Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Georgetown law dean rebuffs DEI warning from top federal prosecutor for DC
by Michael Kunzelman
AP
Updated 5:51 PM MDT, March 6, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/trump-dei-ge ... ca6967fe9d


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]

[admin]

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.

[admin]

USAID employees ordered to shred records, court filing says
by Brendan Pierson
Reuters
March 11, 2025 4:55 PM MDT Updated 2 hours ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usaid- ... 025-03-11/

Summary

• 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

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

*****************************

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... ed-states/

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)

[admin]

Attorney Generals GANG UP on Trump IN COURT
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.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/c ... t-2025.pdf. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Case 1:25-cv-10601.

Transcript

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.

[admin]

GRUNDMANN v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00425) District Court, District of Columbia
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... n-v-trump/

-- USDC, District of Columbia. SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-425 (SLS). Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 3/12/25

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]

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

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?  

-- What Every American Can Do To Fight DOGE, by Marc Elias and Jamie Raskin, Democracy Docket, Mar 13, 2025

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.

This Court denied Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal, pointing out that Defendants had not previously raised the issue of feasibility. AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 25-cv-00400, 2025 WL 625755, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2025). The D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, noting that the February 25 order did not modify Defendants’ obligations under the TRO. AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 25-5046, 2025 WL 621396, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2025). Defendants filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court, which issued an administrative stay. The Court subsequently denied Defendants’ application to vacate the February 25 order and instructed this Court to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” Dep’t of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal., 604 U.S. __, No. 24A831, 2025 WL 698083 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2025).

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

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

b. Plaintiffs Will Likely Prevail In Showing That Defendants’ Initial Directives To Freeze Foreign Aid Were Arbitrary And Capricious

“The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Rather, the court “must confirm that the agency has fulfilled its duty to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Ark Initiative v. Tidwell, 816 F.3d 119, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43). “[A]n agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43).

In granting a TRO, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that Defendants’ implementation of a blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid pending review was arbitrary and capricious. The Court explained that there was nothing in the record that provided “a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” to impose an immediate and wholesale suspension of foreign aid in order to review programs. Moreover, nothing in the record suggested that Defendants considered and had a rational reason for disregarding the massive reliance interests of businesses and organizations that would have to shutter programs or close their doors altogether. The blanket suspension thus “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 485324, at *5.

This continues to be true with respect to the original implementing directives. Defendants have yet to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record, for why a blanket suspension setting off a shockwave and upending reliance interests for thousands of businesses and organizations around the country was a rational precursor to reviewing programs. Instead, Defendants assert that the Executive Order and January 24 implementing memorandum provided “more than enough explanation” given the Executive’s “vast” powers over foreign affairs. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 37. But the Executive Order simply stated that the purpose of the freeze was to allow the administration to assess programmatic efficiencies and ensure that foreign aid is consistent with U.S. foreign policy. Exec. Order No. 14169 § 3(a). And the implementing memorandum said:

Across the United States government, it is currently impossible to access sufficient information in one place to determine whether the foreign assistance policies and interests supported by appropriations are not duplicated, are effective, and are consistent with President Trump’s foreign policy. The Department needs a centralized repository from which senior Department, USAID officials, Ambassadors, missions and others can draw sufficiently detailed information from which the Secretary can make judgments. Further guidance regarding a new or updated repository and mandatory bureau submissions to it will be forthcoming.

Glob. Health, ECF No. 43 at 14.

The desire to review programs for efficiency or consistency, and to access information in one place, does not have a rational connection to the directives to proceed with a sudden, blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated aid. Nor do any of these articulated goals demonstrate consideration of the immense reliance interests among businesses and other organizations across the country. When an agency suddenly changes course, it must recognize “longstanding policies may have ‘engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020) (quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 222 (2016)). There is, of course, nothing inherently arbitrary and capricious about agencies conducting a review of aid programs for these purposes or building a centralized repository. But these assertions alone do not provide a rational explanation for why such a review required an immediate and wholesale suspension of all aid—including many longstanding programs taking place pursuant to contractual terms—and do not bear on the failure to consider the reliance interests of small and large businesses that would have to shutter programs or close altogether and furlough or lay off swaths of Americans in the process.9

Defendants also insist that the funding freeze was not “comprehensive or undifferentiated” because the Secretary of State approved certain waivers, including for foreign military financing, emergency food assistance, and legitimate expenses incurred before the pause went into effect. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 37. But none of those waivers involve or demonstrate consideration of the massive reliance interests of U.S. businesses and organizations. And the record belies the assertion that the waivers provided any meaningful relief from the blanket freeze. At the TRO stage, Plaintiffs proffered specific facts that the availability of a waiver did not meaningfully mitigate the harm described, and Defendants acknowledged “hiccups” in the waiver process. Glob. Health, ECF No. 22 at 31; see AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 485324, at *4. In particular, State Department officials could not provide any information regarding qualification for waivers, while officials in USAID bureaus were unresponsive to similar inquiries. Glob. Health, ECF No. 7-3 ¶¶ 11–12, 19–20. Even if an organization received a waiver, moreover, no aid would be disbursed because the government’s payout portals were disabled. Id. ¶ 11. And one plaintiff received limited waivers lasting for only thirty days, which did little to address the harm due to the uncertainty as to whether the company would have to halt operations again at the end of that period. Glob. Health, ECF No. 7-6 ¶ 6.

Despite pointing to the possibility of waivers again in their preliminary injunction briefing, Defendants have not proffered any evidence to rebut the showing Plaintiffs made at the TRO stage. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs offer even more evidence that the waiver process has been largely irrelevant. See, e.g., Glob. Health, ECF No. 29-5 ¶ 4 (plaintiff received no payments in week after entry of TRO, including for programs that had received waivers); AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 26-3 ¶¶ 37–38 (programs receiving waivers were not able to restart due to lack of funding); AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 46-1 at 4 (internal USAID memorandum concluding that successful implementation of waiver process “was not possible due to administrative and bureaucratic challenges, including contradictory and shifting guidance regarding approval for required activities and failure of Agency leadership to process disbursement of funds for activities once approved”).

Because the current record does not include “a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” and indicates Defendants “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,” Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA claims as they relate to the original directives implementing a blanket suspension of aid.

c. Although A Close Question, Plaintiffs Will Likely Not Prevail In Showing That Defendants’ Subsequent Terminations Flow From The Original Directives In Violation Of The APA

Although Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing Defendants’ implementing directives violated the APA, the parties disagree on how far that goes—namely, whether the invalidation of the initial implementing directives affects the review of agreements and large-scale terminations that occurred after the Court entered its TRO on February 13, 2025. This is a close question on this record, but the Court finds Plaintiffs have not made an adequate showing that the large-scale terminations resulted from the same agency action they challenge in their complaints. The Court’s conclusion is also informed by Plaintiffs’ failure to offer a clear and administrable standard for determining when terminations would no longer be tainted by the original implementing directives without entangling the Court in supervision of Executive decisions as to individual agreements.

As described above, the APA requires a plaintiff to identify the “agency action” they seek to set aside, 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2), and here Plaintiffs challenge the directives implementing the Executive Order. See Glob. Health, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 112–14, 116–17, 122. The effect of the implementing directives in their immediate wake is plain—they ordered contracting officers and grant officers to “immediately issue stop-work orders” articulated under “the terms of the relevant award” for all existing foreign assistance awards. Glob. Health, ECF No. 43 at 16. Agency employees accordingly sent out waves of suspension and termination notices with boilerplate language.10

After the Court’s TRO, however, Defendants claim they conducted a new individualized and comprehensive review of awards. In the interest of tailoring its TRO to the reliance interests at stake, the Court did not enjoin Defendants from taking actions based on the particular terms of individual contracts. AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 485324, at *6–7; see also AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 569381, at *2 (explaining that “nothing in the TRO limits the agencies from conducting an individualized review of agreements and taking action as to a particular agreement where the agency determines that it has lawful authority to do so”). The Court explained that “[w]hile agency determinations based on wholly independent legal authority and justification such as the terms of particular agreements or sets of agreements, rather than deriving from a general directive to suspend aid, may be subject to some other legal challenge, whether it be under the APA, separation of powers, individual breach of contract cases, or otherwise, such determinations do not violate the present TRO.” AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 577516, at *2. It also cautioned that “of course, the TRO does not permit Defendants to simply search for and invoke new legal authorities as a post-hoc rationalization for the enjoined agency action.” Id. at *1 (quoting AIDS Vaccine, 2025 WL 569381, at *1).

As described above, in the roughly two weeks following the TRO, Defendants issued thousands of terminations, ultimately canceling roughly 9,900 of 13,100 USAID and State Department awards. See Glob. Health, ECF No. 42 at 16. Defendants attest that these terminations were the result of an independent review process based on the terms of the programs and the agencies’ independent legal authority to terminate them. They rely principally on a declaration from USAID Deputy Administrator Pete Marocco, which states: “USAID led a rigorous multi-level review process that began with spreadsheets including each contract, grant, or funding instrument where each line of the spreadsheeting reflected one such agreement and included information about the recipient, the amount of the award, the subject matter, and a description of the project that often included the location of the project.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 5. Marocco further describes a process in which policy staff performed an initial review of whether individual agreements were in line with foreign policy priorities, followed by a senior policy official’s review, followed by Marocco’s review, followed by the Secretary of State’s review. Id. The declaration describes a similar process for State Department awards. Id. ¶ 6. As of February 26, Defendants indicated that the review process had been completed for both USAID and State. Glob. Health, ECF No. 43-1 ¶¶ 1–2. In total, nearly 5,800 USAID awards were terminated, while more than 500 were retained. Id. ¶ 1. At State, approximately 4,100 awards were terminated, while roughly 2,700 were retained. Id. ¶ 2.

Plaintiffs in both cases opted to rely on their initial TRO motions at the preliminary injunction stage. Accordingly, their opening motions do not address the post-TRO landscape, and their arguments were limited to their reply briefs and oral argument. Their principal argument is that the review process was a sham. Glob. Health, ECF No. 46 at 16–17. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants “were terminating and suspending hundreds of millions of dollars in awards based on a one-line summary, without actually looking at the award documents themselves, without consulting the personnel who manage the project, and, at least in some cases, without even knowing ‘the location of the project.’” Id. at 17. They highlight, for instance, Marocco’s assertion that the first stage of the review process “often included the location of the project” as a demonstration of how shallow the review was. Id. at 16 (quoting Glob. Health, ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 5). Plaintiffs also say it is “implausible” that the Secretary of State or a group of political appointees could have “engaged in a meaningful individualized review of the hundreds of contracts and awards terminated prior to or after the Court’s TRO.” Id. at 17 n.7. They support these arguments with declarations from contracting officers who dispute that any case-by-case review could have plausibly taken place. Glob. Health, ECF No. 42-1 ¶ 36; AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 26-3 ¶ 49.

The Court does not reach the merits of these arguments because Plaintiffs have not adequately shown that they arise from the same agency action challenged in this case. Even accepting that the review process described by Marocco took place in a cursory manner, that does not make it the same agency action as the implementing memoranda, as opposed to a distinct, flawed agency action that must be challenged as such.11

Plaintiffs come closer in their argument that the subsequent review was pretext to turn the blanket suspension of foreign aid funds into a near-blanket termination of those funds. Relying on Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752 (2019), Plaintiffs argue that “[n]ot a shred of evidence suggests that Defendants had the terms and conditions of award agreements in mind when they initiated blanket suspensions and terminations.” AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 45 at 4–5. In doing so, they cite some evidence that supports their allegation of pretext. For example, Plaintiffs point to terminations following Defendants’ review that make no reference to the terms of agreements or legal authority. See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 44 at 7–10. They also identify several terminations after the review process that continued to assert the termination was “part of” or “in alignment with” the Executive Order. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 40-4 ¶ 24; Glob. Health, ECF Nos. 55-2 to 55-6. And Plaintiffs provide anonymous declarations, including one showing that a senior official instructed contracting officers to follow earlier terminations with expanded termination notices “tailored to the specific award and implementing partner, referencing the relevant clauses or provisions within the award.” AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 55-1. While Plaintiffs’ showing is sufficient to raise questions, on this record they have not met the high standard of a “strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.” Dep’t of Com., 588 U.S. at 781 (citation omitted).

Plaintiffs’ proposed relief highlights further difficulty with their argument. They ask for an order requiring Defendants to revoke all terminations and suspensions issued since January 20—a total of roughly 9,900 awards—and to develop plans to restart those programs within ten days. Glob. Health, ECF No. 46-6 at 2–3. Plaintiffs also propose that Defendants be required to submit status reports to the Court every two weeks providing “an individualized statement of reasons” for any new termination or suspension. Id. at 4. And they do so without articulating a meaningful standard for the Court to distinguish between those terminations that are still affected by the original implementing directives and those that are not. This would devolve into the type of intensive supervision of day-to-day agency activities, as well as inquiry into the terms of individual awards, that the Court has expressly rejected. The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their APA challenge as to the large-scale terminations in the process that followed the Court’s TRO.12

2. Plaintiffs Will Likely Prevail On Their Constitutional Claims

Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants are acting in violation of the separation of powers, including Congress’s shared power over foreign policy, its exclusive power over spending, and the expression of those powers through statutes that constrain the Executive’s authority in relation to foreign aid spending and the impoundment of appropriated funds. These claims are distinct in scope from Plaintiffs’ APA claims, in that they are not premised on the initial blanket directive to suspend funds pending review or an alleged policy to mass terminate aid programs. The argument here is that, irrespective of any particular agency action that may be subject to APA review, Defendants are engaging in a unilateral rescission or deferral of congressionally appropriated funds in violation of Congress’s spending power, as expressed in multiple statutes whose constitutionality has not been questioned. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on these claims as well.

In considering claims related to Executive power, including with respect to foreign affairs, the Supreme Court has applied “Justice Jackson’s familiar tripartite framework.” Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 10 (citing Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635–38 (Jackson, J., concurring)). The first category of this framework recognizes that when “the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). The second category recognizes that “in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority,” there is a “zone of twilight in which [the President] and Congress may have concurrent authority.” Id. at 637. The third recognizes that when “the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb,” and “he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” Id.

Here, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are operating in the third category of the tripartite framework, in which they have taken “measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.” See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 45 at 8. Plaintiffs observe that, consistent with the purposes outlined in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Congress has explicitly appropriated foreign aid funds for specified purposes. In March of last year, Congress passed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-47, 138 Stat. 460. That 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.” 138 Stat. at 740. It further specifies various purposes for which this appropriation “shall be made available,” including “training, equipment, and technical assistance” to build public health institutions; specific health programs like child survival, maternal health, and immunization; and programs for the prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, polio, malaria, and other infectious diseases. Id. The act similarly provides for funds that “shall be apportioned directly to the Department of State” for specified purposes. Id. at 742; see also id. at 743.

Congress has further asserted its spending power in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297, which explicitly prohibits the President from impounding appropriated funds without following certain procedures. For permanent impoundments or “rescissions,” Congress specified that if the President “determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided” or “should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons,” he must “transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message” addressing the amount, reasons, impact, and other information related to the proposed recission of funds. 2 U.S.C. § 683(a). The act requires that the funds in question be made available for obligation unless Congress rescinds the appropriation within forty-five days. Id. § 683(b). The act also imposes procedural requirements, including a special message to Congress, where the President seeks to temporarily impound or “defer” funds. Id. §§ 682(1), 684(a).

Defendants do not object to the constitutionality of any of these statutes. They do not, for instance, contend Congress exceeded its authority by mandating that funds be used for specified foreign aid purposes or by mandating the President follow procedures before permanent or temporary impoundment. At the same time, the record here shows that Defendants are acting to rescind or defer the funds Congress has appropriated and have no intent to spend them. Plaintiffs point to multiple public statements in which the President and other senior officials have said Defendants’ actions are being undertaken to end foreign aid funding. For example, they cite contemporaneous statements from the State Department that these actions “prevented” foreign aid spending for policy reasons and to save taxpayer money; from a presidential advisor stating that it is “[t]ime for [USAID] to die”; and from the President stating “CLOSE IT DOWN” with respect to USAID. See AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 13-1 at 12–13 (alterations in original); Glob. Health, ECF No. 4 at 14. When given the opportunity in these proceedings, Defendants have not disputed this is their intent. See also AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 46-1 at 35 (internal USAID memorandum indicating that more than $2 billion appropriated to USAID for specific health objectives “has been blocked from obligation to partners”).13 Yet it is uncontested that Defendants have not undertaken the procedures required for the impoundment of congressionally appropriated aid, whether permanent or temporary, by the Impoundment Control Act. See Glob. Health, ECF No. 58 at 102–03.14

This is accordingly a circumstance in which the Executive’s power is “at its lowest ebb.” Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring). As a result, Defendants’ actions must be “scrutinized with caution,” and they “can rely only upon [the President’s] own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” Id. Here, the President’s powers come from his general Article II responsibility to serve as the Executive and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. The powers of Congress involve not only its general shared responsibility over foreign affairs, but its core and “exclusive power over the federal purse.” U.S. Dep’t of Navy v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 665 F.3d 1339, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Kavanaugh, J.) (citation omitted); see U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 8, 9. It is well established that “whether the realm is foreign or domestic, it is still the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, that makes the law,” and this includes Congress’s core spending power. Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 21; see also id. at 16 (noting that the President “could not build an American Embassy abroad without congressional appropriation of the necessary funds”). Under “settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law,” the President “must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute.” Aiken County, 725 F.3d at 259 (emphasis omitted). And if the authority to make law and control spending is to mean anything, it means the President may not disregard a statutory mandate to spend funds “simply because of policy objections.” Id.; see also id. at 261 n.1 (explaining that where a President has policy reasons “for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program,” it remains the case that “even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds” and must propose a rescission to Congress for its approval).15

Here, Defendants do not contest that they are declining to spend appropriated funds based on policy objections—indeed, they have explicitly said so. See Exec. Order No. 14169 § 2 (“[N]o further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”); Glob. Health, ECF No. 43 at 15 (January 24 memorandum directing departments and agencies to ensure that all foreign assistance is aligned with the President’s foreign policy agenda). Their principal argument, repeatedly asserted throughout their brief, is that the President has “vast and generally unreviewable” powers in the realm of foreign affairs. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 2, 10, 24. Defendants do not ground their position in any specific provision of the Constitution or articulate any limits to this expansive authority. Nor do they engage in any analysis of how these asserted powers relate to those vested in Congress under Article I of the Constitution; indeed, Defendants never cite Article I or mention Congress’s spending power. Defendants instead rely on broad language from United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936), to argue that the President is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 25.

This argument falls short for several reasons. First and foremost, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected it. The Court has explained that Curtiss-Wright does not stand for such “unbounded power.” Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 20; see also id. at 66 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (explaining that Supreme Court cases “have never accepted such a sweeping understanding of executive power”). To the contrary, the Supreme Court has recognized that, notwithstanding the Executive’s important role in foreign affairs, “it is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected.” Id. at 21 (majority opinion). To repeat, “whether the realm is foreign or domestic, it is still the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, that makes the law.” Id. Or, as the Chief Justice aptly summarized, the Constitution “allocates some foreign policy powers to the Executive, grants some to the Legislature, and enjoins the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” Id. at 62 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). The Executive is therefore “not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.” Id. at 21 (majority opinion); see also Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635 n.2 (Jackson, J., concurring) (“It was intimated [in Curtiss-Wright] that the President might act in external affairs without congressional authority, but not that he might act contrary to an Act of Congress.”).

Indeed, the claim to “vast and generally unreviewable” power to impound congressionally appropriated aid is weaker here than in past invocations in the foreign affairs context. In Zivotofsky, for instance, the Executive pointed to a long line of “judicial precedent and historical practice” showing that the power at issue, recognition, was “for the President alone,” and the Court emphasized “the lack of any similar power vested in Congress.” 576 U.S. at 14, 21. Defendants do not claim there is any precedent or history allowing the President to dictate whether to spend foreign aid for the statutory purposes here. And the Constitution explicitly vests in Congress the power to spend, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and appropriate funds, id. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. This “power over the purse was one of the most important authorities allocated to Congress in the Constitution’s ‘necessary partition of power among the several departments.’” Dep’t of Navy, 665 F.3d at 1346–47 (quoting The Federalist No. 51, at 320 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961)). In the third Youngstown category, the President “can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring). The constitutional power over whether to spend foreign aid is not the President’s own—and it is Congress’s own.16

Aside from their unbounded view of Executive power in foreign policy, Defendants observe that Congress’s “appropriations acts grant the President significant discretion in how to use these funds.” Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 33. They also cite City of New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900, 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987), to argue that a “pause” in funding does not qualify as an impoundment. Glob. Health, ECF No. 34 at 35. These arguments are unavailing. No one does or could doubt that the Executive is afforded significant discretion in administering the funds appropriated or, as Defendants put it, “how to use these funds.” See, e.g., 22 U.S.C. § 2151b(c)(1) (authorizing the President “to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine,” for certain programs). As described, the constitutional partnership between the political branches has always recognized the Executive’s role in determining how appropriated funds are spent. The critical point here, which Defendants do not contest, is that Congress’s appropriations laws set the amount that is to be spent. That is, the appropriations laws reflect an exercise of Congress’s own, core constitutional power to determine whether and how much money is spent. Defendants do not argue that Congress’s appropriations laws delegate that core authority to the Executive.

Moreover, the notion that the Executive has simply “paused” appropriations does not avoid the problem. As an initial matter, the contention is belied by public statements indicating that this action has been taken to save taxpayer money and end USAID for policy reasons, which Defendants have not disputed when given the opportunity. And the case Defendants cite to authorize a pause of appropriated funds stands for just the opposite proposition. In City of New Haven, the D.C. Circuit recognized that the Impoundment Control Act’s legislative history indicated that the President might invite little controversy when it comes to “trivial” impoundments relating to the “normal and orderly operation of the government.” 809 F.2d at 908. But the Court explained that other impoundments, those “designed to negate congressional budgetary policies,” were precisely the kind that Congress “was determined to forestall.” Id. A blanket suspension of billions of dollars appropriated by Congress for specific purposes can hardly be classified as trivial. And, indeed, the record makes clear that Defendants’ impoundment was specifically “designed to negate congressional budgetary policies.”17

The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their separation of powers claims and rejects Defendants’ unbridled understanding of the President’s foreign policy power, which would put the Executive above Congress in an area where it is “firmly established” that the two branches share power, Zivotofsky, 576 U.S. at 62 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting), where Congress is exercising one of its core powers, and where there is no constitutional objection to the laws it has made.18