump said during a signing ceremony at the White House on Thursday. “What they’ve done is just terrible. It’s weaponization, you could say weaponization against a political opponent, and it should never be allowed to happen again.”
A spokesperson for the firm called the order “patently unlawful” and said it intends to challenge it.
Last month, Trump signed a similar measure suspending security clearances for outside lawyers who supported Smith in his personal capacity.
The memo suspends “any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel.”
During a signing ceremony, Trump called the memo the “deranged Jack Smith signing.”
Trump’s targeting of lawyers follows his administration’s threats to members of the judiciary, with Elon Musk and Republican members of Congress repeatedly threatening to impeach or punish judges who issue decisions that brush against their agenda, which judges across the country and ideological spectrum are condemning as unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal.
After a string of legal blows against his orders and policy maneuvers, Trump issued an executive order this week that calls on agency and department heads to press for monetary “security” payments from plaintiffs if an injunction against the administration is issued.
That would mean plaintiffs – which have included civil rights groups, pregnant immigrants, trans teenagers and aid workers — would be required to pay the government’s legal fees, upfront, if a judge issues an injunction.
The American Bar Association has warned against the “escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country.”
“We reject the notion that the government can punish lawyers who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways,” American Bar Association president Wiliam R. Bay said in a statement this week. “We cannot accept government actions that seek to tip the scales of justice in this manner.”
Ed Martin speaks at an event at the Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Georgetown Law School’s dean on Thursday rebuffed an unusual warning from the top federal prosecutor for Washington, D.C., that his office won’t hire the private school’s students if it doesn’t eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Dean William Treanor told acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin that the First Amendment prohibits the government from dictating what Georgetown’s faculty teach or how to teach it.
“Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution,” Treanor wrote in a letter addressed to Martin.
Martin’s exchange with the dean isn’t the first time that the conservative activist has used his office as a platform for parroting the political priorities of the Republican president who gave him the job in January.
Martin, who refers to himself as one of President Donald Trump’s attorneys, roiled his office by firing and demoting attorneys who prosecuted Trump supporters for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin promoted Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election and represented Jan. 6 riot defendants before taking office.
His “letter of inquiry” to Georgetown also dovetails with Trump’s agenda. On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order ending DEI programs in the federal government.
In a letter dated Feb. 17 but emailed to the dean on March 3, Martin said a whistleblower informed him that Georgetown Law School “continues to promote and teach DEI.”
“This is unacceptable,” he wrote.
Martin warned the dean that his office wouldn’t consider any Georgetown law students for jobs, summer internships or fellowships until his “letter of inquiry” about DEI programs is resolved.
Treanor said Georgetown was “founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical, and spiritual understanding.”
“Your letter challenges Georgetown’s ability to define our mission as an educational institution,” he wrote.
Treanor closed the letter by writing, “We look forward to your confirming that any Georgetown-affiliated candidates for employment with your office will receive full and fair consideration.”
Also on Thursday, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in Washington to investigate their “grave concern” that Martin may have engaged in professional misconduct since taking office. In a letter to the office, the senators accused Martin of repeatedly abusing his position, including by “using the threat of prosecution to intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens.”
“Mr. Martin’s conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law,” the senators wrote.
A spokesperson for Martin’s office wouldn’t comment on the Georgetown letters and didn’t respond to a separate request for comment on the senators’ letter.
*********************************
Trump US Attorney for DC Abuses His Power by Telling Georgetown Law, Teaching DEI is "Unacceptable" by Glenn Kirschner Mar 7, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
In a breathtaking display of abuse of power, abuse of office, and prosecutorial misconduct, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, wrote a letter to the Dean of Georgetown University School of Law saying, " It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote DEI. This Is unacceptable. I have begun an inquiry into this . . ."
Martin went on to threaten that "no applicant for (a position at the DC US Attorney's Office) . . . "will be considered" if the school continues "to teach and utilize DEI."
This video discusses the possible options Georgetown Law School has in acting on this letter, which represents conduct that plainly is beyond the scope of the official governmental duties of a federal prosecutor.
Transcript
so friends in a truly breathtaking Abuse of power and Abuse of office the US attorney for the District of Colombia just told Georgetown University School of Law that it can't teach Dei and that if it continues to do so its students will be banned from being considered for internships or employment at the DC us attorney's office as I say friends this is a breathtaking abuse of prosecutorial power let's talk about that because Justice matters [Music] hey all Glen Kirschner here so friends my goodness this guy Ed Martin the interum United States Attorney for the District of Columbia just did something that represents what might be the most egregious abuse of prosecutorial power I ever saw in my 30 years as a prosecutor let's start with this headline in reason magazine us attorney threatens Georgetown law for teaching Dei and let's just go right to the letter that intram us attorney Ed Martin wrote to the dean of Georgetown law William trainer Dear Sir as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia I receive requests for information and clarification I take these requests seriously and act on them with letters like this one you are receiving it has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown law school continues to teach and promote Dei this is unacceptable can I just pause there you know what sport what is or is not acceptable for institutions of Higher Learning colleges universities law schools to teach is none of your damn business as us attorney as the top prosecutor in DC you get to investigate crime if crime has been committed and prosecute crime you don't get to decide what is or is not acceptable for a law school to teach my addition to Ed Martin's letter the letter continues I have begun an inquiry in other words I'm going to use the powers of the US attorney's office to investigate you I have begun an inquiry into this and would welcome your response to the following questions first have you eliminated all Dei from your school and its curriculum second if Dei is found in your courses or teaching in any way will you move swiftly to remove it and now friends the letter gets even worse because he threat threatens to punish Georgetown law students at this time you should know that no applicant for our fellows program our summer internship or employment in our office who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize Dei will be considered I look forward to your cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request thank you in advance for your assistance please respond by Monday February 24 2025 should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to call my office or schedule a time to meet in person all the best sincerely Ed Martin this friends is abuse of power abuse of office and prosecutorial misconduct so what can be done about it we're going to get to that in a minute first let's look at the reply from the dean of Georgetown law William trainer this headline from the AP Georgetown law Dean rebuffs Dei warning from top federal prosecutor for DC and that article begins Georgetown law schools Dean on Thursday rebuffed an unusual warning from the top federal prosecutor for Washington DC that his office won't hire the private schools students if it doesn't eliminate diversity equity and inclusion programs Dean William trainer told acting us attorney Ed Martin that the First Amendment prohibits the government from dictating what georgetown's faculty teach or how to teach it quote given the first amendment's protection of a University's freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it the Constitutional violation behind this threat is clear as is the attack on the University's Mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution trainer wrote in a letter addressed to William Treanor, said Georgetown was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths cultures and beliefs promotes intellectual ethical and spiritual understanding your letter challenges georgetown's ability to Define our mission as an educational institution he wrote William Treanor, closed the letter by writing we look forward to your confirming that any Georgtown Affiliated candidates for employment with your office will receive full and fair consideration so friends the question becomes what can be done by Georgetown law about these unconstitutional threats in violation of the University's First Amendment rights to teach what and how it chooses to teach what can be done about Ed Martin's abuse of power abuse of office and prosecutorial misconduct so it's not easy to sue to bring a civil suit against a government official or employee and let me argue for a minute or two why I think that is generally a good thing let's assume that I'm an IRS agent and I'm looking at people's tax returns and I decide that somebody took a deduction they weren't entitled to take and so I go about you know in my responsibilities as an IRS auditor or reviewer telling the taxpayer look this is not a valid deduction so you can't take it and you have to pay more in taxes if that American taxpayer could file a lawsuit against me drag me into court make me expend all kinds of funds defending myself for a decision I made that was squarely within the scope of my official governmental duties that would be a bad thing because then every grieved taxpayer or every grieved American who didn't like something that a government employee or official did could forever be dragging government officials and employees into court so the law has developed this protection for government employees and officials called qualified immunity I argue it makes some sense qualified immunity provides some protection for government officers employees officials that if you're acting within the scope of your official governmental duties you're doing the right thing you're doing what you were hired to do on behalf of the American people you can't be sued you can't be dragged into court you can't be made to hire attorney and expend all kinds of uh fun to try to defend against a suit that was brought because you were just doing your job your official governmental duties however you probably know where I'm going friends if you do something as a government employee officer or official that is not within the scope of your official duties that is outside the authority the power of one's prosecutorial duties like threatening a university that we're going to investigate you if you teach something I don't like DEI and we're going to ban all Georgetown law students from even being considered for employment in an agency of the federal government if you keep teaching something that I don't want you to be teaching I mean Beyond a Saturday Night Live skit there right well guess what that should not enjoy qualified immunity from being sued personally personally because you're acting Beyond outside the scope of your official governmental duties so I can only anticipate that Georgetown law which probably has a heck of a lot of lawyers who are either on the faculty on their legal staff and goodness knows Georgetown law has produced a whole lot of really accomplished lawyers who are looking at the prospects of bringing a civil suit for this horrifically abusive act by a government official and the only way to deal with this kind of rampant governmental abuse is to get it into court right now early and often and let judges put eyeballs on that letter that Ed Martin wrote man I have got to believe qualified immunity will fall so fast that'll make Ed Martin's head spin and he will run the risk of being held personally liable that means he would have to personally pay out any judgment that was entered against him for what he did abusing his position his power his authority and engaging in this kind of prosecutorial misconduct and any government official Ed Martin or any other government official who abuses their power and position in this way should be held personally accountable that's not why we hire people to work in the federal government to abuse their office to act outside the scope of their official governmental duties so they should be held accountable for these kind of egregious transgressions because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
Republicans terrified of crossing Trump due to physical threats, Democrat says: Eric Swalwell says threats to them and their families are stopping GOP officials from criticizing president by Robert Tait in Washington The Guardian Thu 27 Feb 2025 06.00 EST https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... mp-threats
Republicans on Capitol Hill are shying away from criticizing Donald Trump’s policies over fears for their physical safety and that of their families, a Democratic member of Congress has said.
Eric Swalwell, a Democratic representative from California, said his Republican colleagues were “terrified” of crossing Trump not only because of the negative impact on their political careers, but also from anxiety that it might provoke physical threats that could cause personal upheaval and require them to hire round-the-clock security as protection.
Swalwell’s comments came in a webinar chaired by the journalist Sidney Blumenthal in response to a question on whether Republicans might be driven to rebel against or even impeach Trump.
“I have a lot of friends who are Republicans,” he said. “They are terrified of being the tallest poppy in the field, and it’s not as simple as being afraid of being primaried and losing their job. They know that that can happen.
“It’s more more personal. It’s their personal safety that they’re afraid of, and they have spouses and family members saying, ‘Do not do this, it’s not worth it, it will change our lives forever. We will have to hire around-the-clock security.’ Life can be very uncomfortable for your children.
“That is real, because when [Elon] Musk [Trump’s most powerful ally] tweets at somebody, or Trump tweets at somebody, or calls somebody out, their lives are turned upside down.
“When he tweets at you, people make threats, and you have to take people at their word. And so that is a real thing that my colleagues struggle with.”
Swalwell warned that fear of Trump was likely to further weaken support for Ukraine among GOP House members following his recent attacks on the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and his public praise for the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin.
“I thought that the numbers that we’ve showed to be unified around Ukraine would hold, and it’s not holding,” he said.
Swalwell’s comments come at a time when some Republican members of Congress are encountering pressure from constituents to push back against the attacks on federal government workers by Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) unit, which critics say is usurping the powers of Congress.
Swalwell, a member of the House judiciary committee, said he had spent more than $1m on security in the past two and a half years, after arousing Trump’s enmity by serving as a manager in his second impeachment trial and by filing a lawsuit against him and his eldest son, Donald Jr, seeking damages for their role in inciting the 6 January attack on the US Capitol by a violent mob.
His portrayal of Trump-inspired intimidation was supported by Bradley Moss, a lawyer for the FBI Agents Association, which has filed a lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from publicly naming agents and bureau employees who worked on the 6 January criminal investigation.
Moss recalled Trump publicly attacking his boss, Mark Zaid, a Washington lawyer who represented the whistleblower who disclosed details of a call Trump made to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in 2019 that eventually led to his first impeachment.
“Donald Trump literally held up a photo of my boss, called him out by name, said he was scum, was a liar, etc,” Moss said during the webinar. “Next day, I woke up to, like, 150 voicemails. Texts were flooded throughout my inbox. We were getting death threats like crazy, and there was actually at least one gentleman who went to prison for making threats against my boss.”
He added: “We publicly called him out during that impeachment, when he was threatening the whistleblower in public statements, saying you are putting this person’s life in jeopardy. He made clear he doesn’t care. He’ll say it’s not my fault if something happens to that person.
“He knows full well the intimidation factor he can bring through his bully pulpit.”
Most Republicans who voted to impeach Trump during his first presidency are no longer in Congress. Liz Cheney – who played a leading role in the House committee investigating the 6 January insurrection – lost her Wyoming seat after being defeated in a GOP primary by a Trump supporter.
Cheney told CNN that some of her Republican colleagues had voted against impeaching Trump because “they were afraid for their own security – afraid, in some instances, for their lives”.
Her comments were backed up by Mitt Romney, the former Republican senator and presidential candidate, who told his biographer, McKay Coppins, of a senior Senate colleague who intended to vote for Trump’s conviction at his Senate trial only to change course when a colleague told him: “Think of your personal safety. Think of your children.”
Musk, the billionaire Tesla and SpaceX entrepreneur, has threatened to use his vast wealth to fund primary challenges against any House or Senate Republicans who vote against Trump’s agenda or oppose his cabinet nominees.
The tactic appeared to be effective in the case of Joni Ernst, a Republican senator for Iowa, who reversed her initial opposition to Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defence secretary on the basis of sexual assault allegations that had been made against him after Musk funded adverts extolling a rightwing radio host who had vowed to challenge her in a primary.
Thom Tillis, a Republican senator for North Carolina, told people that he received FBI warnings of “credible death threats” when he was publicly considering voting against Hegseth, Vanity Fair reported. Tillis, who had spoken at length to witnesses who raised concerns about Hegseth’s behavior, ultimately voted in favor of his confirmation.
Vanity Fair cited an unnamed source as quoting Tillis advising people who wished to understand Trump to read Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, a 2006 book by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare. A spokesperson for Tillis denied that he had recommended the book in that context.
• Unions claim shredding violates federal record-keeping law • Plaintiffs seek restraining order to prevent record destruction • Judge orders status report on motion by Wednesday morning
March 11 (Reuters) - An official at the U.S. Agency for International Development has ordered employees to shred a large volume of records, according to a court filing on Tuesday by government employee unions asking a judge to block the move.
In a motion filed in Washington, D.C., federal court, the unions cited an email from USAID's acting executive secretary Erica Carr instructing employees to come to the agency's office on Tuesday for "clearing classified safes and personnel documents."
"Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break," Carr wrote in the email, which was included in the filing. The email did not give details about what documents were to be shredded.
The unions said the directive "suggests a rapid destruction of agency records on a large scale" that both violates federal record-keeping law and could destroy evidence in their case, which seeks to undo the dismantling of USAID under President Donald Trump.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and American Foreign Service Association, which represent government employees, as well as by anti-poverty organization Oxfam America. They allege that Trump overstepped his authority in largely shuttering an independent agency established by Congress by firing or putting on leave its employees and cancelling its agreements with third-party partners.
The plaintiffs on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols for a temporary restraining order blocking the destruction of records. They said that if they eventually prevail in the case, the loss of vital personnel or other records could prevent USAID from resuming its operations.
In response to Tuesday's motion, the judge ordered both sides to submit a status report by Wednesday morning proposing a schedule for briefs on the motion and noting any disagreements between them.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Nichols, a Trump appointee, last month allowed the administration to go forward with its plan to put more than 2,000 USAID employees on leave. Under Trump, the foreign aid agency has scrapped more than 80% of its programs and fired much of its staff.
In a separate lawsuit brought by USAID contractors and grant recipients, a federal judge on Monday ruled that the Trump administration cannot refuse to spend foreign aid money appropriated by Congress, although the judge stopped short of restoring canceled contracts. In that case, the Trump administration has repeatedly resisted complying with court orders to release frozen funds.
Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler, Nia Williams and Alexia Garamfalvi
Federal Judge Compares Trump to the Tyrannical Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland by Glenn Kirschner Mar 12, 2025
District of Columbia Federal District Judge Beryl Howell pulled no punches in a new ruling against Trump and his administration.
Trump issued an executive order punishing a law firm he doesn't like, prohibiting the firm's attorneys from interacting with federal agencies and even from entering federal buildings.
In ruling against Trump and in favor of the law firm, Judge Howell said:
"This may be amusing in 'Alice in Wonderland' where the Queen of Hearts yells, 'Off with their heads!' at annoying subjects . . . and announces a sentence before a verdict, but this cannot be the reality we are living under."
Federal courts are not only ruling against Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional executive orders, but they are beginning to call out his obvious autocratic conduct.
Transcript
So friends let's start today with a quote from a federal court judge regarding Donald Trump's retaliation against a law firm that he doesn't like quote this may be amusing in allice in Wonderland where the Queen of Hearts yells Off With Their Heads at annoying subjects and announces a sentence before a verdict judge Howell said but this cannot be the reality we are living under close quote let's talk about that because Justice [Music] matters hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends because nothing is too Petty or too vindictive for Donald Trump he just tried to punish a law firm that he doesn't like by prohibiting the firm's attorneys from interacting with federal agencies or even entering Federal buildings well DC federal district court judge Beryl Howell just called him out on it here's the new reporting from Politico headline judge blocks key provisions of Trump's bid to punish Democratic linked law firm and that article begins president Donald Trump's retaliation against a prominent Democratic linked Law Firm is likely unconstitutional a federal judge ruled Wednesday US District Judge Beryl Howell blocked the Trump Administration from enforcing Central provisions of an executive order that seeks to punish the law firm Perkins Coi by barring its attorneys from interacting with federal agencies or even entering Federal buildings you know friends I swear Donald Trump is like a a little discount dictator right just pathetically Petty my editorial addition the article continues judge said the retaliatory animus of Trump's order is clear on its face and appears to violate constitutional restrictions on Viewpoint discrimination the executive order which Trump issued last week quote runs head-on into the wall of First Amendment protections close quote the judge concluded Perkins Coi which is based in Seattle has often represented Democratic politicians and causes including Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign Trump has long targeted the firm as a political and legal adversary for its role in commissioning the anti-trump dossier compiled by former British intelligent agent Christopher Steele in 2016 that dossier whose salacious allegations against Trump were never confirmed by federal investigators helped fuel the long-running probe of his Trump's 2016 campaigns interactions with Russia the executive order if allowed to take effect would hamstring the firm's ability to represent clients who have business with the federal government The Firm claims the Trump's directive has already LED clients to abandon the firm and is likely to prompt Federal officials to cancel or deny meetings on a wide array of pending matters judge Howell noted that the order would harm not only the firm's 1200 lawyers most of whom had nothing to do with the Russia probe but its 2500 non-lawyer employees from IT staff to secretaries the judge said Trump's order was also flawed because it was issued without any notice to the firm or due process to challenge his determination quote this may be amusing in Allison Wonderland where the the Queen of Hearts yells Off With Their Heads at annoying subjects and announces a sentence before a verdict Howell said but this cannot be the reality we are living under judge Howell's got a point and if I can even put it a little less discreetly this is some real dictatorial Trump is pulling you know friends we have a flood of legal opinions coming in from federal courts literally from coast to coast ruling against Donald Trump's executive orders his unlawful terminations his refusal to pay contractors Who provided services and goods to the federal government and deserve to be paid we have legal opinion after legal opinion we have court finding after court finding that Donald Trump's conduct his executive orders are unlawful are unconstitutional and you know to say this is just executive branch overreach does not capture what Trump and Company are doing this is autocracy this is Donald Trump you know as aspiring dictator in the Oval Office and I'll tell you the federal bench the federal Judiciary that co-equal branch of government is acting as a check against an an aspiring autocrat an aspiring dictator in the Oval Office so friends I say let's keep these federal court opinions coming and I suspect they will keep coming because the Judiciary understands it's vital role in protecting our democracy its vital role in addressing executive branch abuse overreach lawlessness and unconstitutionality is all important to the health and I would say to the viability of American democracy so let's keep them coming and I suspect they will keep coming because the court understands that it may be the last firewall the last buwwark standing up against an aspiring dictator in the Oval Office and as we see in court ruling after court ruling after court ruling the federal Judiciary clearly understands that Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
**************************
Judge temporarily blocks parts of Trump’s executive order seeking to punish law firm Perkins Coie by Alanna Durkin Richer Politico Updated 6:23 PM MDT, March 12, 2025 https://apnews.com/article/trump-execut ... bc72be267e
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s administration Wednesday from enforcing portions of an executive order designed to punish a prominent law firm linked to Democratic-funded opposition research during the 2016 presidential campaign into ties between the Republican candidate and Russia.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington granted a temporary restraining order sought by the firm, Perkins Coie, one day after it filed a federal lawsuit alleging it’s being illegally targeted because of its legal work. The judge said the president’s action sends a chilling message that lawyers can be punished for representing clients or advancing views unfavorable to the administration.
“Such a circumstance threatens the very foundation of our legal system,” said Howell, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama. “Our justice system is based on the fundamental belief that justice works best when all parties have zealous advocates.”
Perkins Coie called the judge’s ruling “an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced.”
“We will follow the court’s direction regarding next steps and will continue to challenge the Executive Order, which threatens our firm, our clients, and core constitutional protections important to all Americans,” a firm spokesperson said.
The order came during an extraordinary court hearing in which Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, defended the latest in a series of retributive moves targeting the president’s perceived adversaries. It’s highly unusual for such a high-ranking Justice Department official to argue on behalf of the government in the trial court.
Mizelle, who’s also serving as the acting associate attorney general, argued that the president has the clear authority to take action against entities he believes present a threat to national security.
“If that means excluding individuals that are no longer trustworthy with the nation’s secrets, that’s a bedrock principle of our republic,” Mizelle said.
Perkins Coie says it’s already suffering financial consequences of the order, which calls for limiting firm employees’ access to federal buildings and terminating any government contacts of its clients. The judge’s temporary restraining order doesn’t block the administration from enforcing another provision that seeks to strip Perkins Coie attorneys of security clearances.
Perkins Coie says all 15 of its top clients have government contracts, and several clients have already ended their legal arrangements with the firm or threatened to do so. Dane Butswinkas, an attorney representing Perkins Coie, said keeping the order in place will “spell the end of the law firm.”
“This executive order takes a wrecking ball to the rule of law, to the principles that promote democracy,” Butswinkas said.
Perkins Coie represented the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent, and also represented Democrats in a variety of voting rights challenges during the 2020 election. The firm made headlines in 2017 when it was revealed to have hired a private investigative research firm during the 2016 campaign to conduct opposition research on Trump. That firm, Fusion GPS, subsequently retained a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who researched whether Trump and Russia had suspicious ties.
Trump had sued the law firm in 2022, along with Clinton, FBI officials and other defendants, as a part of a sprawling complaint alleging a massive conspiracy to concoct the Russia investigation that shadowed much of his administration. The suit was dismissed.
Layoff plans are due Thursday. Feds are terrified. President Donald Trump has ordered “large-scale” cuts to the federal workforce. by Robin Bravender Politico 03/12/2025 07:08 PM EDT https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/1 ... d-00226148
People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) outside the Capitol on Feb. 11. | Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Agencies across the federal government are facing a Thursday deadline to submit plans for sweeping workforce cuts and reorganizations.
President Donald Trump ordered agencies last month to draft plans for “large-scale reductions in force,” and his administration gave agencies a March 13 deadline to hand over plans for “initial agency cuts and reductions,” with another round due in April.
Workers inside energy and environmental agencies — who have already seen colleagues terminated in the early days of Trump’s term — are anxiously awaiting details of the administration’s next targets.
They’re bracing for steep cuts.
“People are completely terrified,” said one Interior Department employee, who was granted anonymity because they fear reprisal. “There are rumors circulating” about which offices and programs the administration might single out for cuts, that person said, but staffers hadn’t yet heard details from management about the specifics.
“We’re also kind of puzzled,” that person said, because the expected downsizing across agencies is coming as “this administration is putting a lot of work on our plates,” including repealing Biden-era regulations.
The Interior Department has already lost employees through the administration’s “Fork in the Road” resignation offer and the firings of probationary staff, that staffer said. The Trump administration is “gonna need staff” to enact its policy agenda, they added.
The Interior Department did not respond to a request for comment about its downsizing plans. The White House and the Office of Personnel Management did not respond to requests for comment about whether agencies’ plans will be made public or about the scope or timing of layoffs across the government.
The Education Department this week announced plans to slash about half of its workforce.
‘People are so scared’
Following early signals from Trump and his aides, EPA employees are girding for dramatic reductions at their agency.
Trump recently suggested that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin planned to cut 65 percent of the staff at EPA — a prospect the president appeared to welcome — although the White House later said that Zeldin aimed to cut about 65 percent of the agency’s spending, rather than its workforce.
Zeldin this week pledged to “massively reduce” his agency’s spending and said EPA will, “where necessary, reduce staff.”
Meanwhile, the DOGE operation led by Elon Musk announced that the leases for some EPA offices around the country have been canceled. The locations of some EPA regional offices were also included on a list of buildings the Trump administration slated for “disposal” before that list was taken down.
“Everyone is very conscious of the deadline for EPA to submit a reorganization and [reduction in force] plan,” said Nicole Cantello, the president of a union local that represents EPA regional workers.
“EPA workers continue to be concerned that EPA will close many offices around the country,” Cantello said. “Our scientists and engineers know that all EPA office buildings are essential to protecting human health and the environment.”
Marie Owens Powell, president of a union that represents EPA employees across the country, said employees at that agency fear what’s coming in the Trump plans due this week.
“People are so scared,” she said. “They don’t know if they’re going to fall into a RIF.”
Powell, who recently retired from her position as an EPA staffer after 33 years, said she never experienced a reduction in force, or a RIF, during her career with the agency. “We came close. We prepared for one, but we never fully implemented one,” she said.
Workers are afraid of potentially losing their jobs and their livelihoods, she said. They’re also afraid of the unknown. “They’re frantic at this point for lack of information,” she said.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment about its layoff and reorganization plan due this week.
The Trump administration’s building disposal plan included the Energy Department’s Washington headquarters as well as DOE offices in Germantown, Maryland. Those buildings were among the more than 400 posted online by the General Services Administration before the list was removed the following day, leaving employees who work there uncertain about their futures.
Employees at the National Science Foundation are also concerned about the upcoming layoff plans, but “there’s nothing we can do about it,” said one NSF employee who was granted anonymity because they fear reprisal. Staff at the science funding agency have been celebrating the return of probationary employees who had been terminated but were reinstated, the NSF employee said, “even if it’s only for another month or so.”
An NSF spokesperson declined to comment for this story.
More eliminations to come
The “Phase 1” goals for agency cuts due this week are just one step of the Trump administration’s extensive downsizing vision.
The strategies due Thursday will identify agency offices that provide “direct service to citizens,” explain which parts of agencies are required by law and explain whether “the agency or any of its subcomponents should be eliminated or consolidated,” according to guidance provided to agency bosses.
Agency leaders were also directed to describe the tools they intend to use to “achieve efficiencies,” including through expected staff reductions in coming years.
In the “Phase 2” plans due by April 14, agency bosses were directed to expand on their plans for overhauling their operations. That plan is set to include any proposals to relocate agency offices from Washington to other parts of the country, targets for “subsequent large-scale RIFs,” and agencies’ plans to renegotiate provisions of collective bargaining agreements deemed to “inhibit government efficiency and cost-savings.”
Agencies were told to implement those second-phase plans by Sept. 30.
Musk has previously suggested he’d like to delete most federal agencies.
“Do we really need whatever it is, 428, federal agencies?” Musk said in an interview prior to Trump’s inauguration. “I think we should be able to get away with 99 agencies,” he said.
Thousands of fired federal workers must be rehired immediately, judge rules. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office. by Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney Politico 03/13/2025 12:35 PM EDT Updated: 03/13/2025 01:45 PM EDT https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/1 ... g-00228721
Demonstrators chant during a National Treasury Employees Union rally protesting the Trump administration's policies toward federal workers on Capitol Hill, on March 5, 2025. | Francis Chung/POLITICO
A federal judge on Thursday ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who were fired amid President Donald Trump’s turbulent effort to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce.
Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments to “immediately” offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back. The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an “unlawful” decision to terminate them.
And even if it is upheld on appeal, it does not guarantee that all the workers will be able to get their jobs back permanently: Alsup made clear that agencies still have the authority to implement “reductions in force,” as long as they follow the proper procedures for doing so. Federal agencies are currently finalizing “reduction in force” plans.
Alsup issued his ruling in a lawsuit brought by federal employee unions. He lashed out at the Justice Department over its handling of the case, saying he believes that Trump administration lawyers were hiding the facts about who directed the mass firings.
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth,” the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth. … I’m tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.”
Alsup also said the administration attempted to circumvent federal laws on reducing the workforce by attributing the firings to “performance” when that was not in fact the case. The judge called the move “a gimmick.”
“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said.
More than 5,000 probationary workers for USDA had already won a reprieve last week when the chair of a federal civil service board ordered them reinstated for 45 days. But Alsup is the first federal judge to order the administration to broadly unwind the firing spree that has roiled the federal workforce during Trump’s first two months in office.
Alsup emphasized that he was not ruling that the government is unable to lay off personnel at federal agencies, but that the Trump administration was in such a hurry to do so that it shunted aside federal laws that dictate the procedures for a so-called RIF.
“The words that I give you today should not be taken that some wild-and-crazy judge in San Francisco said that an administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” Alsup said. “It can be done, if it’s done in accordance with the law.”
Alsup is also seeking answers about the administration’s position that fired federal workers should have to seek relief from two executive branch agencies tasked with supervising federal workplace issues: the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The judge expressed concern that Trump’s effort to remove members of those boards might render them ineffective.
Alsup had ordered the acting head of OPM, Charles Ezell, to appear at the hearing Thursday so he could be cross-examined about his claims that the personnel office did not direct any firings but simply provided guidance to other agencies about how to carry out the dismissals.
However, Justice Department lawyers told Alsup earlier this week that Ezell would not appear, and the government withdrew a sworn declaration Ezell submitted earlier in the case. At one point Thursday, the judge reprimanded Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland for the government’s decision not to make witnesses available.
“You’re not helping me get at the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents,” the frustrated judge said, adding, “I’m getting mad at you and I shouldn’t. You’re trying to do your best, and I apologize.”
Helland, who sat alone at the table for government counsel, argued that the agencies made the firing decisions, and he said the timing was driven by the urgency of Trump’s agenda, not any moves by OPM.
“Everybody knew the new administration was prioritizing this and the political appointments wanted to comply with that administration priority,” the DOJ attorney said. “This was not an order by OPM.”
But the judge noted that some agencies told employees they were instructed by OPM to fire every probationary employee deemed non-essential.
Probationary status is extremely common in the federal workforce. Many newly hired employees are required to begin their tenure as probationary employees, and employees are also often required to spend time on probationary status after being promoted. Probationary employees do not enjoy many of the civil service protections as non-probationary workers.
One of the attorneys challenging the dismissals emphasized Thursday that some newly-promoted employees with lengthy tenure at agencies were caught up in the mass firings.
The suit the judge acted on Thursday was brought by federal employee labor unions along with non-profit groups that said their work would be negatively impacted by the firings in places like national parks and veterans’ hospitals.
115. Mar 13, 2025. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 3/13/2025. Court granted and extended TRO as stated on the record. Court directed counsel to file briefs by 3/21/2025, 12:00 noon, 10 pages in length as stated on the record. Memorandum Opinion to issue. Initial Case Management Conference not held. Still, discovery open; parties to comply with all rules and standing orders (e.g., Supplemental Order to Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup 18, 35 (Revd Aug. 27, 2024)). Court further stated plaintiffs may depose Noah Peters in Washington, D.C.; Government to make him available for 3 hours within two weeks. Total Time in Court: 8:00 - 9:30 = 1 Hour; 30 Minutes. Court Reporter: Kendra Steppler. Plaintiff Attorneys: Danielle Leonard, Stacey Leyton, Eileen Goldsmith, Tera Heintz, Norman Eisen. Defendant Attorney: Kelsey Helland. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/13/2025) (Entered: 03/13/2025)
Attorney Generals GANG UP on Trump IN COURT by Michael Popok Legal AF Mar 13, 2025 The Intersection with Popok
The feared Gang of 20 States have banded together for the 6th time to sue the Trump Administration and obtain a temporary restraining order to stop Trump's shrinking the Congressionally- mandated and funded Dept of Education responsible for billions in funding and the welfare of 65 million students, and shrinking it so small that it can be drowned in the bathtup, as Trump pays off his campaign debts to the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2015. Popok reports.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STATE OF NEW YORK; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSSETTS; STATE OF HAWAIʻI; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL FOR THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;
Plaintiffs,
v.
LINDA McMAHON, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Defendants.
Linda, I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job I want her to put herself out of a job education department all right and a move that seems to pretend the beginning of the end for the Department that Republicans going back to Reagan pledged to abolish the Department of Education today told staffers to vacate their offices by 6: p.m. because the offices were closing Nationwide the doors are now locked workers aren't going to be allowed back into the buildings until at least Thursday this the first step on the road to a total shutdown uh yes uh actually it is because that was the president's uh mandate as directive to me uh clearly is to shut down the Department of Education which we know we'll have to work with Congress you know to get that accomplished but what we did today was to take the the first step of of eliminating what I think is is bureaucratic bloat and that's not to say that a lot of the folks uh you know it's a humanitarian thing too A lot of the folks that are there you know they're they're out of a job but um we wanted to make sure that we kept all of the right people and the good people to make sure that the outward facing programs the the grants the Appropriations that come from Congress all of that are being met and none of that's going to fall through the crack oh they so blly just want to dismantle the Department of Education impacting millions and millions of children 50 million children at least and billions and billions of dollars with just the BL well we're going to dismiss mantle it oh we're going to put ourselves out of business oh we're going to this is the beginning of chloroforming and taking out in the back and shooting the Department of Education not so fast not so fast you're like it's a James Bond movie and these are the the evil people living in the mountain lair Leticia James and 19 other states she represents New York have banded together once again I call him the gang of 20 and they're banding together time and time again filing injunction suit after injunction suit against the administration and they're winning and they got a new one that they just filed in Massachusetts federal court I'll talk to you a little bit why we're filing these kind of suits in Massachusetts in Maine in New Hampshire in California and in New York New Jersey Maryland and the District of Colombia and were avoiding red States talk about that at the end but let me let me read to you from a quote from Leticia James this is the not on my watch moment letia James is the bane of Donald Trump's existence right she's the one that brought him low prove that his his business operations were a sham a fraud a house of cards uh got a $450 million civil fraud judgment against those companies in New York putting him out of business putting a a monitor former federal judge over the Trump organization to this moment so there's no love loss between Laticia James and Donald Trump I assure you that doesn't stopped Laticia James from being at the Forefront the tip of the spear against the Trump Administration here's her quote upon the filing of the lawsuit that she led this Administration may claim to be stopping waste and fraud but it is clear that their only mission is to take away the necessary Services resources and funding that students and their families need firing half of the Department of education's Workforce will hurt students throughout New York and the nation especially low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding time out for a minute that's you rural States that's you poor states that's you red States who do you think the Department of Education helps the rich parents on the upper west side or upper east side of Manhattan um but I digress back to Laticia james' statement today along with her lawsuit um this outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal today I am taking action to stop the madness and protect our schools and the students who depend on them let me just give you the the gravity of this there's probably no other department including Social Services Social Security that touches the America America life more in a positive way than the Department of Education formed in 1979 by Congress just here the numbers 50 million students K through 12 are under the opes of a Department of Education and receive billions and billions of dollars of funding through their states and through their local school systems there are 98,000 public schools there are 32,000 private schools there are 18,000 school districts there are another 12 million who are in higher education there's an entire department that's now been completely shuttered and dismantled and chloroformed related to civil rights and discrimination and harassment and abuse in the school systems something Donald Trump doesn't care about I thought his I thought his administration and his wife are all about stopping cyber bullying where do you think that starts that starts with the Department of Education and its civil rights Division and now New York who has been harmed by the complete shuttering of the Department of Education in effect you know it it received more than $6 billion do worth of Aid last year for its school students that's just New York alone now this gang of 20 that I like that I'm proud to talk about have joined together six or seven other times to sue Donald Trump under Birthright citizenship and they won against Elon Musk going through the treasury Department uh servers and websites and they won against um they're trying to dis the National Institute of Health and they won and about Mass firings of federal employees and they won they're batting over 900 against the Trump Administration even better than they did the first time around because Donald Trump is worse than the first time around this lawsuit that's been brought is is simple is is simple in its Elegance about the claims that it's bringing because every lawsuit is the same you have the general allegations you have the the jurisdiction and venue allegations you have the part parties who are the parties allegations and then you get to the meat of the order and that's the claims in federal court here there's only four claims but they're so powerful separation of powers have been violated by Donald Trump by trying through a reduction in force a phony reduction in force we call it a riff to put the Department of Education out of business you just saw the clip that's been his goal because that's project 202's goal it's right there the play we had the Playbook while he was running for office it said the complete dismantling of the Department of Education okay well he's obeying his Masters in the project 2025 Heritage Foundation world who help get elected and he is paying off a campaign debt even if it means by doing so he is completely undermining our public education system and the dignity that goes along with that uh to make sure that everybody has a fair Shake in our society which they don't care about goes along with their desire to get rid of diversity equity and inclusion at every stage to the game so separation of powers that the AR first argument in their claim in this new lawsuit is that there's been a usurpation of the legislative Authority that Congress set up this particular Department of Education for a reason in 1979 and funded it for a reason and Donald Trump can't through executive action or non-action or reductions of force or putting Linda McMahon a meat puppet into that position from her days in the World Wrestling Federation of all things can't put can't do by reduction and force and violate Congressional mandates in other words the law and that leads us to the second claim in the case separation of powers that means that he's violating they've argued that he's violating the take care Clause that the executive branch must take care to Faithfully execute the laws the laws are set by Congress by Congress and they cite in their own complaint um lawsuit dicta and precedent going back in the Supreme Court to the 1800 with the first Supreme Court Justice John Marshall who says it is Congress who sets the law the president may be able to fill in some of the details but the law The Guiding post the the poll star is Congress not not Faithfully not executing the laws in order to cut the legs out from under a congressional statute and the creation of this Department of Education third that his actions are Ultra varies that's a fancy way of saying that it is out outside the norm he's coloring outside the lines of his executive power given to him by the Constitution it is ill not only irregular but illegal Ultra varies and lastly as we've said before almost every one of these cases is has this has the same type of blueprint that Donald Trump has violated the administrative procedures act which deals with administrative agencies and departments like the Department of Education by making having Linda McMahon make an arbitrary and capricious that's the term to decision to cut without regard to impact on the states half of the workforce telling them to go home and lock the door and shut the door you heard it in her interview at the top of this hot take I'm hot at the top of this hot take so I see the lawsuit and I'll tell you why it's been filed in Massachusetts because we know how to take a page out of the Republicans book for years you know to be the bane of Biden's existence and his policies they filed their law lawsuits and where were they filed occasionally in DC but Texas Louisiana and Florida in order to get to favorable and they're most favorable appell Court the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals out of out of New Orleans which sits Over Texas Louisiana and others Mississippi and the like that's where those cases came from our cases are going to come from New Hampshire and Massachusetts and um and um Maine and New Jersey and Maryland and the District of Columbia where about half the cases are and California and New York and even when Laticia James is leading as the New York attorney general banding together with the other 20 States and I'll just shout out see if you can figure out the common denominator of these 20 States leave it in my comments New York Massachusetts uh California Hawaii Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC the district Illinois Maine Maryland uh Michigan uh Nevada Minnesota New Jersey Oregon Rhode Island Vermont state of Washington state of Wisconsin mainly mainly blue States maybe not at the Electoral time but certainly their attorney general is blue their governor is blue and maybe one or both chambers of their legislator is legisl legislation um body is uh blue and so they're joining together this is the fifth or sixth time that Leticia James has brought a case like this and has been successful you know we talked about it Birthright citizenship stopping federal workers from being fired stopping Elon Musk and Doge from going through the treasury Department servers all because of Leticia james' leadership so what's going to happen next Massachusetts judge federal judge going to hold a hearing on the temporary restraining order to determine whether they have standing um as states which is the fundamental issue that you have to prove to a court in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction you have to show that a federal judge has a live case or controversy that's the term of Art in front of him in order to rule they have standing they've been injured it's called a pocketbook injury and it's what it sounds like their wallets and pocketbooks their budgets the funding has been cut off and therefore they've been specially injured they have standing so even though the Trump Administration will argue no standing they're GNA that they're going to blow by that that threshold requirement pretty pretty quickly then it's going to go to a reparable harm because for an injunction unlike the regular substance of a merit-based lawsuit you got to prove that you have a a harm that is so distinct in character that it can't be compensated later by money because something has to happen now to stop an ongoing issue there has to be an ongoing future harm other words not a completed harm something that's going to happen in the future again the continued dismantling of the Department of Education and try attempts to defund it and then you have to have um the judge make the determination that that qualifies as irreparable harm it's like toothpaste out of the tooth tooth uh tube kind of thing eggs that can't be unscrambled that kind of thing and then you have inadequate remedy at law which is similar to that and then lastly that the parties are likely to Prevail on proving their case at the end of the trial the judge looks at it now kind of Peaks under the hood and says yes you are more likely than not you are likely to Prevail on the merits of your case to prove the Constitutional administrative procedure act violations that alleging I will grant you the temporary restraining order some people think it's easy to get a trro looks like you just it's like pulling a number at your local supermarket at the deli counter boom because there's so many of them against the Trump Administration they're very hard to get in 35 years of my practice I've gotten about five yeah and I've probably been denied double that um doesn't mean your case is terrible doesn't mean you're not going to win ultimately at your case at trial or with a judge or with a jury or a judge or an arbitrator or something it just means at that moment you don't have the unique extraordinary elements necessary to obtain this type of extraordinary relief from a judge and you may not think it's extraordinary because there's been you know about six a week issued against the Trump Administration you know he's averaging about uh 12 to 15 lawsuits a week but it is extraordinary and it is hard but I think they get the temporary restraining order here to stop the future chloroforming and dismantling of the Department of Education where they take him out in the back and try to shoot it or as Leticia James and her lawsuit alleged through a a phony reduction in force act like they're just cutting off fraud and waste when they're not they're they've cut through the fat through the muscle through the bone and into vital organs I guess is the best way to put it trro happens hearing temporary restraining order issued set the case for trial set the case for preliminary injunction which in the food chain of of of stays or or blocks by a federal judge it starts with administrative stay um I need a few more days to even see your briefing I'm not making a decision on the merits at all administrative stay next level up I've seen your papers on temporary restraining order you've made out movement the the states here you've made out your four elements to to obtain a temporary restraining order irreparable harm inadequate remedy at law uh likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of equities or in public interest tips in your favor yes boom done that's that holds the ring for the case and stops the government from doing something or forces them to do something for for the next briefing schedule preliminary injunction maybe a week or two or a month later with the injunction in place preliminary injunction similar factors full more full or complete record case law argument judge either enters the preliminary injunction or not sometimes it's converted into a permanent injunction because the judge finds un summary judgment there's no disputed facts it's just the law and person can issue a ruling without having to go through a full-blown trial or certainly not a jury trial this is all judg made law so that's the hierarchy that we will get to as soon as it gets to a temporary restraining order level it then once that's entered um and certainly at yeah once that's entered and usually at the preliminary injunction level appellant jurisdiction kicks in and then you can go off and try to take an emergency appeal to your various appell courts so I think that's what's going to happen here Donald Trump's not going to like this he's going to get a trro against them there's going to be a preliminary injunction against him he's going to run out and try to get the first circuit which just ruled against him big time on Birthright citizenship a new three judge panel of the first circuit up in up in that area up in Massachusetts is going to issue its ruling he'll take that to the United States Supreme Court through a uh moderate Justice of the Supreme Court because that's who sits over the first and over Massachusetts another good reason to file there and then we'll see if there's any will any any ability to count to four or five at the United States Supreme Court level to hear this case on an emergency application we'll cover it all that's one of the things we do well we WE Post these issues to you we put them on your radar we explain it to them explain it to you in this way and then we follow up and follow through in a way that of course mainstream media and corporate media won't can't and doesn't want to and is afraid to we're not and I'm glad you're here I'm Michael popok you're on the legal AF YouTube channel um take a moment hit the Subscribe button we just rolled the odometer to 500,000 subscribers well on our way to where yes a million before our one-year birthday and that with your help we're going to get there I appreciate all of you I'm Michael popuk reporting in collaboration with the mest touch Network we just launched the legal AF YouTube channel help us build this pro-democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories the intersection of Law and politics go to YouTube now and free subscribe at legal AF MTN that's at legal aftn [Music]
******************************
Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration To Stop Dismantling of Department of Education and Protect Students. AG James Leads Coalition of 20 Attorneys General in Suing to Stop Trump Administration from Shutting Down the Department of Education by Letitia James New York State Attorney General Press Release March 13, 2025 https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/at ... department
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today led a coalition of 20 other attorneys general in suing the Trump administration to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education (ED). On March 11, the Trump administration announced that ED would be firing approximately 50 percent of its workforce as part of its goal of a “total shutdown” of the Department. Attorney General James and the coalition today filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the targeted destruction of this critical federal agency that ensures tens of millions of students receive a quality education and critical resources.
“This administration may claim to be stopping waste and fraud, but it is clear that their only mission is to take away the necessary services, resources, and funding that students and their families need,” said Attorney General James. “Firing half of the Department of Education’s workforce will hurt students throughout New York and the nation, especially low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding. This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal. Today I am taking action to stop the madness and protect our schools and the students who depend on them.”
The ED’s programs serve nearly 18,200 school districts and over 50 million K-12 students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools throughout the country. Its higher education programs provide services and support to more than 12 million postsecondary students annually. Students with disabilities and students from low-income families are some of the primary beneficiaries of ED services and funding. Federal ED funds for special education include support for assistive technology for students with disabilities, teacher salaries and benefits, transportation to help children receive the services and programming they need, physical therapy and speech therapy services, and social workers to help manage students’ educational experiences. The ED also supports students in rural communities by offering programs designed to help rural school districts that often lack the personnel and resources needed to compete for competitive grants.
As Attorney General James and the coalition assert in the lawsuit, dismantling ED will have devastating effects on states like New York. K-12 schools in New York received $6.17 billion, or $2,438 per student, from the ED in federal fiscal year 2024. Federal funding for public colleges and universities averaged $1,256 per student in New York in federal fiscal year 2024. The administration’s layoff is so massive that ED will be incapacitated and unable to perform essential functions. As the lawsuit asserts, the administration’s actions will deprive students with special needs of critical resources and support. They will gut ED’s Office of Civil Rights, which protects students from discrimination and sexual assault. They would additionally hamstring the processing of financial aid, raising costs for college and university students who will have a harder time accessing loans, Pell Grants, and work-study programs. This would be particularly harmful to New York, where more students receive Pell Grants than almost any other state.
With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the administration’s policies to dismantle ED by drastically cutting its workforce and programs. Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the administration’s actions to dismantle ED are illegal and unconstitutional. The Department is an executive agency authorized by Congress, with numerous different laws creating its various programs and funding streams. The coalition’s lawsuit asserts that the executive branch does not have the legal authority to unilaterally incapacitate or dismantle it without an act of Congress.
Joining Attorney General James in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
This is the latest action Attorney General James has taken to protect New Yorkers and the services they rely on from the Trump administration’s illegal attacks. On February 13, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general secured a preliminary injunction stopping the administration’s illegal revocation of birthright citizenship. On February 24, Attorney General James led a coalition of attorneys general in securing a court order preventing Elon Musk and members of DOGE from accessing Americans’ private information through the U.S. Treasury. On March 5, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general secured a court order stopping the Trump administration from withholding vital funding to the National Institutes of Health. On March 6, Attorney General James led a coalition of attorneys general in securing a court order blocking the Trump administration’s freeze of essential federal funds to states. Also on March 6, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general sued the Trump administration for illegal mass firings of federal employees and sued the Trump administration for cutting critical grant programs for teachers through the Department of Education.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-425 (SLS)
Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 4, the Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, the legal memoranda in support and in opposition, and the entire record herein, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED; and the Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. It is further
DECLARED that the termination of the Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann was unlawful, in violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b). Ms. Grundmann remains a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, having been appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term on May 12, 2022, and she may be removed by the President prior to the expiration of her term “only upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b). It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann shall continue to serve as a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) until her term expires pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7104(c), unless she is earlier removed “upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” id. § 7104(b). The Defendant Colleen Duffy Kiko, as well as her subordinates, agents, and employees, are ENJOINED from removing Ms. Grundmann from her office without cause or in any way treating Ms. Grundmann as having been removed, from impeding in any way her ability to fulfill her duties as a Member of the FLRA, and from denying or obstructing her authority or access to any benefits or resources of the office; it is further
ORDERED that the Defendant Colleen Duffy Kiko and her subordinates, agents, and employees provide the Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann with access to the necessary government facilities and equipment so that she may carry out her duties during her term as a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court close this case.
This is a final appealable order.
SO ORDERED.
SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN United States District Judge
Date: March 12, 2025
******************************
Trump LOSES case with MAJOR Supreme Court implications by Brian Tyler Cohen and Glenn Kirschner Mar 13, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner
Transcript
you're watching the legal breakdown Glenn we've got a major Court ruling against Donald Trump definitively which you'll talk about in a moment one that is going to eventually find its way up to the US Supreme Court can you explain what just happened yeah Brian very quickly this case just got teed up to be a major case before The Supreme Court in the very near future and here's why you know there have been a series of firings by Donald Trump that have been flat out unlawful and you don't have to take my word for it because just as in the case we're about to discuss Trump's doj lawyers are actually going into court and admitting they are unlawful but they're saying we think the Constitution ought to be changed and not give Congress the authority to pass laws that set fixed terms for executive branch employees and say that those people cannot be fired on a whim by an incoming president they can only be fired for good cause for neglect of Duty for malfeasance in office and they can only be fired after notice and a hearing but lately Brian Donald Trump has been firing people on a whim not for good cause and without giving the them the required opportunity for notice and a hearing on the issue of their proposed determination so in this case it is a case that was brought by a woman who had just been fired by Trump unceremoniously no notice no no hearing no um indication that she had fallen down on her duties now what was she doing well she was appointed as one of three members of a board for the federal labor relations Authority the FL she gets a five-year term and Brian mind you this is under a law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president and for nearly a hundred years the Supreme Court has said yes this is within the authority within the Constitutional prerogatives of Congress to put these people in place for five years and and requiring by federal law that they can't be removed except for cause and now Trump one after another is saying I don't care I'm violating the law because I want to get these cases up to the Supreme Court and I want the Supreme Court to revisit the law and say that I have complete and absolute Authority and Congress can't tie my hands by putting these qualifiers on people who are working in the executive branch so um this case was just resolved and something called summary judgment was entered what does that mean it means that the judge the presiding judge judge uh suknanan in DC said okay I've heard enough I've seen the briefs you've made your arguments I don't even need to hold evidentiary hearings because I am ruling that this was an unlawful termination of this member of the flr board and indeed it was easy for the judge to reach that conclusion Brian because even the doj lawyers went into court and conceded this was an unlawful termin but they say we don't like the law and we want to try to get this up to the Supreme Court so they can change the law and give Donald Trump nearly dictatorial power and just give me one more minute because I really want to read a little snippet of Judge Suk nanan's opinion because it is forceful it is direct and it is unflinching the judge says the government meaning the doj lawyers in court the government vigorous defends Miss grundman's Hasty termination Miss grundman is the board member who was unlawfully terminated and the lawyers vigorously defend that termination arguing that the president May remove Federal officers on a whim and in doing so override congress's considered judgment the government the doj's lawyers arguments paint with a broad brush and threaten to upend fundamental protection in our constitution but ours is not an autocracy it is a system of checks and balances and then she puts an exclamation point on that by saying we abide by the Constitutional prerogative of Congress to do this quote to save the people from autocracy close quote it doesn't get any more pointed than that and Brian this case is now headed like a rocket up to the Supreme Court I suspect and Glenn in terms of the Supreme Court being able to see this I mean you you just said this is this is law this is and I believe this is Humphrey's executive is that the the case that this is all based upon is that correct it is it's the Humphrey's executive case kind of a curious name for a Supreme Court case it's 90 years old it was decided in 1935 and what it all boils down to is humph was a an executive branch official he claimed he was wrongfully terminated and he died during the course of the litigation of that wrongful termination suit so his executive stepped in and finished up the case and the Supreme Court said no the Congress has the power and the authority under our constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances they have the authority to do this and Donald Trump doesn't like it one bit I mean he is forever sort of reaching for more and more and more power and this judge called him out and said the reason we have the humph executive Supreme Court ruling and other rulings that have followed along those same lines is to quote protect the people from autocracy and here we are well in that in that you know look I get that this Supreme Court is not sympathetic to settled law right like even though they they went on and on about SAR decisis and how it was the most important thing in the world and they couldn't possibly touch um Row versus Wade only only to do exactly that once they actually get a seat on the bench the difference is that row wasn't wasn't protected by Statute it was a supreme court precedent but but this has been statute for almost a hundred years and so how does the Supreme Court have the ability have the right really to go in and overturned statute without Congress being the ones to change the law you know what Brian's saying that the Supreme Court is not fond of settled law or they don't feel Bound by settled law is probably a pretty dramatic understatement as you just pointed out in how they flip-flopped on Ro v Wade versus Dos when they revoked women's constitutional privacy rights to make their own reproductive Health decisions so you asked the question well what might they do here with something that has been settled for nearly a hundred years you know it's anybody's guess um and I wouldn't you know place my $1 bet on how this case will turn out but here's what I will say and we're always looking for Points of Light the most recent case where the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Trump administration had overstepped its Authority had done something that the law and the Constitution doesn't permit um it was the US aid case where they had stiffed Donald Trump's administration had stiffed a bunch of contractors who had submitted invoices for work already performed or Goods already delivered to the federal government under existing contract that sounds that sounds like a that sounds like a recurring theme in Donald Trump's life yeah who would who would have guessed that Donald Trump would continue stiffing contractors when he transitioned from being a businessman to being president um but what did the Supreme Court do well two justices crossed over and joined the liberal block it was chief justice Roberts and Justice Amy Cony Barrett and they ruled against Trump's expansive view of the executives power and they said no basically pay your damn bills that is a good and and hopefully that's a good sign and hopefully it's some foreshadowing for how this Supreme Court will now begin to assess Donald Trump's determination to Forever expand the power of the the chief executive so I am very guardedly optimistic that they will stick with nearly hundred year old president and say no the Humphrey's executive case the power of congress to protect the people against autocracy In This Very way will continue to survive and hopefully Thrive because we need it now more than ever Glenn I know that this this case specifically was narrowly focused on the plaintiff which is Susan grundman at uh at the federal labor relations Authority but there are other folks in analogous positions who've been fired who who could make the same claim here so does this precedent um count only toward uh this one plaintiff or is there a way to to more broadly have it so that this precedent applies to all folks who are in a similar position yeah great question so let me unpack that a little bit first of all this this is a trial court decision by one federal district court judge judge Suk nanan um so that doesn't serve as precedent now it can be persuasive because the rationale that this judge used could certainly be adopted and used by other judges who as you're saying are literally involved in litigation involving not just analogous but almost identical cases and here's the thing Brian judge suknanan actually acknowledges that in her written opinion she says look Congress has this authority to set terms for executive branch officials to require that they can only be removed for cause not on a whim and only after notice and a hearing and what have we seen in the last couple of months we've seen inspectors General who enjoy those same Congressional protections under the law terminated at will violating federal law there's a special counsel who's actually sort of an overseer of many of the inspectors General who was terminated who enjoys some of those same legal protections for his position so the answer to your question is um in part yes this will be seen as persuasive Authority because it involves identical facts and identical protections put in place by Congress that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled are lawful and constitutional exercises of congress's power so I have a feeling this rationale though it's not technically precedent because president is only set in the appell at courts it will serve as what I like to call atmospheric precedent and it will be an important consideration in all of the lawsuits brought by similarly situated wrongfully terminated executive branch officials which brings me to my next Point shouldn't other folks who've been wrongfully terminated see this decision being handed down and shouldn't this be an impetus to bring suit against him if they haven't already yes but remember lots and lots and lots tens of thousands of the people who are being wrong wrongfully terminated like probationary employees and so some prosecutors who worked on j6 cases um they are not um benefiting from these Congressional statutes that give protections only to very specific right um members of the executive branch like inspectors General like members of certain boards like the flr the board we're discussing here and a handful of others so it's actually a limited Universe of people who um have those protection under the law but all of them who are wrongfully terminated I'm with you should look at this should be emboldened and should be encouraged to bring suits of their own if they haven't already many have for their wrongful termination is there a world in which all of these folks can come together if they are if they are at least protected under under the same general statute that they can come together for a class action lawsuit okay I am not a civil litigator and I've never put a class together in a civil litigation case so with that caveat my sort of informed opinion knowing what I know about class action litigation is probably not because there are different statutes in place that govern different executive branch employees if it's you're An Inspector General you're going to be covered by one federal statute if you're a member of the flr another so you could probably join in with like mini classes but I don't I don't see all wrong ful terminated executive branch officials being collected up in one class action civil suit but I will leave that for the experts look class action suit or or individual suit I think the the point here Remains the Same which is that um clearly there is there is some positive reinforcement for these folks who are looking to take legal action against Trump this case right here with uh with Susan grundman is a testament to exactly that and so I hope that folks who have been wrongfully terminated can see what's happening in the courts right now and can take action so that they aren't wrongfully terminated so that the government isn't staffed with only people who are going to be um uh loyal to Donald Trump and that we have some folks who can serve as bullworks against the worst excesses of this Administration so look we will continue to focus on this as we said in the beginning this is very likely to make its way all the way up to the Supreme Court so we'll stay on top of it uh for those who are watching if you want to follow along and if you want to support our work and Independent Media more broadly please make sure to subscribe the links to both of our channels are right here on this screen Glenn is fast on his way to a million subscribers so if you haven't subscribed to his channel yet please make sure to hit the Subscribe button I'm Brian terer Cohen and I'm Glenn kersner you're watching the legal breakdown [Music]
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.
Civil Action No. 25-00400 (AHA)
_______________________________________
GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-00402 (AHA) [Judge Amir H. Ali, United States District Judge]
Date: March 10, 2025
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The provision and administration of foreign aid has been a joint enterprise between our two political branches. That partnership is built not out of convenience, but of constitutional necessity. It reflects Congress and the Executive’s “firmly established,” shared constitutional responsibilities over foreign policy, Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 62 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting), and it reflects the division of authorities dictated by the Constitution as it relates to the appropriation of funds and executing on those appropriations. Congress, exercising its exclusive Article I power of the purse, appropriates funds to be spent toward specific foreign policy aims. The President, exercising a more general Article II power, decides how to spend those funds in faithful execution of the law. And so foreign aid has proceeded over the years.
[Marc Elias] So let me start with something that I don't understand. So you got Article I of the Constitution, which is the Congress, and lays out Congress's power; and you got Article II, which lays out the Executive Branch's power; and you got Article III that lays out the Judicial branch. And I think the Founders had in mind that the most powerful of these branches would actually be the first, would be Article I, right? It would be Congress. And that it would jealously guard its authority -- particularly its ability to spend money, and its ability to issue taxes -- that it would jealously guard this power from a rapacious Executive. That does not seem to be happening. So what do you make of this? Either put on your Constitutional law hat, or put on your member of Congress hat, but what do you make of this?
[Jamie Raskin] Well, in one sense, this is a decades-long process of erosion of Congressional lawmaking power. But this is a dramatic and sudden jump into the unknown, with the President basically defying Congress in Congressional statutes and Appropriations at every turn. But to go back to the beginning, Marc, look, we had a revolution against a king, against a monarch. The first three words of the Constitution are, "We the people." And then, after you get through our beautiful Preamble, it leads right into the creation of Article I: "All legislative power is vested in the Congress of the United States." The sovereign power of the People to create the Constitution flows right into the Congressional power of lawmaking. And you know, Article I lays out everything, from regulating Commerce domestically and internationally, to the power to declare war, budgets, taxes, you name it. And even in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, all other powers necessary and proper to the execution of the forgoing powers, right?
Then you get to Article II. My colleague, Jim Jordan's, been running around TV saying that Article II says, in the first sentence, "All Executive power is vested in the President." Yeah, that's true, but what is the executive power, right? When you get past commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy in times of actual conflict, or when the militia's been mobilized, what's the core job of the President? "To take care that the laws are faithfully executed." That's it. "To take care that the laws are faithfully executed." The Articles of Confederation didn't even have a President, right? And then they thought that that was too inefficient, and there was nobody to keep things going to, you know, move the bureaucracy when Congress wasn't in town. And then the President was created, but very clearly in a secondary position. As Madison put it in the Federalist Papers, "The legislative branch is the predominant branch of government."
So sometimes my colleagues will get up, even Democrats will say, "We're three co-equal branches of government." And I just want to say, first of all, "co-equal" is not even a word, okay? You know, that's like extremely unique, or something like that. Secondly, the claim that we have three equal branches is just ridiculous. I mean, when you get to Article II, you've got four short sections. One section is all about how you impeach a President for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. If we're co-equal, or equal, or equivalent, or whatever, why do we have the power to impeach and try and convict a President, and he doesn't have the power to impeach and try and convict us? The framers were clearly a lot more afraid of a President purporting to be a King, or arrogating the powers of a dictator, than it was afraid of Congress; all of the people, coming from this great huge, vast, diverse country, from different points of views, and working together, and split between the House and the Senate with bicameralism. So, as you know, Washington told Jefferson in that famous anecdote,
There is a tradition that Jefferson coming home from France, called Washington to account at the breakfast-table for having agreed to a second, and, as Jefferson thought, unnecessary legislative Chamber.
"Why," asked Washington, "did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer, before drinking?"
"To cool it," answered Jefferson, "my throat is not made of brass."
"Even so," rejoined Washington, "we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
It's like, you know, pouring your tea from the cup into the saucer so it can cool off a little bit, right? And the Senate is supposed to allow the passions and tempers of the House of Representatives to cool off a little bit. But in any event, Congress is the lawmaking branch. We also have the power of the purse. We've got the power to spend, right? And you know this Marc, an Appropriations Act is just another federal law. It's like a law against assaulting Federal officers. And they should show more respect for both the law against assaulting Federal officers, and for an Appropriations Act. An Appropriations Act is not a budgetary recommendation, or a point of negotiation, or a bargaining chip with the President. It's a law you follow. The law "To take care that the laws are faithfully executed." So do your job, yeah?
This case involves a departure from that firmly established constitutional partnership. Here, the Executive has unilaterally deemed that funds Congress appropriated for foreign aid will not be spent. The Executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place. In advancing this position, Defendants offer an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected—a view that flouts multiple statutes whose constitutionality is not in question, as well as the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Asserting this “vast and generally unreviewable” Executive power and diminution of Congressional power, Defendants do not cite any provision of Article I or Article II of the Constitution. See generally Glob. Health, ECF No. 34.
When courts have confronted Executive overreach of the foreign policy power in the past, they have stood prepared to reaffirm Congress’s role. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587–89 (1952); Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 62 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“For our first 225 years, no President prevailed when contradicting a statute in the field of foreign affairs.”). So too they have stood firm when the Executive treads on Congress’s spending power. See In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255, 259 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Kavanaugh, J.) (granting mandamus). Three Justices aptly captured the import to our nation’s founding: “Before this country declared independence, the law of England entrusted the King with the exclusive care of his kingdom’s foreign affairs.” Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 67 (Scalia, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., and Alito, J., dissenting). But “[t]he People of the United States had other ideas.” Id. The People “considered a sound structure of balanced powers essential to the preservation of just government, and international relations formed no exception to that principle.” Id. They “adopted a Constitution that divides responsibility for the Nation’s foreign concerns between the legislative and executive departments.” Id.
Today, this Court reaffirms these firmly established principles of our Constitution. At the same time, however, the Court is mindful of limitations on its own authority. While Congress has directed courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” certain agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Supreme Court has admonished that the “duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” includes resolving disputes between Congress and the President over foreign policy power, Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)), courts remain constrained in the relief they can offer. The Court must be careful that any relief it grants does not itself intrude on the prerogative of a coordinate branch. The Court accordingly denies Plaintiffs’ proposed relief that would unnecessarily entangle the Court in supervision of discrete or ongoing Executive decisions, as well as relief that goes beyond what their claims allow. For the reasons herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction.
I. Background
A. The Political Branches’ Joint Framework For The Provision And Administration Of Foreign Aid
The general framework for foreign aid relevant here began with Congress’s enactment of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (“FAA”), Pub. L. No. 87-195, 75 Stat. 424 (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 2151 et seq.). In the FAA, Congress sets forth principles to guide U.S. foreign policy as it relates to foreign aid. Congress “reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.” 22 U.S.C. § 2151(a). The act further declares that “a principal objective of the foreign policy of the United States is the encouragement and sustained support of the people of developing countries in their efforts to acquire the knowledge and resources essential to development and to build the economic, political, and social institutions which will improve the quality of their lives.” Id. Congress also sets forth specific priorities for such foreign assistance: “(1) the alleviation of the worst physical manifestations of poverty among the world’s poor majority; (2) the promotion of conditions enabling developing countries to achieve self-sustaining economic growth with equitable distribution of benefits; (3) the encouragement of development processes in which individual civil and economic rights are respected and enhanced; (4) the integration of the developing countries into an open and equitable international economic system; and (5) the promotion of good governance through combating corruption and improving transparency and accountability.” Id. Congress declares that “pursuit of these goals requires that development concerns be fully reflected in United States foreign policy and that United States development resources be effectively and efficiently utilized.” Id.
In addition to setting forth these principles and priorities, the FAA explicitly recognizes and authorizes the President’s role in administering aid allocated toward those ends. With respect to various areas in which aid is to be targeted, such as health programs, economic development, anticrime efforts, military education, and peacekeeping, Congress authorizes the President “to furnish assistance” “on such terms and conditions as he may determine.” See, e.g., id. §§ 2151b(c)(1), 2291(a)(1)(G)(4), 2346(a), 2347(a), 2348.
The FAA led to the creation of the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”), first by executive order, see Exec. Order No. 10973, 26 Fed. Reg. 10469 (Nov. 3, 1961), and more than thirty years later enshrined by legislation in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, see 22 U.S.C. § 6563. In the years since, Congress has regularly appropriated foreign assistance funds to USAID for specific purposes, including “[f]or necessary expenses to enable the President to carry out the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.” Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-47, 138 Stat. 460, 740. For example, the appropriations act provides: “For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for global health activities, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, $3,985,450,000, to remain available until September 30, 2025, and which shall be apportioned directly to the United States Agency for International Development,” and it further specifies the global health issues that amount is to be spent on. Id. The act appropriates other funds “directly to the Department of State” to be spent on specific issues, such as “the prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on, HIV/AIDS.” Id. at 742; see also, e.g., id. at 743 (appropriating funds to the State Department “[f]or necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the promotion of democracy globally”).
B. The Issuance And Implementation Of Executive Order No. 14169
On January 20, 2025, the President issued an executive order entitled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid.” Exec. Order No. 14169, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (Jan. 20, 2025). The order directed an immediate pause in “United States foreign development assistance.” Id. § 3(a). It also directed responsible department and agency heads to review each foreign assistance program and to determine within ninety days of the order “whether to continue, modify, or cease each foreign assistance program,” in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Id. §§ 3(b), (c). The order directed that the Secretary of State would have authority to waive the pause “for specific programs” and separately allowed for new obligations or the resumption of disbursements during the ninety-day review period, if a review was conducted sooner and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of OMB, approved. Id. §§ 3(d), (e).
In the days that followed, agency officials took actions to institute an immediate suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid. On January 24, the Secretary of State issued a memorandum suspending all new funding obligations, pending a review, for foreign assistance programs funded by or through the State Department and USAID. Glob. Health, ECF No. 43 at 14. USAID officials also issued instructions to immediately pause all new programs, issue stop-work orders, and develop appropriate review standards. Glob. Health, ECF Nos. 58-1 to 58-4. OMB issued a memorandum ordering a temporary pause of all federal financial assistance, including assistance for foreign aid and nongovernmental organizations. Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶ 47. Plaintiffs provide numerous letters terminating or suspending their awards following these actions. See, e.g., Glob. Health, ECF No. 7-4 at 2, 5, 7, 13. The record shows that within a few weeks, the State Department suspended more than 7,000 awards and terminated more than 700. See Glob. Health, ECF No. 25-1 ¶¶ 25–28. USAID proceeded at a similar pace, suspending and terminating 230 awards in a two-day span and, in total, terminating almost 500 awards and suspending thousands of others in just weeks. Glob. Health, ECF Nos. 20, 20-1, 25-1 ¶ 12.
C. The Present Litigation
Plaintiffs, who are all recipients of or have members who receive foreign assistance funding, filed these actions and sought temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) enjoining Defendants from giving effect to Executive Order No. 14169 and the subsequent implementations.1 The Court held a hearing in both cases, and Plaintiffs thereafter submitted revised proposed orders that narrowed the scope of their requested relief. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 16-1; Glob. Health, ECF No. 18. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions in part and issued a temporary restraining order on still narrower terms. AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 25-cv-00400, 2025 WL 485324 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2025). The Court found that Plaintiffs had made a strong preliminary showing of irreparable harm. Id. at *2–4. Among other things, Plaintiffs provided evidence that they had been and would continue to be forced to shut down program offices, to furlough or terminate staff, and in some cases to shutter their businesses entirely. Id. They further adduced evidence that Defendants’ actions had and would continue to have a catastrophic effect on the humanitarian missions of several Plaintiffs and their members. Id. The Court also concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the challenged agency action was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, particularly given Defendants’ failure to consider enormous reliance interests. Id. at *4–5. Finally, the Court held that the equities and the public interest favored Plaintiffs in light of the existential threats they faced and the lack of any compelling countervailing harms identified by Defendants. Id. at *6.
Although the Court determined that temporary injunctive relief was warranted, it found that Plaintiffs’ requested injunctions were overbroad and narrowed the relief in multiple ways. Id. Specifically, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the President or the Executive Order itself; limited its temporary relief only to the implementation of specific sections of the Executive Order; and rejected language that would have dictated personnel decisions or operational details in complying with the injunction. Id. The Court also declined to enjoin Defendants from taking action to enforce the terms of individual contracts, including expirations, modifications, or terminations pursuant to contractual provisions. Id. With those limitations, the Court temporarily enjoined Defendants (excluding the President) from implementing directives “suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing the obligation or disbursement of appropriated foreign-assistance funds” or “issuing, implementing, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to terminations, suspensions, or stop-work orders” in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance awards in existence as of January 19, 2025. Id. at *6–7.
In the two weeks that followed, Plaintiffs moved multiple times to enforce the Court’s TRO and hold Defendants in contempt, providing evidence that Defendants continued their freeze and further evidence of irreparable harm to businesses and organizations across the country. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 26; Glob. Health, ECF No. 29; see Glob. Health, ECF No. 29-1 (discussing February 18 internal email stating that Secretary of State “has implemented a 15-day disbursement pause on all $15.9B worth of grants at the State Department” and directing recipients to “review the President’s executive orders and recommend termination of grants that do not comply with those orders” (emphasis omitted)). The Court declined to hold Defendants in contempt and reaffirmed certain flexibility and authority Defendants reserved, consistent with the TRO. AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 25-cv-00400, 2025 WL 569381, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2025); AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 25-cv-00400, 2025 WL 577516, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2025). However, the Court also reiterated: “[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, 2025 WL 569381, at *3; AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 577516, at *3.
Within a few days, Plaintiffs in both cases had renewed their motions to enforce. Glob. Health, ECF No. 36; Glob. Health, ECF No. 37 at 25. Plaintiffs explained that, despite the Court’s orders, they were still owed millions of dollars on due and overdue invoices and reimbursement requests; they still lacked access to letter of credit facilities and other payment management systems; and their contracts and awards terminated pursuant to the Executive Order remained terminated. Glob. Health, ECF No. 36 at 2. In addition, several plaintiffs were facing “new and mounting irreparable harms that threaten their very existence and which require emergency relief prior to the Court’s hearing on the preliminary injunction motion.” Id.
The Court held a motions hearing on February 25. At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel acknowledged that the TRO foreclosed them from giving effect to suspensions or terminations that were issued before February 13. Glob. Health, ECF No. 37 at 33–34. The Court asked Defendants’ counsel if he was “aware of steps taken to actually release those funds” over the prior two weeks, consistent with the TRO and later orders. Id. at 35. Counsel responded that he was “not in a position to answer that.” Id. For that and other reasons set forth on the record, the Court orally granted Plaintiffs’ second set of motions to enforce the TRO. The Court ordered Defendants to unfreeze funds for work completed prior to the TRO, giving Defendants an additional thirty-six hours to come into compliance. Id. at 57–58.
Defendants appealed and moved to stay the Court’s oral ruling, asserting for the first time that it would not be possible to process payments within that time. Glob. Health, ECF No. 39. Defendants also provided additional details on suspensions and terminations since the issuance of the TRO. Glob. Health, ECF No. 42. In particular, Defendants represented that they had completed an independent, individualized review process for over 13,000 USAID and State Department awards following the Court’s TRO, which resulted in the termination of all but 500 USAID awards and all but 2,700 State Department awards. Id.
Upon remand from the Supreme Court, this Court promptly ordered the parties to address the feasibility of processing payments. Glob. Health, Min. Order (Mar. 5, 2025). The Court also held a lengthy hearing on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions and the issue of feasibility. At the hearing, the parties agreed that compliance with the February 25 order required Defendants to make approximately 2,000 USAID payments and to enable drawdowns for awards that proceed on letters of credit. Glob. Health, ECF No. 58 at 131–33; see Glob. Health, ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 4. The Court requested benchmarks to help evaluate the feasibility of processing payments. The parties identified a declaration from Defendants indicating that USAID and State previously had been capable of processing several thousand payments each day. Glob. Health, ECF No. 58 at 133; see Glob. Health, ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 15. As a more recent benchmark, Defendants explained that they had been able to release some payments to Plaintiffs; they have since clarified that they processed approximately 100 payments in an overnight period. Glob. Health, ECF No. 58 at 125; see Glob. Health, ECF No. 54 at 2. The Court ordered Defendants to begin by paying Plaintiffs’ outstanding invoices and letter of credit drawdowns within a four-day period, which would be a small fraction—apparently just 1% to 10%—of the rate at which the agencies previously processed payments and appeared consistent with the rate that Defendants had been able to process payments the night before. Glob. Health, ECF No. 58 at 144–46. The Court asked the parties to come back with any further information that would be helpful in assessing feasibility and setting a clear, administrable benchmark. Id. at 147–49.
II. Discussion
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right” and, to the contrary, “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 24 (2008). In particular, a plaintiff must establish four factors: “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. In granting a TRO, the Court found that Plaintiffs had established these factors. As discussed below, however, the Court finds that the ground has shifted some since that time, both in terms of further actions on the part of the agencies and further development of the parties’ arguments.
The Court begins by addressing Article III standing. Upon concluding that Plaintiffs clearly have standing, the Court turns to the Winter factors. The Court finds that, although Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success under the APA as to the initial agency action they challenged, their challenge to Defendants’ subsequent review of awards is a closer call, and Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden. Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, on the other hand, have a substantial likelihood of success, particularly given Defendants’ failure to offer a defensible interpretation of the separation of powers. Because Plaintiffs have shown irreparable harm, which remains largely uncontested, and the remaining factors favor Plaintiffs, the Court grants preliminary injunctive relief in part, tailored to the scope of claims likely to succeed and the relevant harms.2
A. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated Standing
“To establish Article III standing, the plaintiff must have ‘suffered an injury in fact’ that ‘is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant’ and it must be ‘likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Banner Health v. Price, 867 F.3d 1323, 1333–34 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000)). As the Court detailed in its TRO opinion, Plaintiffs adduced evidence that Defendants’ actions had caused them immense harm, including by inflicting massive financial injuries, forcing them to significantly reduce core operations and staff, and jeopardizing their missions. AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 485324, at *2–4. Those injuries are fairly traceable to the challenged agency action in this case: namely, the blanket suspension of funds. And a determination that the blanket suspension was unlawful, and therefore cannot be given effect, would likely redress at least some of the harms Plaintiffs have suffered.3
Defendants did not dispute Plaintiffs’ standing at the TRO stage. In their preliminary injunction briefing, however, they now argue Plaintiffs have failed to show Article III standing, and the Court pauses to address that argument. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs allege “no more than” a “pocketbook injury” from the terminations of their awards and are attempting to challenge “implementing acts that do not affect Plaintiffs directly.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 18 (quoting Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, 243 (2021)). Defendants’ argument is difficult to parse and is not supported by the case law they cite. First, when considering injury in fact, financial injury, or “pocketbook injury,” is generally considered the gold standard or “prototypical form of injury in fact.” Collins, 594 U.S. at 243. Indeed, when asked at the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants conceded that this is “recognized as an Article III injury.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 58 at 63. Here, Plaintiffs argue that the injury not only can be traced to, but flows directly from, the Executive Order and its implementations directing the suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid. Indeed, the Executive Order and its implementations are what caused the agreements’ review and their suspension or termination. Moreover, Defendants’ argument overlooks Plaintiffs’ injuries that go beyond their “pocketbook.” Plaintiffs have adduced evidence that Defendants’ actions have critically compromised their missions, causing disruption to programs, substantial layoffs, threats to employees’ physical safety, and impending legal action. See, e.g., AIDS Vaccine, ECF Nos. 1-11, 1-12; Glob. Health, ECF Nos. 36-1, 46-2; see also AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 485324, at *2–4 (summarizing evidence of harm).4
At bottom, the relief Plaintiffs seek, an order invalidating Defendants’ blanket directive to suspend congressionally appropriated foreign aid, would mean the government must honor its aid agreements for a period greater than it did. That includes obligations directly affecting Plaintiffs’ pocketbooks and their ability to fulfill their organizational missions, honor their responsibilities to employees, and meet their commitments to community partners. That is textbook injury, causation, and redress.5
B. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits
Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ blanket suspension of foreign aid under the APA as both arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, and they also assert constitutional claims that Defendants’ actions violate the separation of powers. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 45–73; Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 111–31. The Court need only find that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on one of these claims for this factor to weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. That said, any relief should be tailored to the particular claims likely to succeed.
Here, Plaintiffs’ claims challenge different Executive actions. Plaintiffs’ APA claims challenge the Secretary of State’s January 24 memorandum and other contemporaneous directives implementing Executive Order No. 14169 by suspending congressionally apportioned foreign aid, and they seek relief for the consequences that resulted from those directives. Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims challenge Defendants’ authority to unilaterally rescind or defer funds that Congress has appropriated in accordance with its spending power. The Court begins with Plaintiffs’ statutory claims and then turns to their constitutional claims.
1. Plaintiffs Will Likely Prevail, At Least In Part, On Their APA Claims
The APA permits judicial review of “final agency action” and requires a court to “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. §§ 704, 706(2)(A). Here, the final agency action Plaintiffs challenge is the Secretary of State’s January 24 memorandum and other contemporaneous directives implementing Executive Order No. 14169 by suspending congressionally apportioned foreign aid. Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶ 113; AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 1 ¶ 61. Plaintiffs claim that these actions were both arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
a. Plaintiffs’ Claims Seeking To Invalidate The Agencies’ Implementing Directives Are Properly Asserted Under The APA
Defendants raise a threshold challenge as to whether the APA is the right home for Plaintiffs’ claims. The APA provides for judicial review of claims “seeking relief other than money damages” and does not apply where another statute “grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” 5 U.S.C. § 702; see also id. § 704 (final agency action is subject to APA review where “there is no other adequate remedy in a court”). According to Defendants, Plaintiffs’ claims might “ripen into” claims under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), which applies to government procurement contracts, including for the “procurement of services,” and channels claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals after an exhaustion process. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 12; see 41 U.S.C. §§ 7102(a)(2), 7104(b), 7105(e)(1)(B). Alternatively, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs’ claims must proceed under the Tucker Act, which applies to claims for breach of contract against the federal government over $10,000 and channels those claims to the Court of Federal Claims. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 14; see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). On Defendants’ account, Plaintiffs have attempted to package contractual claims for “delayed payments” as ones for injunctive relief under the APA, and therefore they fall under one of these other two acts rather than the APA. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 15.6
Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ APA claims, by their terms, challenge specific agency actions—here, the implementing policy directives—and ask the Court to “hold them unlawful and set them aside.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 112–14, 116–17, 122. That’s precisely the relief that is afforded—indeed, required—by and routinely granted under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (providing that courts “shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that violates APA’s substantive standards). The complaints do not seek money damages. It is, of course, true that after a court sets aside agency action, a natural consequence may be the release of funds withheld pursuant to that action. The Supreme Court recognized this in Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988). There, the Court considered whether the APA provided jurisdiction to order the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undo his refusal to reimburse the plaintiff. The Court explained that its cases “have long recognized” that “[t]he fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as ‘money damages.’” Id. at 893. The Court concluded: “since the orders are for specific relief (they undo the Secretary’s refusal to reimburse the State) rather than for money damages (they do not provide relief that substitutes for that which ought to have been done) they are within the District Court’s jurisdiction under § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 910.
Indeed, even to the extent that payments might result from Plaintiffs’ APA claims, they do not resemble a “money damages” claim, for breach of contract or otherwise. Here, as the Supreme Court recognized, Judge Bork’s “explanation of the plain meaning of the critical language” in the APA is instructive. Id. at 894. In Maryland Department of Human Resources v. Department of Health & Human Services, 763 F.2d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1985), Judge Bork considered the APA’s application to “injunctive relief enjoining defendants from reducing funds otherwise due to plaintiffs” and held that this was “not a claim for money damages, although it is a claim that would require the payment of money by the federal government.” Bowen, 487 U.S. at 894 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Maryland, 763 F.2d at 1446). He explained that any funds that would flow to the plaintiff as the result of agency action being held unlawful under the APA were not “money in compensation for the losses, whatever they may be, that [plaintiff] will suffer or has suffered by virtue of the withholding of those funds.” Id. at 895 (quoting Maryland, 763 F.2d at 1446). The same is true here. Plaintiffs are not seeking compensation for their losses due to the failure to pay them, which, as in any contract case, could be far greater than the amount withheld pursuant to the agency policy; Plaintiffs seek only invalidation of the policy, including the withholding of payment that flowed from it. See also Am.’s Cmty. Bankers v. FDIC, 200 F.3d 822, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“[M]oney damages represent compensatory relief, an award given to a plaintiff as a substitute for that which has been lost; specific relief in contrast represents an attempt to restore to the plaintiff that to which it was entitled from the beginning.”).
Second, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ APA claims are contract claims that must proceed under the CDA or Tucker Act is unpersuasive. The D.C. Circuit has “explicitly rejected the ‘broad’ notion ‘that any case requiring some reference to or incorporation of a contract is necessarily on the contract and therefore directly within the Tucker Act’ because to do so would ‘deny a court jurisdiction to consider a claim that is validly based on grounds other than a contractual relationship with the government.’” Crowley Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 38 F.4th 1099, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 967–68 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). “Exclusive jurisdiction in Claims Court under the Tucker Act does not lie ‘merely because [a plaintiff] hints at some interest in a monetary reward from the federal government or because success on the merits may obligate the United States to pay the complainant.’” Id. at 1108 (alteration in original) (quoting Kidwell v. Dep’t of Army, 56 F.3d 279, 284 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). The question under both the CDA and Tucker Act is whether the action “is at its essence a contract claim.” Id. at 1106 (quoting Megapulse, 672 F.2d at 967); see A&S Council Oil Co. v. Lader, 56 F.3d 234, 240 (D.C. Cir. 1995). That inquiry turns on (1) “the source of the rights upon which the plaintiff bases its claims,” and (2) “the type of relief sought (or appropriate).” Crowley, 38 F.4th at 1106 (quoting Megapulse, 672 F.2d at 968).
As set forth above, “the face of the complaint” in both cases makes clear that Plaintiffs are asserting a right “to be free from government action beyond [its] congressional authority.” Id. at 1108 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The sources of Plaintiffs’ claims “are the statutes identified in [their] complaint[s],” id., which include the APA, the Impoundment Control Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 45–73; Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 79–110. And, consistent with those sources, the remedy Plaintiffs seek is simply to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 112–14, 116–17, 122; see also N.J. Conservation Found. v. FERC, 111 F.4th 42, 63 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (“Vacatur is the normal remedy when we are faced with unsustainable agency action.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Plaintiffs do not seek money damages and, to return to Judge Bork’s apt distinction, do not seek the contractual remedy of “money in compensation for [their] losses, whatever they may be,” in relation to any breach of their agreements. Bowen, 487 U.S. at 895 (quoting Maryland, 763 F.2d at 1446). Indeed, it would be quite extraordinary to consider Plaintiffs’ claims to sound in breach of contract when they do not at all depend on whether the terms of particular awards were breached—they instead challenge whether the agency action here was unlawful, irrespective of any breach.7
To be sure, some Plaintiffs or other parties may have individual claims sounding in contract that could be brought against their respective contracting counterparties. The critical point is that here Plaintiffs assert APA claims to invalidate agency policy directives, regardless of any breach of any agreement or the extent of their losses. See Kidwell, 56 F.3d at 284 (“Even where a monetary claim may be waiting on the sidelines, as long as the plaintiff’s complaint only requests non-monetary relief that has considerable value independent of any future potential for monetary relief—that is, as long as the sole remedy requested is declaratory or injunctive relief that is not negligible in comparison with the potential monetary recovery—we respect the plaintiff’s choice of remedies and treat the complaint as something more than an artfully drafted effort to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Plaintiffs’ claims are properly asserted under the APA.8
