Citizens United
09/16/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 09/16/2025 12:58
CU Joins Amicus Brief in Trump v. Slaughter (Judicial Overreach)
I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
________________ No. 25A264________________ D
ONALD
J.
T
RUMP
, P
RESIDENT OF THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
,
et al.
,Applicants,v.R
EBECCA
K
ELLY
S
LAUGHTER
,
et al
.,Respondents.________________
On Application to Stay the Judgmentof the United States District Courtfor the District of Columbiaand Request for Administrative Stay
________________
BRIEF
AMICUS CURIAE
OFAMERICA'S FUTURE, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION, GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, CITIZENS UNITED, U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANDCONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUNDIN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO STAY
________________ M
ICHAEL
B
OOS
Washington, DC 20003J
EFFREY
C.
T
UOMALA
Winchester, VA 22602 P
ATRICK
M.
M
C
S
WEENEY
Powhatan, VA 23139R
ICK
B
OYER
Lynchburg, VA 24506W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
*J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4Vienna, VA 22180-5615(703) 356-5070Fax (703) 356-5085 [email protected]Attorneys for
Amici Curiae
*Counsel of RecordSeptember 15, 2025
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageT
ABLE OF
A
UTHORITIES
.................................................iiI
NTEREST OF THE
A
MICI
C
URIAE
..........................................1S
TATEMENT OF THE
C
ASE
...............................................1S
UMMARY OF
A
RGUMENT
................................................3A
RGUMENT
I.T
HE
C
OURTS
I
NCORRECTLY
C
ONSIDERED
I
NCREASES IN THE
E
XECUTIVE
P
OWER OF THE
FTC
OVER THE PAST
90
Y
EARS TO
B
E
I
RRELEVANT
..........5II.T
HE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
D
ID
N
OT
H
AVE
A
UTHORITY TO
R
EINSTATE
S
LAUGHTER
.....................................................6III.T
HE
C
OURTS BELOW
R
EFUSED TO
A
CCEPT
A
NY
G
UIDANCE FROM THIS
C
OURT
'
S
R
ECENT
O
RDERS IN
W
ILCOX
AND
B
OYLE
.......................8IV.T
HE
N
ATURE OF THE
P
RESIDENT
'
S
P
OWER TO
R
EMOVE
I
S
B
EST
U
NDERSTOOD AND
S
UPPORTED BY
M
YERS V
.
U
NITED
S
TATES
.............12V.T
HE
P
RESIDENT
'
S
P
OWER OF
R
EMOVAL
M
AY
N
OT
B
E
E
XPRESSLY
S
TATEDIN THE
C
ONSTITUTION
,
BUT
I
T
I
S
N
EVERTHELESS
S
OLIDLY
G
ROUNDED
......15A.The Constitutional Role of a President........................15B.The Necessity of Implicit Powers.............................18VI.T
HE
A
PPLICATION FOR
S
TAY
S
HOULD
B
E
T
REATED AS A
P
ETITION FOR
C
ERTIORARI
B
EFORE
J
UDGMENT AND
S
HOULD
B
E
G
RANTED
..............23C
ONCLUSION
........................................................24A
PPENDIX
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CONSTITUTION
Article I, § 2, cl. 6....................................................21Article I, § 3, cl. 6-7..................................................21Article I, § 8, cl. 1....................................................19Article I, § 8, cl. 3....................................................19Article I, § 8, cl. 18................................................19, 21Article II, § 1........................................................15Article II, § 3........................................................15Article II, § 4........................................................21
STATUTES
15 U.S.C. § 41........................................................1
CASES
Agostini v. Felton
, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)....................................6
Bowsher v. Synar
, 478 U.S. 714 (1986)...................................20
CASA v. Trump
, 763 F. Supp. 3d 723 (D. Md. 2025).........................6
Doe v. Trump
, 766 F. Supp. 3d 266 (D. Mass. 2025).........................6
Dred Scott v. Sandford
, 60 U.S. 383 (1857)...............................18
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
, 561 U.S. 477 (2010)..........................................13, 14
Helvering v. Davis
, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)..................................19
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC
, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).............................................21
Humphrey's Executor v. United States
, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)......................................1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12-15, 20, 24
Korematsu v. United States
, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)...........................18
Nat'l Council of Nonprofits v. OMB
, 763 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2025).........11
Nat'l Council of Nonprofits v. OMB
, 775 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2025).....10, 11
Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. 137 (1803)................................20, 22
Morrison v. Olson
, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)................................13, 15
Myers v. United States
, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).....................4, 12, 15, 20, 21
NFIB v. Sebelius
, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)...................................19
Roe v. Wade
, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).......................................18
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
, 591 U.S. 197 (2020).....................................................14, 21
Severino v. Biden
, 71 F.4th 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2023)...........................7
Trump v. Boyle
, 145 S. Ct. 2653 (July 23, 2025)........................2-5, 8, 9
Trump v. Wilcox
, 145 S. Ct. 1415 (May 22, 2025)......................2-5, 8-10
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)..............21
iii
United States v. Lopez
, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)...............................19
Washington v. Trump
, 765 F. Supp. 3d 1142 (W.D. Wash. 2025)...............6
White v. Berry
, 171 U.S. 366 (1898).......................................7
Wickard v. Filburn
, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)..................................19
MISCELLANEOUS
E. Fitz & K. Saunders, "Distrusting the Process: Electoral Trust, OperationalIdeology, and Nonvoting Political Participation in the 2020 AmericanElectorate," 88
Public Opinion Quarterly
843 (July 16, 2024)...........17R. Knappenberger, "'Shocking abuse of power': Federal judge blocks Trumpretaliation against Susman Godfrey,"
Courthouse News Service
(Apr. 15, 2025).................................................10J. Madison, Federalist No. 41..........................................19J. Tuomala, "
Marbury v. Madison
and the Foundation of Law," 4 L
IBERTY
U
NIVERSITY
L
AW
R
EVIEW
297 (2015)................................22
INTEREST OF THE
AMICI CURIAE
1
Amici curiae
America's Future, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun OwnersFoundation, Gun Owners of California, Citizens United, U.S. Constitutional RightsLegal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund arenonprofit organizations, exempt from federal income taxation under Section501(c)(3) or Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which have filednumerous
amicus curiae
briefs in federal and state courts. These
amici
filed
amicus
briefs in
Wilcox v. Trump
both in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in this Court.
See
Brief
Amicus Curiae
of America's Future,
et al.
,
Wilcox v. Trump
, D.C. Circuit No. 25-5057 (Mar. 29, 2025)and Brief
Amicus Curiae
of America's Future,
et al.
,
Trump v. Wilcox
, SupremeCourt of the United States No. 24A966 (Apr. 15, 2025).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Federal Trade Commission Act, as enacted in 1914, purported to limitthe ability of the President to remove Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")Commissioners only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." 15U.S.C. § 41. This provision was upheld by this Court in 1935 in
Humphrey'sExecutor v. United States
, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). During the 90 years since, thisCourt has clarified the scope of the President's Article II powers over the ExecutiveBranch, and Congress has enhanced the powers and responsibilities of the FTC.
1
It is hereby certified that no counsel for a party authored this brief in wholeor in part; and that no person other than these
amici curiae
, their members, or theircounsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.
2On March 18, 2025, President Trump, exercising the Article II powers of hisoffice, notified Respondent Rebecca Slaughter that he was removing her from herposition as an FTC Commissioner. President Trump did not claim the removal wasfor any of the for-cause reasons specified in the FTC Act. Instead, his letter to herspecifically referred to his "authority under Article II of the Constitution." Slaughter filed suit, claiming her removal violated the for-cause limitation onremoval of Commissioners found in the FTC Act. The Government argues,
interalia
, that Congress cannot constrain the President's inherent Article II powers toremove heads of agencies operating under the Executive Branch. The district court granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment.
SeeSlaughter v. Trump
, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136631 (D.C. D.C. 2025) ("
Slaughter I
"). In denying a stay of its decision, the district court mentioned this Court's recentorders in
Trump v. Wilcox
, 145 S. Ct. 1415 (May 22, 2025), and
Trump v. Boyle
, 145S. Ct. 2653 (July 23, 2025), but did not believe they had any application to thecurrent challenge because it involved the FTC.
See
Appendix at 34a-35a, n.3. Itasserted that it was bound by
Humphrey's Executor
, while simultaneouslyacknowledging "that the majority [of this Court in
Wilcox
recently had] contravened
Humphrey's Executor
."
Id.
at 34a-35a (quoting
Wilcox
at 1419 (Kagan, J.,dissenting)). The district court order did not purport to restrict the actions of PresidentTrump directly, but sought to restrict them indirectly by fashioning two types of
3injunctive relief. First, it enjoined the other Commissioners from removing herfrom office (a statutory power the Commissioners did not have), and ordered herreinstatement (an equitable power the court did not have).
See
Appendix at 36a.A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit declined to stay the district court's order.
See Slaughter v. Trump
, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22628 (D.C. Cir. 2025) ("
SlaughterII
"). In dissent, Judge Rao asserted,
inter alia
, that this Court's decisions in
Boyle
and
Wilcox
instructed that "the Commission unquestionably exercises significantexecutive power, and the other equities favor the government," and accordingly astay should have been granted. Appendix at 15a.The Government filed its Application for Stay ("App. for Stay") on September4, 2025, which also asks this Court to construe the Application as a Petition forWrit of Certiorari before Judgment and grant it.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Since President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2025, he has actedto staff the Executive Branch with persons willing to implement the policies forwhich he was elected President by the American People. Consistent with thatmission, President Trump decided that Respondent Slaughter's "continued serviceon the FTC is inconsistent with [his] Administration's priorities." App. for Stay at5. Even if it had been correct when decided,
Humphrey's Executor
does notcontrol now that the FTC exercises substantial executive powers that did not exist90 years ago. The district court did not have authority to reinstate Slaughter to the
4FTC, and the district court's effort to enjoin the other members of the FTC was nomore than a transparent effort to fashion a workaround of its recognized inability toenjoin the President.In his second term, President Trump also removed other members of multi-member agencies who have impeded the agenda of the Executive Branch, and hehas been faced with other challenges. When district courts enjoined those otheractions, this Court has been required to intervene to reaffirm the powers of thePresident as the head of a co-equal branch of government, pending resolution of thecases on the merits.
See
Trump v. Wilcox
(allowing termination of members of theNational Labor Relations Act ("NLRB") and the Merit Systems Protection Board("MSPB"), and
Trump v. Boyle
(allowing the termination of members of theConsumer Protection Safety Commission ("CPSC")). The courts below treated theseprior orders as having no effect, and issued injunctions. The Government has established a high likelihood that it will succeed on themerits.
Humphrey's Executor
has been widely criticized and should be recognizedas a outlier, inconsistent with
Myers v. United States
, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). Thecourts below refused to recognize the President's constitutional authority over all of the government's executive powers, and that the power to remove is inherent in thepower to appoint. Respondent Slaughter should not be allowed to exercise executivepower to thwart the agenda of an elected President until this Court can rule on themerits.
5Lastly, these
amici
urge that the Government's Application for a Stay betreated as a Petition for Certiorari before Judgment and granted. The core issue inthe three cases that have now come before this Court -
Wilcox
,
Boyle
, and now
Slaughter
- is the same, and there is no reason to believe that further percolationof this issue would be helpful to this Court's consideration of the merits.
ARGUMENTI.THE COURTS INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED INCREASES IN THEEXECUTIVE POWER OF THE FTC OVER THE PAST 90 YEARS TOBE IRRELEVANT.
In granting summary judgment to Slaughter, the district court claimed it wasbound by this Court's 90-year-old ruling in
Humphrey's Executor v. United States
. The district court opined that, "[b]ecause 'it is [the Supreme] Court's prerogativealone to overrule one of its precedents,' ... the court cannot, and will not" grant thegovernment relief. App. at 53a-54a. This Court's 1935 ruling was predicated on theunderstanding that the duties of the FTC were "neither political nor executive, butpredominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" (
Humphrey's Executor
at 624)and held that, since the FTC was not exercising primarily executive power,Congress could limit the President's power to remove FTC commissioners. Thecourts below acknowledged that the FTC Act had changed significantly during thelast nine decades, but believed that this Court's 1935 decision still applied despitethose changes. The Government detailed the growth of the FTC's executive powers. App. forStay at 12-16. It explained that the 2025 FTC has "'substantial executive
6authority'" and "significant rulemaking authority."
Id
. at 12. The modern FTC alsohas greater adjudicatory authority (
id
. at 13) and investigatory and enforcementpowers (
id
. at 14) than in 1935. The changing facts of this case present the need toapply the legal principle,
Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.
In 1997, this Court made clear another principle, that no matter how thelower courts viewed the case: "the District Court and Court of Appeals [do] notinsulate a legal principle on which they relied from
our review to determine itscontinued vitality
."
Agostini v. Felton
, 521 U.S. 203, 237-38 (1997) (emphasisadded). Even if the district court and the court of appeals were correct that theywere powerless to rule differently from
Humphrey's Executor
, that constraint is nolonger present here.
II.THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TOREINSTATE SLAUGHTER.
To its credit, unlike some other district courts,
2
the district court below didnot believe that it had authority to enjoin the President of the United States.
3
However, it attempted to achieve the same effect when it ordered the reinstatement
2
In the three Birthright Citizenship cases considered by this Court earlierthis year, all Plaintiffs-Respondents named President Trump as a defendant in hisofficial capacity. The Maryland and Western District of Washington district courtsactually purported to enjoin the President.
See CASA v. Trump
, 763 F. Supp. 3d723, 746-47 (D. Md. 2025);
Washington v. Trump
, 765 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 1149 n.4,1154 (W.D. Wash. 2025). Only the Massachusetts District Court understood it hadno authority to enjoin the President, but it left the issue unresolved.
See Doe v.Trump
, 766 F. Supp. 3d 266, 288-89 (D. Mass. 2025).
3
Slaughter I
, App. at 72a.
7of Slaughter and issued an injunction against the other members of the FTC. Thecourt asserted that "a court may 'enjoin "subordinate executive officials" to reinstatea wrongly terminated official "de facto," even without a formal presidentialreappointment.'"
Id.
at *49 (quoting
Severino v. Biden
, 71 F.4th 1038, 1042-43(D.C. Cir. 2023)). However, even if that D.C. Circuit decision could be read to standfor the proposition cited, it violates this Court's venerable ruling establishing alimitation on judicial authority, stating that "a court of equity [may] not, byinjunction, restrain an executive officer from making a wrongful removal of asubordinate appointee, nor restrain the appointment of another."
White v. Berry
,171 U.S. 366, 377 (1898). Knowing that it could not enjoin the President, and casting about for ways toreinstate Slaughter when it knew or should have known it had no authority to doso, the court landed upon a bizarre approach: to enjoin the other FTCCommissioners from removing Slaughter, even though they had no such powerunder the statute. The district court: ORDERED that Defendants Andrew Ferguson, Melissa Holyoak,David Robbins, and their subordinates and agents are ENJOINEDfrom removing Ms. Slaughter from her lawful position as an FTCCommissioner.... [App. at 39a.] There is no justification for this type of convoluted series of injunctions to doindirectly what the court knew it could not do directly.
8
III.THE COURTS BELOW REFUSED TO ACCEPT ANY GUIDANCEFROM THIS COURT'S RECENT ORDERS IN
WILCOX
AND
BOYLE.
Only weeks ago, in
Trump v. Wilcox
, this Court stated its "judgment that theGovernment faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer tocontinue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer facesfrom being unable to perform her statutory duty."
Id.
at 1416-17. And, this Court stated its "judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB andMSPB exercise considerable executive power" (
id.
at 1416), just as the FTC does (
see
App. for Stay at 13). Nevertheless, the district court expressed no desire to followsuch guidance from
Wilcox
.The district court chose to confine the lessons of
Wilcox
to two agencies only: "even taking the Court's pronouncements at face value, its order only addressedremoval protections as they pertain to the NLRB and MSPB."
Slaughter I
at *29. The district court feigned confusion about
Wilcox
, stating that it was:unsure of what to make of the Court's one-sentence pronouncement ina four-paragraph grant of a stay application. It does not represent afinal, definitive, and reasoned decision on the merits. And the orderdoes not cite any substantive case law to support its brief statement onirreparable harm or the balance of the equities. [
Id.
at *57-58.]As with
Wilcox
, the district court also rejected this Court's guidance in
Trump v. Boyle
, because
Boyle
"made no mention of
Humphrey's Executor
or theFTC. Instead, it relied entirely on the existing stay order in
Wilcox
." App. at 34a,n.3. Is the district court really saying it would have viewed
Boyle
as controlling if this Court repeated in
Boyle
what it had just explained in
Wilcox
rather than just
9cite to its earlier decision? The district court defiantly insisted that it "will notupend its own analysis on the basis of a procedural order that fails to address
Humphrey's Executor
or the FTC." App. at 79a. It mattered not at all to the district court that, as Judge Rao later noted onappeal, this case is "virtually identical" to
Wilcox
and
Boyle
.
See
App. at 15a (Rao,J., dissenting). Any difference between the FTC and the agencies in
Wilcox
and
Boyle
argues strongly against the injunction being issued, as explained in theApplication. The FTC that was evaluated in
Humphrey's Executor
in 1935 nolonger exists; the current FTC is a very different agency.Like the district court, the circuit court also declared that adherence to itsexpanded view of
Humphrey's Executor
overrode adherence to this Court's recentorders in
Wilcox
and
Boyle
.
See
App. for Stay at 7 (quoting
Slaughter II
at 3a). Although being less openly dismissive of
Boyle
and
Wilcox
than the district court,the circuit court too brushed aside the accretion of executive power to the FTC since
Humphrey's Executor
. The circuit court rejected
Wilcox
's teaching that "theGovernment faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer tocontinue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer facesfrom being unable to perform her statutory duty" (
Wilcox
at 1416-1417), decidinginstead that the balance of equities should favor Slaughter.
Slaughter II
at 12a.In dissent, Judge Rao hammered home the circuit court's rejection of thisCourt's instruction, noting that this Court had "determined that 'the Governmentfaces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue
10exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from beingunable to perform her statutory duty.'"
Slaughter II
at 15a (Rao, J., dissenting)(
quoting Trump v. Wilcox
, 145 S. Ct. 1415, 1415 (2025)). Judge Rao explained"Because
we are required to exercise our equitable discretion inaccordance with the Court's directives
, the district court's order must bestayed."
Id.
(emphasis added).As some of these
amici
argued in their recent brief in this Court in
Wilcox
,the arguments of the courts below are merely "a splendid work of sophistryunmoored by principle."
4
Appearing to have decided how it wanted the case to comeout, the district court did what it had to do, just as it had in prior cases. To put thiscase in context, District Court Judge AliKhan earlier barred President Trump'sApril 9, 2025 Executive Order stripping security clearances from attorneys for thelaw firm Susman Godfrey,
5
smearing the President's protection of national securityduring a hearing as a "personal vendetta," "immensely oppressive," and "a shockingabuse of power."
6
In February, Judge AliKhan blocked a memorandum fromPresident Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB")ordering federal agencies to "temporarily pause" any "financial assistance forforeign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the
4
Trump v. Wilcox
, Brief
Amicus Curiae
of America's Future,
et al.
at 25.
5
Executive Order, "Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey," (Apr. 9, 2025).
6
R. Knappenberger, "'Shocking abuse of power': Federal judge blocks Trumpretaliation against Susman Godfrey,"
Courthouse News Service
(Apr. 15, 2025).
11green new deal."
Nat'l Council of Nonprofits v. OMB
, 775 F. Supp. 3d 100, 109(D.D.C. 2025). The judge trumpeted her personal political views about the policyshe enjoined. She wrote, "the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning."
Id.
at125. She argued that "Defendants' actions were irrational, imprudent, andprecipitated a nationwide crisis."
Id.
In an earlier ruling in the same case, thejudge described the funding pause as creating "a stark picture of nationwide panic."
Nat'l Council of Nonprofits v. OMB
, 763 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2025). The district judge continued this swashbuckling approach below by warningthat "a president cannot faithfully execute the laws or 'preserve, protect[,] anddefend the Constitution' ... by running roughshod over congressionally enactedlegislation. The delicate balance between our three branches of government ...cannot be cast aside in the name of one administration's
political
whims."
Slaughter I
at 77a (emphasis added). The district judge accused the President of "dislik[ing] the laws" and "seek[ing] to invalidate" them.
Id.
at 78a. The courtdeclared that President Trump should not be "allowed to enforce his preferred
policy
agenda through unfettered removal power" (App. at 37a (emphasis added)),even though it is elected Presidents, not appointed judges, who are chosen by thePeople based on their
political
views in order to implement
policy
changes. To use Judge Rao's term, this Court is once again called upon to "chide[ the]lower court[s] for failing to follow
Wilcox"
- and
Boyle
as well - again staying anunlawful injunction.
Slaughter II
at 27a (Rao, J., dissenting).
12
IV. THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO REMOVE IS BESTUNDERSTOOD AND SUPPORTED BY
MYERS V. UNITED STATES
.
President Trump has exercised the power of the Presidency to remove at-willany principal officer of the United States exercising executive power. That action of the President may violate the terms of the FTC Act, but it is well supported,particularly by
Myers v. United States
, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There, this Court ruledthat Congress could not condition the removal of a principal officer exercisingexecutive power on the advice and consent of the Senate. In reaching theconclusion that Congress could not place restrictions on the President's power toremove principal officers who exercise executive powers, the
Myers
Court provided adetailed historical survey of the drafting and early Congressional interpretation of the President's powers of appointment and removal. From this survey, the Courtidentified two rationales for reaching its conclusion. The first rationale is that the President would be unable to fulfill hisconstitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed unless he has thepower to remove officers who have lost his confidence.
Id
. at 117. The Court in
Myers
, and others since then, have convincingly supported this rationale. Thesecond rationale offered by the
Myers
Court is that the power to remove is "incidentto the power of appointment."
Id
. at 122. This
amicus
brief principally focuses onthis second rationale. Thereafter, this Court lost sight of the basic principles set out in
Myers
whendeciding two cases that should be considered outliers -
Humphrey's Executor
and
13
Morrison v. Olson
, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). Those two cases attempted to justify limitsplaced on Presidents' removal power, although the rationales provided in the twocases are at odds not only with
Myers
, but also with each other. These departuresfrom
Myers
reflect two major deviations from the fundamental design of the U.S.Constitution, the hallmarks of which are the separation of powers among the threebranches of government and the limited number of enumerated powers of thefederal government. President Trump argues that this case can be resolved in favor of his powerto remove principal officers who exercise executive power without overruling
Humphrey's Executor
.
See
App. for Stay at 19. However, these
amici
agree with theApplicants that this Court should issue a writ of certiorari to take this opportunityto set out constitutionally correct principles to correct the departure from the
Myers
path taken in
Humphrey's Executor
and
Morrison
.
See
App. for Stay at 19, n.2 ("Tothe extent this Court concludes that
Humphrey's Executor
remains controlling, thisCourt should overrule it after full briefing and argument.").The district court asserts that "
Humphrey's Executor
remains good law today
. Over the span of ninety years, the Supreme Court has declined to revisit or overruleit."
Slaughter I
at 55a. However, in the past 15 years, this Court has taken smallbut important steps to return to the principles undergirding
Myers
, with severalJustices openly criticizing the
Humphrey's Executor
ruling. In
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
, 561U.S. 477 (2010), the Court ruled that Congress could not impose two layers of for-
14cause removal restrictions. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts heldthat "[t]he President cannot 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' if hecannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them."
Id.
at 484. In
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
, 591 U.S. 197(2020), this Court ruled that Congress could not create an independent agencyheaded by one person removable only for cause. The Chief Justice, writing again forthe majority, distinguished
Humphrey's Executor
and narrowly confined it to itsfacts.
Id.
at 204-05, 214-17. Justice Thomas, in a thorough concurrence joined byJustice Gorsuch, described
Humphrey's Executor
as "a direct threat to ourconstitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people."
Id.
at239 (Thomas, J., concurring). He noted that "[c]ontinued reliance on
Humphrey'sExecutor
to justify the existence of independent agencies," as the district courtbelow did, "creates a serious, ongoing threat to our Government's design," and whilehe acknowledged that the Court undercut
Humphrey's Executor
"enough to resolve"the case before it, he urged that "in the future, we should reconsider
Humphrey'sExecutor in toto.
"
Id.
at 251.Neither of these decisions formally overruled
Humphrey's Executor
or
Morrison
, but they certainly did not reaffirm
Humphrey's Executor
, as incorrectlyasserted by the district court.
See Slaughter I
at 53a. Rather, these two casesshould, at minimum, be viewed as harbingers of a return to first principles of constitutional interpretation, calling into question the continuing validity of
15
Humphrey's Executor
and
Morrison
. And the district court's rejection of
Myers
provides additional reasons for granting the Application.
V.THE PRESIDENT'S POWER OF REMOVAL MAY NOT BEEXPRESSLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IT ISNEVERTHELESS SOLIDLY GROUNDED.
A. The Constitutional Role of a President.
The President of the United States is the only official in America who iselected by the participation of all the People.
7
Thus, whether pundits characterizethe decisiveness of his election as sufficient to be termed a "mandate," the Presidenthas the authority and obligation to advance the platform on which he ran. ArticleII provides: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the UnitedStates of America." Article II, § 1. One of the duties of his office is to "take Carethat the Laws be faithfully executed." Article II, § 3. The President takes an oathswearing: "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, andwill to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of theUnited States." Article II, § 1. Presidential races are hotly contested because of theoffice's vast powers. Given these vast responsibilities, including his role often beingdescribed as "leader of the free world," one would assume that he would have all of the powers reasonably necessary to succeed.
7
In the November 5, 2024 election, President Trump won both the ElectoralCollege (312 to 226) and the popular vote, with over 77 million votes, and won allseven battleground states.
16The basic power a President would need to possess is the ability to recruitand place persons in his Administration who share his vision and who could assisthim in carrying out his responsibilities. This personnel power would necessarilyinclude both appointing and removing subordinate officials. Without that power, noPresident would be able to perform his constitutional duties to exercise "executivepower," to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and to "preserve,protect and defend the Constitution." Although those serving in the bureaucracymay have cooperated with the agenda of prior Presidents, few if any were hamperedby the internal resistance faced by President Trump. The refusal of thousands of federal officials to help implement the agenda that 77 million voters supported hasmade it necessary for the President to take on this battle and seek to return to theoriginal constitutional plan. The district court describes limits on the power to remove federal officials as"
to serve
the public interest" and a way to guard against "one administration'spolitical whims."
Slaughter I
at 77a. Actually, it is the limits on removal which thedistrict court so admires that have a very different and dangerous effect. Thoselimits render the President unable to implement the platform on which he waselected. Without the ability to clear the decks of those who disagree with him andreplace them with those who would help him carry out his agenda, there is conflictand paralysis.
8
The failure of Presidents to implement their platforms is one of the
8
The onslaught of injunctions entered by certain federal district judges hascertainly done its part to contribute to the chaos.
See
Appendix to this Brief.
17main reasons that the American People have so little faith in government, so manyare disaffected, and so many do not participate. No matter for whom they vote,most policies stay the same.
9
One of the principal reasons that Presidents can be stymied in makingreforms is that there exists an establishment with the power to erect manyimpediments to preserve their power. All courts, but particularly this Court, needto ensure that those in the federal judiciary who believe that the wrong candidatewas elected do not wield their power in a partisan manner. President Trump hasnow been in office not quite nine months, but as of the date of the preparation of this brief, the Trump Administration has been subjected to 126 known district courtinjunctions.
See
Appendix. Of these 126 injunctions, 94 were issued by districtjudges appointed by Presidents Clinton (20), Obama (37), and Biden (37). To besure, there was sophisticated judge shopping, and certain challenges were droppedonce they were assigned to judges appointed by Republican Presidents.
10
Nevertheless, it appears that many unelected federal judges view themselves as
9
See
E. Fitz & K. Saunders, "Distrusting the Process: Electoral Trust,Operational Ideology, and Nonvoting Political Participation in the 2020 AmericanElectorate," 88
Public Opinion Quarterly
843 (July 16, 2024).
10
See, e.g.,
the State of New Jersey brought its challenge to the President'sBirthright Citizenship Executive Order not in New Jersey, but in Massachusetts
(New Jersey v. Trump
, 1:25-cv-10139); a challenge to the Birthright CitizenshipExecutive Order brought in USDC-DC was dropped after being assigned to JudgeTrevor McFadden (
OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio
, 1:25-cv-00287).
18serving the country by using their equitable powers to block the agenda thatPresident Trump was elected to implement.
B. The Necessity of Implicit Powers.
Based on the clear, complete, and unequivocal vesting of executive power,most discussions of Presidential power are focused on his "executing" specificconstitutional or statutory powers. However, authority for the President to performmany of his powers cannot be sourced to any specific constitutional provision orparticular section of the U.S. Code. Utilization of these implicit powers is essentialto the operation of the Executive Branch of government and to carry out hisconstitutional duties. The President acts through subordinate officials. Appointingand removing officers are necessary means to ensure that the laws are faithfullyexecuted. It is true that the Constitution grants Congress a before-the-fact check on thePresident's appointment powers through the "advise and consent" requirement forprincipal offices. And it is true that the Constitution grants Congress an after-the-fact check on the President's appointments through the impeachment power. However, there is no other constitutional power given to Congress to limit theremoval of officials exercising executive branch powers. Although the FTC has beenwith us for 90 years, longevity does not equate to legitimacy.
Dred Scott v.Sandford
, 60 U.S. 383 (1857), was considered good law, and so also was
Korematsuv. United States
, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), and more recently
Roe v. Wade
, 410 U.S. 113(1973), for about 50 years. None was good law, even while in effect.
19It is curious that the same "legal scholars" who would bar the President fromremoving those who are exercising power in multi-member agencies have noproblem with the Congress exercising powers to regulate Americans by findingpenumbras and emanations in the Constitution, including giving virtuallyunlimited application to the Commerce Clause,
11
the Spending Power and General Welfare Clause,
12
the Taxing Power,
13
and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Both the powers of appointment and removal are essential to the functioningof every organization that depends upon individuals to carry out its mission. The
11
See, e.g., Wickard v. Filburn
, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), which has never beenoverruled, but which on one occasion was described by this Court as "perhaps themost far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity"which operated to "greatly expand[] the previously defined authority of Congressunder that Clause...."
United States v. Lopez
, 514 U.S. 549, 560, 556 (1995). Justice Thomas asserted that
Wickard's
"substantial effect on interstate commerce"test was "far removed from both the Constitution and from [this Court's] early caselaw."
Id.
at 601 (Thomas, J., concurring).
12
See, e.g., Helvering v. Davis
, 301 U.S. 619, 640-42 (1937), where the Courtdefaulted on its obligation to rule whether a particular spending measure was forthe "general welfare" by deferring to Congress's discretion - a rule still followed.
See also
Federalist No. 41 ("It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay andcollect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for thecommon defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimitedcommission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for thecommon defense or general welfare.... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included inthe preceding general power?").
13
See NFIB v. Sebelius
, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), where even five Justices(Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) found the individual mandate in thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as "Obamacare") not authorizedby the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause, while five Justices(Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) found it to be a lawful exerciseof the Taxing Power.
20executive power assigned to the President cannot be exercised effectively withoutthe ability to assure accountability within the Executive Branch.
See Myers
at 117. The power to remove subordinate executive officers is incidental to the power toappoint.
Id
. at 119. In
Humphrey's Executor
, the Court nevertheless upheld alegislative provision imposing limitations on the President's removal power, whileaffirming the proposition that "congressional participation in the removal of executive officers is unconstitutional."
Bowsher v. Synar
, 478 U.S. 714, 724 (1986).Many examples can be drawn from Article II of powers that the People havedelegated to the President that are not executive by nature in the sense of enforcingthe law. The power to make treaties is a foreign affairs power and is neitherexecutive nor legislative by nature. Until a treaty is made, there is no law toenforce; a treaty cannot be made by legislation. Similarly, the power to recommendlegislation to Congress, like the veto power, is generally considered to be legislativein nature. Another inherent power that each branch of government possesses is thepower to make rules and regulations for their internal operation.
14
The Supreme Court has recognized the power of organizations formed bycontract, and those that preexist the state, to appoint and remove officers of theirown choosing to ensure proper functioning of those organizations in pursuance of
14
In
Marbury v. Madison
, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall notedthat in deciding cases, the Court is bound not only by the Constitution and acts of Congress, but also by general principles of law.
Id
. at 170. The Declaration of Independence identifies the source of authority for these general principles of law,also known as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as the "Creator" and"Supreme Judge of the World."
21their respective missions. In
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
, 17 U.S.518 (1819), the Supreme Court recognized the preexisting right or general principleof law to form a voluntary organization by contract and to appoint its officers toexecute the terms of its agreement. Similarly, in
Hosanna-Tabor EvangelicalLutheran Church and School v. EEOC
, 565 U.S. 171, 184, 191 (2012), the SupremeCourt recognized the preexisting right of churches to appoint and remove officersaccording to the tenets of their faith. The People have placed certain conditions on the President's inherent powerof appointment.
See
Article II, § 2. Otherwise, the President has the inherentpower to appoint officers of his own choosing. Similarly, he has the power to removeofficers subject to limitations that the people place on him. The only limit on hispower of removal is that Congress may remove an officer through the impeachmentprocess that the President would rather retain in office. Article I, § 2, cl. 6; ArticleI, § 3, cl. 6-7; Article II, § 4.The only possible source of a congressional power to limit the President'sremoval power is the Necessary and Proper Clause.
See, e.g.
,
Myers
at 180-81(McReynolds, J., dissenting);
Seila Law, Inc
at 267, 295-96 (Kagan, J., dissenting). That Clause states:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carryinginto Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested bythis Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in anyDepartment or Officer thereof. [Article I, § 8, cl. 18.]
22It is generally recognized that this Clause gives Congress the power toestablish the great departments of government and offices necessary to operatethem. In
Marbury
, the Court recognized the power of Congress to establish theState Department and office of Secretary of State. Congress had the power tochannel the Secretary of State's discretion in the operation of that office, asevidenced by the particular laws giving Marbury a right to his commission asjustice of the peace for the District of Columbia.
Marbury
at 170. The
Marbury
Court recognized a general principle of law that the Constitution is supreme andparamount law because it was adopted by the People, who exercised their originalwill in pursuance to their original right to adopt it.
15
See Marbury
at 176. The general principle of law that the head of an organization has an inherentpower of appointment and removal is operative. Although Congress may believethat independent agencies are "necessary" (
i.e.
, useful or convenient), they are,rather, not "proper." The district court asserted that restrictions on the removalpower provide essential checks and balances, but that is only a pretext to justifyallowing Congress - as well as the judiciary - to usurp an inherent power of thePresidency required for real separation of powers and federalism.
15
J. Tuomala, "
Marbury v. Madison
and the Foundation of Law," 4 L
IBERTY
U
NIVERSITY
L
AW
R
EVIEW
297, 303-25 (2015).
23
VI.THE APPLICATION FOR STAY SHOULD BE TREATED AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT AND SHOULDBE GRANTED.
The Government's Application, in addition to requesting a stay of the districtcourt's judgment, asks this Court to treat the Application as a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment and to grant it.
See
App. for Stay at 28-29. Treatment of an application for stay as a petition for certiorari is not routine, but it certainly isnot unprecedented. In the last several years, there have been three cases in whichsome of these
amici
filed
amicus
briefs where this Court granted review based on anapplication for stay. On December 1, 2022, in
Biden v. Nebraska
, No. 22-506, thisCourt treated an application for stay filed by the United States as a petition forcertiorari before judgment and granted it. On January 5, 2024, in
Moyle v. UnitedStates
, No. 23-726, this Court treated an application for a stay filed by IdahoSpeaker Moyle as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and granted it. On February 28, 2024, in
Trump v. United States
, No. 23-939, this Court granted the Special Counsel's request to treat a stay application filed on behalf of now-President Trump as a petition for a writ of certiorari and granted it. The issues presented by this case are critical questions involving theseparation of powers. The questions raised by the Government's Application (at 28)relate to whether the legislative and judicial branches can limit the executive'sinherent Article II powers. There is no benefit that could come from months or years of percolation of this case. The district court has already rejected the President's position. Too
24many lower courts have demonstrated an eagerness to hamstring the policies of thisadministration. The district court's order here would put back in office a personwhose views are inconsistent with the administration and do much damage to thePresident's agenda. Therefore, no good reason exists to delay a resolution of thesequestions now, at the outset of the new administration.Furthermore, both courts below expressed that only this Court can change itsposition from
Humphrey's Executor
. Even though the current FTC to whichRespondent was appointed is different from what this Court considered in 1935,this Court is in the best position either to reconsider whether
Humphrey's Executor
remains good law or to distinguish the modern day FTC from the Court's holding in
Humphrey's Executor
.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should stay the judgment of the districtcourt pending appeal.Respectfully submitted,M
ICHAEL
B
OOS
C
ITIZENS
U
NITED
1006 Pennsylvania Ave. SEWashington, DC 20003J
EFFREY
C.
T
UOMALA
114 Creekside Ln. Winchester, VA 22602 P
ATRICK
M.
M
C
S
WEENEY
3358 John Tree Hill RoadPowhatan, VA 23139W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
*J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4Vienna, VA 22180-5615(703) 356-5070Fax (703) 356-5085 [email protected]*Counsel of RecordSeptember 15, 2025
25R
ICK
B
OYER
I
NTEGRITY
L
AW
F
IRM
P.O. Box 10953Lynchburg, VA 24506
APPENDIX
App.1
FEDERAL COURT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
(January 20, 2025 through September 12, 2025)
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
1.
New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00038- Judge Joseph N. Laplante (G.W. Bush) of the District of New Hampshire enjoinedany enforcement of Trump's birthright citizenship EO within the state. The casewas appealed to the First Circuiton April 11, where it is pending.2.
Washington v. Trump
, No. 2:25-cv-00127- Judge John C. Coughenour (Reagan)of the Western District of Washington enjoined any enforcement of Trump'sbirthright citizenship EO nationwide. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuitand the Supreme Court, which overturned the universal injunctionson June 27, 2025.3.
New Jersey v. Trump; Doe v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-10139- Judge Leo T. Sorokin(Obama) of the District of Massachusetts enjoined any enforcement of Trump'sbirthright citizenship EO within the state. The case was appealed to theFirstCircuitand the Supreme Court, which overturned the universal injunctionson June 27, 2025.4.
CASA Inc. v. Trump
, No. 8:25-cv-00201- Judge Deborah L. Boardman (Biden)of the District of Maryland enjoined any enforcement of Trump's birthrightcitizenship EO nationwide. The case was appealed to the Fourth Circuitand theSupreme Court, which overturned the universal injunctionson June 27, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Judge Boardman certified a class and granted a preliminaryinjunction.5.
Barbara v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00244- Judge Joseph N. Laplante (G.W. Bush)of the District of New Hampshire on July 10, 2025 certified a class and issued apreliminary injunctionprohibiting defendants from implementing the ExecutiveOrder "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."
IMMIGRATION
6.
J.G.G. v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00766- Judge James E. Boasberg (Obama) of theDistrict of D.C. ordered flights of gang members and terrorists rerouted back to theUnited States, and then ordered that Trump cannot deport anyone under the AlienEnemies Act ("AEA") without a hearing. This was upheld by D.C. Circuit, then onApril 7, on Application for Stay, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's TROs. Judge Boasberg on April 16 threatened the Trump administrationwith
App.2criminal contempt charges, but on April 18 the DC Circuit issued an administrativestayin the appeal from Judge Boasberg's Apr. 16 contempt-related order. Plaintiffsfiled an April 24 amended complaintincluding a habeas petition for a class of individuals and an April 25 motion for a permanent injunction. Judge Boasberggranted class certification and preliminary injunction on June 4. TheAdministration on June 10 filed for a stay pending appeal at the District Court(denied June 12) and on June 10, the DC Circuit stayed the June 4 orderthen dissolved the June 4 order and remandedto D.DC on August 8, 2025.7.
Chung v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-02412- Judge Naomi R. Buchwald (Clinton) of theSouthern District of New York issued a temporary restraining orderon March 24,and a preliminary injunctionJune 5, preventing Trump from deporting a ColumbiaUniversity student for pro-Hamas activism.8.
Phila. Yearly Meeting of The Religious Soc'y of Friends v. U.S. Dep't of HomelandSec
., No. 8:2025-cv-00243- Judge Theodore D. Chuang (Obama) of the District of Maryland on Feb. 24 issued a preliminary injunctionblocking ICE raids in housesof worship. The case has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit.9.
M.K. v. Joyce
, No. 1:25-cv-01935- Judge Jesse M. Furman (Obama) of theSouthern District of New York issued a temporary restraining order forbidding theremoval by ICE detention and deportation of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil,a green card holder, and recent graduate of Columbia University, who organizedpro-Palestinian demonstrations. This case was transferred on March 19 as
Khalilv. Joyce
, 2:25-cv-01963- Judge Michael E. Farbiarz (Biden) of the District of NewJersey ordered on that same day that "Petitioner shall not be removed from theUnited States unless and until the Court issues a contrary Order." Judge Farbiarzgranted habeas and a preliminary injunctionon June 11, but on June 13 allowedthe government to continue detention on another charge.10.
Parra v. Castro
, No. 1:24-cv-00912- Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales (Obama) of theDistrict of New Mexico issued a temporary restraining orderon February 9 blockingthe transfer of three Venezuelans to Gitmo. They were then removed to their homecountry instead and voluntarily dismissed their case.11.
Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate
, No. 1:25-cv-00881- Judge Nina Y. Wang (Biden)of the District of Colorado enjoined the ICE deportation of a Mexican citizen. 12.
National TPS Alliance v. Noem
, No. 3:25-cv-01766- Judge Edward M. Chen(Obama) of the Northern District of California enjoined ending TemporaryProtected Status ("TPS") for 350,000 to 600,000 Venezuelans. After the NinthCircuiton April 18 denied a staypending appeal, the Supreme Courton May 19 stayed the district courtdecision.
App.313.
Pacito v. Trump
, No. 2:25-cv-00255- Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Biden) of theWestern District of Washington granted a nationwide preliminary injunction onFebruary 28 blocking President Trump's Executive Order indefinitely halting entrythrough the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). On appeal, the NinthCircuiton March 25 partially grantedthe Trump administration's emergency motion to stay, and filed an order clarifying their stayon April 21. 14.
City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump
, No. 3:25-cv-01350- Judge William H. Orrick III (Obama) of the Northern District of California granteda preliminary injunctionApril 24 enjoining President Trump's efforts to have theDepartment of Justice investigate and prosecute "sanctuary cities" policies andgovernment officials interfering with immigration enforcement. At the plaintiffs'request, on May 9, Judge Orrick issued a "clarifying" of the injunction. 15.
D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
, No. 1:25-cv-10676- JudgeBrian E. Murphy (Biden) of the District of Massachusetts on March 28 issued atemporary restraining orderenjoining the Trump administration over the recentpolicy of deporting non-citizens with final removal orders to a third country,specifically El Salvador, without first providing an opportunity to contest removal. First Circuitdenied stay pending appeal April 7. Judge Murphy granted classcertification and issued a preliminary injunctionApril 18, and further orders onMay 20, May 21, and May 23. An Application for Stayat SCOTUS was filed May 27, and a stay of the April 18 injunctionwas issued on June 23. Following theSCOTUS stay, in response to Plaintiffs' motions, Judge Murphy issued an orderthat "The Court's May 21, 2025 Order on Remedy ... remains in full force and effect,notwithstanding today's stay of the Preliminary Injunction...." The TrumpAdministration filed a Motion for An Orderclarifying the June 23 SCOTUS order,and requesting immediate administrative stay of Judge Murphy's May 21 order,and SCOTUS did so on July 3, 2025.16.
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. U.S. Dep't of HHS
, No.3:25-cv-02847- Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin (Biden) of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining orderon April 1 blocking Defendantsfrom terminating funding for Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS)Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funding for legal representation services forunaccompanied immigrant children through April 16, then on April 10 extended theTROthrough April 30. Defendants' appeal of the TRO to the Ninth Circuit wasdenied, as was a petition for rehearing en banc. On April 29, the District Court granted a preliminary injunctionblocking Defendants from withdrawing theservices or funds provided by ORR until a final judgment in the matter is issued. Defendants appealed the PI to the Ninth Circuiton April 30, stay pending appealdenied May 14, order updated May 20; and Trump administration opening brief was filed June 12.
App.417.
J.A.V. v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00072- Judge Fernando Rodriguez (Trump) of theSouthern District of Texas on April 9 temporarily enjoinedthe Trumpadministration from deporting Venezuelans outside of the district under the AlienEnemies Act. On May 1, Judge Rodriguez certified a class and granted apermanent injunction.18.
G.F.F. v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-02886- Judge Alvin Hellerstein (Clinton) of theSouthern District of New York granted a temporary restraining orderon April 9 onbehalf of a class of all persons in the district subject to deportation under the AlienEnemies Act. A Preliminary Injunctionwas granted May 6.19.
Doe v. Noem
, No. 1:25-cv-10495- Judge Indira Talwani (Obama) of the Districtof Massachusetts, on April 14, granted a motion to staythe Department of Homeland Security's blanket revocation of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuelaparole programs (the "CHNV parole programs") and ordering case-by-case review of any termination of work authorization permits to remain in the United States. After the First Circuit on May 5 denied a stay, the Supreme Court on May 30 stayed the district court decision. Oral argument at the First Circuit took place onJuly 29.20.
Viloria Aviles v. Trump
, No. 2:25-cv-00611- Judge Gloria Maria Navarro(Obama) of the District of Nevada issued a preliminary injunctionon April 17prohibiting the government from removing the Petitioner from the United Statesunder the Alien Enemies Act until after his merits hearing.21.
D.B.U. v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-01163- Judge Charlotte Sweeney (Biden) of theDistrict of Colorado issued a temporary restraining orderon April 22 forbidding theadministration from removing Venezuelan illegal aliens from Colorado fordeportation under the Aliens Enemies Act. A motion for a preliminary injunction ispending. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, a panel on April 29 denied an emergency motionfor stay.22.
A.S.R. v. Trump
, No. 3:25-cv-00113- Judge Stephanie Haines (Trump) of theWestern District of Pennsylvania granted a temporary restraining order on April 25on behalf of a class of all persons in the district subject to deportation under theAlien Enemies Act that they must be given 14 days' notice and hearing before anyremoval from the district, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in
J.G.G. v.Trump.
23.
Mahdawi v. Trump
, No. 2:25-cv-00389- Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford (Obama)of the District of Vermont extended a temporary restraining orderon April 24 "for aperiod of 90 days or until dismissal of this case or grant of a preliminary injunction,
App.5whichever is earliest ... no respondent... shall remove [Mohsen Mahdawi, aPalestinian] from Vermont without further order from this court."24.
Yostin Sleiker Gutierrez-Contreras v. Warden Desert View Annex
, No.5:25-cv-00911- Judge Sunshine S. Sykes (Biden) of the Central District of California, issued a temporary restraining orderon April 16 preventing thegovernment from removing a Venezuelan at risk of being deported to El Salvadorunder the Alien Enemies Act. On April 28, the TRO was dissolved since thePlaintiff was in Texas when the petition was filed.25.
President and Fellows of Harvard v. Department of Homeland Security
, No1:25-cv-11472- Judge Allison D. Burroughs (Obama) of the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining orderon May 23, blocking theadministration from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international studentsunder the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). After President Trumpissued a new proclamation on June 4, Judge Burroughs issued another temporaryrestraining orderon June 5, and a preliminary injunctionJune 20. 26.
Arevalo Millan v. Trump
, No. 5:25-cv-01207- Judge John W. Holcomb (Trump)of the Central District of California on May 19 certified a class of noncitizens in thedistrict subject to the Alien Enemies Act ("AEA") and granted a temporaryrestraining order. On June 2, Judge Holcomb issued a preliminary injunctionagainst deporting members of the class under authority of AEA.27.
Y.A.P.A. v. Trump
, No. 4:25-cv-00144- Judge Clay D. Land (G.W. Bush) of theMiddle District of Georgia on May 21 granted a temporary restraining orderblocking deportation of a Venezuelan man, at risk of deportation to El Salvador,under the Alien Enemies Act. The court did not block deportation under INA.28.
Angelica S. v. HHS
, No. 1:25-cv-01405- Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Trump) of the District of D.C. on June 9 certified a class and granted a preliminary injunctionblocking parts of HHS reforms to the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)program, which resettles migrant children in U.S. with adult sponsors after theyarrive at the U.S.-Mexico border without parents or guardians.29.
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem
,No. 1:25-cv-00306- Judge Randolph D. Moss (Obama) of the District of D.C. onJuly 2 granted summary judgmentand certified a class preventing the TrumpAdministration from enforcing Proclamation 10888, which disallows immigrantsfrom remaining in the U.S. while pursuing asylum claims. On July 3, the TrumpAdministration appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which on July 11granted an administrative stayof the district court's orders as to all but the namedplaintiffs.
App.630.
National TPS Alliance v. Noem,
No. 3:25-cv-05687- Judge Trina L. Thompson(Biden) of the Northern District of California on July 31 granted a "motion topostpone," blocking the Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua TPS terminations, whichimpact about 60,000 immigrants, until November 18, 2025.31.
Perdomo v. Noem
, No. 2:25-cv-05605- Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong(Biden) of the Central District of California on July 11 issued a temporaryrestraining orderenjoining immigration officers in the Los Angeles area fromcertain actions, and a July 30 order to release a detainee. A July 16 appeal to the Ninth Circuitis ongoing, and the Circuit granted a partial stay of the TROon August 14. An application for a staywas filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on August7, and a stay of the July 11 order was granted(6-3) on September 8.32.
Make the Road New York v. Noem
, No. 1:25-cv-00190- Judge Jia M. Cobb(Biden) of the District of D.C. on August 29 issued an opinion blockingthe policy touse of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) fornoncitizens located anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have beencontinuously present for more than two years, and denied a stay pending appealonSeptember 5. The Trump administration has appealed to the DC Circuit.*NOTE: According to
Politico
, there have been over 100 lawsuits and50 restraining orders related to the F-1 visas and the Student andExchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) in 23 states. TheTrump Administration is working to resolve this situation, so thesecases are not included here.
TRANSGENDER
33.
Talbott v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00240- Judge Ana C. Reyes (Biden) of theDistrict of D.C., a lesbian, issued a preliminary injunctionon March 18 enjoiningTrump's rule preventing "transgender" persons from serving in the military. Onappeal to the D.C. Circuit, an administrative staywas issued March 27, a hearingon a stay pending appeal was held on April 22, and merits briefing is pending.34.
PFLAG v. Trump
, No. 8:25-cv-00337- Judge Brendan A. Hurson (Biden) of theDistrict of Maryland granted an injunction against Trump's order denying federalfunding to institutions performing chemical or surgical "transgender" mutilation onminors. 35.
Washington v. Trump
, No. 2:25-cv-00244- Judge Lauren J. King (Biden) of theWestern District of Washington enjoined Trump's order denying federal funding toinstitutions performing chemical or surgical "transgender" mutilation on minors. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
App.736.
Ireland v. Hegseth
, No. 1:25-cv-01918- Judge Christine P. O'Hearn (Biden) of the District of New Jersey enjoined the Air Force from removing two "transgender"service members pursuant to Trump's order banning "transgender" servicemembers.37.
Doe v. McHenry; Doe v. Bondi
, No. 1:25-cv-00286- Judge Royce C. Lamberth(Reagan) of the District of D.C. on February 4 issued a temporary restraining orderblocking the transfer of "transgender women" to men's prisons under Trump's order,and terminating their taxpayer-funded hormone treatments. On February 18,Judge Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction. On March 19, two plaintiffs were addedto the injunction, and the injunction was extended on May 15. This case has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit, where argument is scheduled forSeptember 5, 2025.38.
Moe v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-10195- Senior Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.(Clinton) of the District of Massachusetts enjoined the transfer of a "transgenderwoman" to a men's prison under Trump's order. This case has been transferred toanother, unidentified, district.39.
Jones v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-401- Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan) of theDistrict of D.C. enjoined the transfer of three "transgender women" to men's prisonsand termination of their taxpayer-funded hormone treatments under Trump's order.40.
Shilling v. Trump
, No. 2:25-cv-00241- Judge Benjamin H. Settle (G.W. Bush)of the Western District of Washington enjoined Trump's order to remove"transgender" service members. The Ninth Circuit denied a request for a stay of the injunction; an Application for Stay was filed at the Supreme Court (24A1030)April 24, and the stay was grantedMay 6.41.
Maine v. Department of Agriculture
, No. 1:25-cv-00131- Judge John Woodcock(G.W. Bush) of the District of Maine granted a temporary restraining orderon April11 on behalf of Maine, in its lawsuit against Trump's federal education fundingfreeze to Maine for its refusal to ban boys from girls' teams.42.
Orr v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-10313- Judge Julia E. Kobick (Biden) of the Districtof Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunctionon April 18 against enforcing thebiological sex at birth designation on passports against Plaintiffs. On June 17,Judge Kobick certified classes and appliedthe prior injunction to the classes. TheTrump administration appealed the case to the First Circuit.
App.8
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
43.
Dellinger v. Bessent
, No. 1:25-cv-00385- Judge Amy B. Jackson (Obama) of theDistrict of D.C. issued a restraining order invalidating Trump's firing of U.S. specialcounsel Hampton Dellinger. The order was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, then was temporarily lifted by the Court of Appeals on March 5; on March 6, Dellinger announced that he was dropping hiscase.44.
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
, No. 3:25-cv-01780- Judge William H. Alsup (Clinton) of the Northern District of California enjoined Trump's order for six federal agenciesto dismiss thousands of probationary employees. The injunction was upheld by theNinth Circuit, but the Supreme Court on April 8 issued a stay based on standing. 45.
Wilcox v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00334- Judge Beryl A. Howell (Obama) of theDistrict of D.C. enjoined Trump's firing of National Labor Relations Board memberGwynne Wilcox, a Democrat, and ordered her reinstated to finish her term. TheD.C. Circuitstayed the injunction, then reinstated it, and an application for a stayat the Supreme Court was granted by Chief Justice Robertson April 9, and by theSupreme Court on May 22.46.
Harris v. Bessent
, No. 1:25-cv-00412- Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama) of theDistrict of D.C. enjoined Trump's firing of Merit Systems Protection Board memberCathy Harris and ordered her reinstated. The D.C. Circuitstayed the injunction,then reinstated it, an application for a stayat the Supreme Court was granted by Chief Justice Robertson April 9, and by the Supreme Court on May 22. 47.
American Foreign Service Association v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00352- JudgeCarl J. Nichols (Trump) of the District of D.C. on February 7, 2025 issued atemporary restraining orderagainst Trump's firing of USAID employees. JudgeNichols vacated the TRO and denied a preliminary injunctionagainst the firings on February 21, 2025, then granted the Government's motion to dismisson July 25,2025.48.
Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice
, No. 1:25-cv-00325- Judge Jia M. Cobb(Biden) of the District of D.C. enjoined Trump from releasing the names of any FBIagents who worked on the January 6 investigation. 49.
Doctors for America v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
, No. 1:25-cv-00322- Judge John D. Bates (G.W. Bush) of the District of D.C. issued a temporaryrestraining orderthat CDC and FDA webpages that "inculcate or promote genderideology" be restored after Trump ordered them removed. On July 2, 2025, Judge
App.9Bates granted summary judgmentto "vacate the OPM Memo and the HHSGuidance, and order the restoration of some webpages and datasets."50.
Perkins Coie v. DOJ
, No. 1:25-cv-00716- Judge Beryl A. Howell (Obama) of theDistrict of D.C. on March 12 issued a temporary restraining orderenjoiningTrump's directive barring government agencies doing business with Perkins Coieand banning PC attorneys from federal buildings. Judge Howell oredered summaryjudgment for the plaintiffs on May 2, and the Trump administration appealed to theDC Circuiton July 2, 2025.51.
Jenner Block v. DOJ
, No. 1:25-cv-00916- Judge John D. Bates (G.W. Bush) of the District of D.C. on March 28 granted a temporary restraining orderagainstTrump's directive barring government agencies from doing business with JennerBlock and banning that firm's attorneys from federal buildings. Judge Batesgranted Jenner's motions for summary judgment and permanent injunction on May23, and the Trump administration appealed to the DC Circuit. 52.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President
,No. 1:25-cv-00917- Judge Richard J. Leon (G.W. Bush) of the District of D.C.enjoined Trump's directive barring government agencies from doing business withWilmer and banning that firm's attorneys from federal buildings.53.
Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President
, No. 1:25-cv-01107- Judge Loren L. AliKhan (Biden) of the District of D.C. on April 15 enjoinedTrump'sdirective barring government agencies from doing business with Susman Godfreyand banning that firm's attorneys from federal buildings. The administrationappealed to the DC Circuiton August 26.54.
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell
, No. 1:25-cv-10276- Senior Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. (Clinton) of the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's buyout of federal employees. The judge later lifted the TRO and denied an injunction,allowing the buyout to go forward.55.
Maryland v. US Dept. of Agriculture
, No. 1:25-cv-00748- James K. Bredar(Obama) of the District of Maryland issued a TRO ordering 38 agencies to stopfiring employees and reinstate fired employees. On April 9, the Fourth Circuitstayed the district court injunction, noting the Supreme Court's stayin
AFGE,AFL-CIO v. OPM and Ezell
).56.
Does 1-26 v. Musk
, No. 8:25-cv-00462- Judge Theodore D. Chuang (Obama) of the District of Maryland ordered DOGE to reinstate email access for fired USAIDemployees.
App.1057.
American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent
, No. 8:25-cv-00430- JudgeDeborah L. Boardman (Biden) of the District of Maryland enjoined DOE and Officeof Personnel Management from disclosing personal information of employees toDOGE. On April 7, the Fourth Circuit granted a stayto the Defendants pendingappeal, and on August 12, 2025 vacated the District Court injunction and remandedthe case.58.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v.Social Security Administration
, No. 1:25-cv-00596- Judge Ellen L. Hollander(Obama) of the District of Maryland granted an injunction forbidding the SocialSecurity Administration from providing personal information to DOGE. The FourthCircuitdismissed an appeal for lack jurisdiction. On May 2, the Trump administration filed an Application for a Stayat the Supreme Court, which wasgranted on June 6.59.
Brehm v. Marocco
, No. 1:25-cv-00660- Judge Richard J. Leon (G.W. Bush) of the District of D.C. issued a temporary restraining order forbidding Trump fromremoving Brehm from, and appointing Marocco to, the U.S. African DevelopmentFoundation.60.
American Oversight v. Hegseth
, No. 1:25-cv-00883- Judge James E. Boasberg(Obama) of the District of D.C. issued an order "as agreed by the parties," for thegovernment to preserve all Signal communications related to the leak to an
Atlantic
editor of DoD conversations in Houthi strike.61.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00935- Judge PaulL. Friedman (Clinton) of the District of D.C., on April 25, enjoined agenciesfromimplementing Trump's executive order limiting collective bargaining rights formany federal employees, but specifically did not enjoin President Trump. The DCCircuit granted a stay pending appealon May 16, and denied reconsiderationen banc on July 16, 2025.62.
Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture
, No.1:25-cv-00097- Judge Mary McElroy (Trump) of the District of Rhode Islandissued a preliminary injunctionagainst Trump's federal funding freeze for variousdepartments including the EPA. The Trump administration appealed to the FirstCircuiton May 1.63.
Associated Press v. Budowich
, No. 1:25-cv-00532- Judge Trevor McFadden(Trump) of the District of D.C. on April 8 enjoinedthe White House from keepingAP reporters out of the White House press briefings until it agrees to refer to the"Gulf of America."
App.1164.
Novedades Y Servicios, Inc. v. FinCEN
, 3:25-cv-00886- Judge Janis L.Sammartino (G.W. Bush) of the Southern District of California granted a temporaryrestraining orderon April 22 against Department of Treasury FinCEN's GeographicTargeting Order which requires businesses along the southern border to fileCurrency Transaction Reports with FinCEN at a $200 threshold.65
. New York, et al. v. Donald J. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-01144- Judge Jeannette A.Vargas (Biden) of the Southern District of New York issued a preliminaryinjunctionon February 21 blocking DOGE's access to certain Treasury Departmentpayment records. Then on April 11, Judge Vargas partially dissolved herpreliminary injunctionsince "based on existing record" mitigation, training andvetting procedures were adequate to satisfy her concerns.66.
American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump
, No.3:25-cv-03698- Judge Susan Y. Illston (Clinton) of the Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining orderon May 9 to pause the Defendants'reductions in force under EO 14210, which Defendants appealed to the NinthCircuit. Judge Illston issued a preliminary injunctionon May 22, and on June 13 clarified that the State Department is includedin the PI. The PI was appealed tothe Ninth Circuit, which on May 30 denied the Defendants' emergency motion for astay pending appeal. The Trump administration filed an application for a stayatthe US Supreme Court on June 2, which was granted on July 8.67.
National Job Corps Association v. Department of Labor
, No. 1:25-cv-04641- Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. (Obama) of the Southern District of New York issued atemporary restraining orderon June 4, the day after National Job CorpsAssociation sued the Department of Labor over the Trump administration'stermination of contracts for operation of Job Corps centers.68.
Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service
, No.1:25-cv-01363- Judge Deborah L. Boardman (Biden) of the District of Marylandissued a preliminary injunction on June 5, blocking the administration's reductionin force (RIF) and cancellation of programs at AmeriCorps.69.
American Federation of Government Employees v. Noem
, No. 2:25-cv-00451- Judge Marsha J. Pechman (Clinton) of the Western District of Washington granteda preliminary injunctionon June 2, blocking the Transportation SecurityAdministration's cancellation of their collective bargaining agreement.70
. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-01248- Judge RudolphContreras (Obama) of the District of D.C. on May 29 granted a preliminaryinjunctionblocking President Trump's global tariffs under the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act and denying the government's motionto transfer
App.12the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade. The administration has appealedto the DC Circuit, and Judge Contreras on June 3 stayed his own injunctionafter Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit action in a related case.Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certioraribefore judgment on July 17, and theSupreme Court granted certiorari on September 9. 71.
Newsom v. Trump
, No. 3:25-cv-04870- Senior District Judge Charles R.Breyer (Clinton) of the Northern District of California on June 12 issued atemporary restraining orderenjoining Defendants "from deploying members of theCalifornia National Guard in Los Angeles" and directing Defendants "to returncontrol of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom." The Trumpadministration immediately appealed on June 12 to the Ninth Circuit, and a panelgranted an administrative staythe same day, and on June 19 granted a stay pending appeal. On September 2, Judge Breyer filed an order granting injunctiverelief , and on September 4 the Ninth Circuitordered an administrative stayof the September 2 order.72.
AFGE, AFL-CIO v. U.S. OPM
, No. 1:25-cv-01237- Judge Denise L. Cote(Clinton) of the Southern District of New York issued an opinion granting apreliminary injunctionon June 9, 2025, finalized and issuedon June 20, 2025 prohibiting the Office of Personnel Management from continuing to share federalemployee records with individuals tied to the Department of Government Efficiency(DOGE).73.
Slaughter and Bedoya v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00909- Judge Loren L. AliKhan(Biden) of the District of D.C. on July 17, 2025 granted summary judgmentrestoring Plaintiff Rebecca Slaughter to the FTC. The Trump administration hasappealed to the DC Circuit, which issued an administrative stayon July 21, then dissolved that stay and deniedstay pending appeal September 2. The Trumpadministration applied for a stayof the July 17 order at the Supreme Court, whichthe Chief Justice granted on Sept. 8.74.
Harper v. Bessent
, No. 1:25-cv-01294- Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden) of the Districtof D.C. on July 22, 2025 issued summary judgmentreinstating two board membersof National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) fired by President Trump, eventhough the underlying statute provides no for-cause protection for the boardmembers. DOJ appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which on July 25 granted anadministrative stayof Judge Ali's order.75.
Boyle v. Trump
, No. 8:25-cv-01628- Judge Matthew J. Maddox (Biden) of theDistrict of Maryland on June 13, 2025 issued summary judgmentrestoring to theirpositions three U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Commissionersfired by President Trump. On appeal, the Fourth Circuiton July 1, 2025 denied the
App.13motionfor an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal, then on July 29expeditedthe briefing schedule after the Supreme Courton July 23, 2025 stayed the district court's injunction.76.
Aviel v. Gor
, No. 1:25-cv-00778- Judge Loren L. AliKhan (Biden) of theDistrict of D.C. on April 4, 2024 granted a preliminary injunctionstopping theremoval of Aviel from her position as president and CEO of IAF, and enjoiningPeter Marocco from serving as an acting Board member until Senate confirmation. The DC Circuit denied a staypending appeal on June 5. On August 14, JudgeAliKhan granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.77.
Federal Education Association v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-01362- Judge Paul L.Friedman (Clinton) of the District of D.C. on August 14, 2025 granted a preliminaryinjunctionto labor organizations representing educators who work at schoolsoperated by the Department of Defense, blocking the Trump administration'sexecutive order which removed collective bargaining where it impacts nationalsecurity.78.
American Foreign Service Association v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-01030- JudgePaul L. Friedman (Clinton) of the District of D.C. on May 14, 2025 granted apreliminary injunctionblocking the Trump Administration's removal of collectivebargaining at the U.S. State Department and USAID. The DC Circuit on June 20,2025 granted a stay pending appealand on July 30 deniedthe plaintiff's petition for rehearing en banc.79.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Trump
, No. 2:17-cv-04540- Judge WendyBeetlestone (Obama) of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on issued a 55-pagenationwide injunctionthat "the religious exemption rule and the moral exemptionrule are vacated," even though the Supreme Court had on July 8, 2020 upheld therules in a 7-2 decision. The Little Sisters of the Poor appealed to the Third Circuit,and the Trump administration also filed a notice of appealAugust 26, 2025. 80.
Protect Democracy Project v. OMB
, No. 1:25-cv-01111- Judge Emmet G.Sullivan (Clinton) of the District of D.C. on July 21 granted partial summaryjudgment, ordering the Office of Management and Budget to reinstate the PublicApportionments Database, and final judgmenton July 28. The Trumpadministration appealed to the DC Circuit, which on July 23 issued anadministrative stayof the July 21 order, then on August 9 dissolved the stay, effective August 21, and further briefing is ongoing.81.
Abramowitz v. Lake
, No. 1:25-cv-00887- Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan) of the District of D.C. on April 22 granted a preliminary injunction, which was thenpartially stayedby the DC Circuit on May 3, and argument on the meritsis
App.14scheduled for September 22, 2025. On August 28, Judge Lamberth granted a partialsummary judgmentto Voice of America (VOA) Director Michael Abramowitz, rulingthat his removal was unlawful; the Trump administration on September 3 appealedthis judgmentto the DC Circuit.82.
Cook v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-02903- Judge Jia M. Cobb (Biden) of the Districtof D.C. on September 9 issued a preliminary injunctionrestoring Federal ReserveBoard Governor Lisa Cook to her position. The Trump administration filed anemergency motion for a staypending appeal and administrative stay at the DCCircuit on September 11.83.
Perlmutter v. Blanche
, No. 1:25-cv-01659- Judge Timothy J. Kelly (Trump) of the District of D.C. on July 30 denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunctionmotion, andon August 20 denied Plaintiff's emergency motionfor an injunction pending appeal.On September 10, the D.C. Circuit granted a preliminary injunctionto ShiraPerlmutter, the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office,blocking the administration's attempt to remove her, concluding that only theLibrarian of Congress, and not the President, has statutory authority to removePerlmutter from her position.
FUNDING
84.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought
, No. 1:25-cv-00381- Judge AmyB. Jackson (Obama) of the District of D.C. halted Trump's budget cuts and layoffs atthe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On March 31, the governmentappealedJudge Jackson's preliminary injunction order to the D.C. Circuit; which onApril 11 ordered a partial stayof the preliminary injunction, and on August 15vacated the PI and remandedto D. DC.85.
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State
, No. 1:25-cv-00400- Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden) of the District of D.C. ordered Trump to unfreeze andspend $2 billion in USAID funds. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling with JusticesAlito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch dissenting, left the order in place. On Apr.2, defendants appealedJudge Ali's March 10 preliminary injunction order to theD.C. Circuit, which vacated the impoundment orderon August 13. On September 3,Judge Ali granted a preliminary injunctionon APA grounds, and the DC Circuit onSept. 5 denied a request for staypending appeal. On emergency application to theSupreme Court, on September 9 Chief Justice Roberts stayed the injunctionwithrespect to funds subject to the President's August 28, 2025 recision proposalcurrently pending before Congress.86.
Colorado v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services
, No. 1:25-cv-00121- JudgeMary S. McElroy (Trump) of the District of Rhode Island, on April 5 issued a
App.15temporary restraining orderreinstating payments to a coalition of states whichsued the Trump administration over the cancellation of $11 billion in public healthfunding.87.
National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB
, No. 1:25-cv-00239- Judge Loren L.AliKhan (Biden) of the District of D.C. blocked Trump's order to pause federal aidwhile reviewing to determine if it aligned with administration policy. TheGovernment's appealed to the D.C. Circuiton April 25, and briefing is pending.88.
Massachusetts v. NIH
, No. 1:25-cv-10338- Judge Angel Kelley (Biden) of theDistrict of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunctionon March 5 prohibitingimplementation of the NIH Guidance "in any form with respect to institutionsnationwide," and final judgment and permanent injunctionon April 4. The casewas appealed to the First Circuiton April 9. 89.
New York v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00039- Judge John J. McConnell Jr. (Obama)of the District of Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining orderon January 31enjoining Trump's order to freeze federal spending while reviewing to determinethat it aligned with administration policy. The First Circuit, on March 26, denied defendants' motion for a staypending appeal of the district court's preliminaryinjunction order.90.
RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake
, No. 1:25-cv-00799- Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan)of the District of D.C. granted a temporary restraining orderMarch 25, forbiddingTrump from cutting funds to Voice of America. The TRO was extendedon April 8,another TRO was grantedon April 29, another TROon May 30, and another TRO on July 1. On July 18, Judge Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction. Onappeal to the DC Circuit, an administrative staywas granted by a panel on May 1, but on May 7, the DC Circuit en banc overruled the panel, restoring the districtcourt's stay.91.
Widakuswara v. Lake
, No. 1:25-cv-01015- Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan)of the District of D.C. issued a preliminary injunction on April 22requiring thereinstatement of employment positions and funding for Voice of America and U.S.Agency for Global Media. The government on April 24 appealed to the DC Circuit,which issued an administrative stayMay 1, a stay pending appealMay 3, and consolidation with other cases on May 28. Oral argument is scheduled forSeptember 22, 2025.92.
Radio Free Asia v. United States of America
, No. 1:25-cv-00907- Judge RoyceC. Lamberth (Reagan) of the District of D.C. issued a preliminary injunctionrequiring restoration of funding of Radio Free Asia and Middle East BroadcastingNetworks on April 25. The government immediately filed an appeal to the D.C.
App.16Circuit, which granted a stay pending appealon May 3, which was administratively stayed by the circuit court en banc on May 7, and consolidation with other cases onMay 28. Oral argument is scheduled for September 22, 2025.93.
Massachusetts Fair Housing Ctr. v. HUD
, No. 3:25-cv-30041- Judge RichardG. Stearns (Clinton) of the District of Massachusetts enjoined Trump's cuts to HUDgrant funding and ordered spending reinstated. 94.
Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A.
, No. 1:25-cv-00698- Judge Tanya S.Chutkan (Obama) of the District of D.C. on March 18 issued a temporaryrestraining order, on April 15 issued a preliminary injunction orderand an opinion on April 16 enjoining EPA's Termination of Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundGrants. The DC Circuit vacated the PIon September 2, and plaintiff/appellees fileda petition for rehearing en banc on September 10.95.
Association of American Medical Colleges v. NIH
, No. 1:25-cv-10340- JudgeAngel Kelley (Biden) of the District of Massachusetts enjoined Trump's NIH grantfunding cuts. The case was appealed to the First Circuit(25-1344) on April 9. 96.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon
, No. 1:25-cv-00702- Judge Julie R. Rubin (Biden) of the District of Maryland issued aninjunction requiring reinstatement of terminated education grant funds. Defendants appealedthe preliminary injunction to the Fourth Circuit. On April 1,the Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' motion to place the case in abeyance, on April10, granted the defendants' motion for stay pending appeal.97.
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al. v. Vought
, No. 1:25-cv-00458- Judge Matthew J. Maddox (Biden) of the District of Maryland on February 25issued a temporary restraining orderpreventing Trump from defunding the CFPB. The TRO was extended on February 28, preliminary injunction deniedMarch 14,and the case was voluntarily dismissedon June 12. 98.
Association of American Universities v. Department of Health and HumanServices
, No. 1:25-cv-10346- Judge Angel Kelley (Biden) of the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide injunction against Trump's NIH funding cuts. Defendants appealedto the First Circuit on April 9.99.
Association of American Universities v. Dept. of Energy
, No. 1:25-cv-10912- Judge Allison D. Burroughs (Obama) of the District of Massachusetts issued atemporary restraining orderon April 16 against the cap instituted onreimbursements for indirect costs for federal research grants from the Departmentof Energy.
App.17100.
American Library Association v. Sonderling
, No. 1:25-cv-01050- JudgeRichard J. Leon (G.W. Bush) of the District of D.C. granted a temporary restrainingorderon May 1 against the executive order which requires spending reduction of the Institute for Museum and Library Services.101.
Rhode Island v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00128- Chief Judge John J. McConnell,Jr. (Obama) of the District of Rhode Island, granted a preliminary injunction onMay 6 to a coalition of states which sued over an Executive Order which requires 7agencies to reduce their functions.102.
State of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Education
, No. 1:25-cv-02990- JudgeEdgardo Ramos (Obama) of the Southern District of New York granted apreliminary injunctionJune 3 that prohibits the U.S. Department of Educationfrom cancelling over $1 billion in unspent COVID-19 pandemic funding grantsextended past the original deadline by the prior administration. On appeal to theSecond Circuit, a motions hearing was held on June 17.103.
San Fransisco U.S.D. v. AmeriCorps
, No. 3:25-cv-02425- Judge Edward M.Chen (Obama) of the Northern District of California granted a temporaryrestraining orderon March 31 after San Francisco Unified School District sued overactions taken to fire employees and freeze grant funding at AmeriCorps.104.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service
, No.1:25-cv-00511- Judge Christopher R. Cooper (Obama) of the District of D.C.issued a preliminary injunctionon March 10 in a lawsuit against DOGE and ElonMusk regarding compliance with FOIA and the Federal Records Act.105.
American Public Health Association v. NIH
, No. 1:25-cv-10787and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kennedy, Jr.
No. 1:25-cv-10814- JudgeWilliam G. Young (Reagan) of the District of Massachusetts issued a ruling fromthe bench that the "challenged [NIH Grant] directives are vacated." Appeals arepending at the First Circuit:
APHA v. NIH
and
Mass. v. Kennedy
. The U.S.Supreme Court on August 21, 2025 granted a partial stayof the district court'sorders.106.
Global Health Council V. Donald J. Trump,
No. 1:25-cv-00402- Judge AmirH. Ali (Biden) of the District of D.C. on March 10 issued a preliminary injunctionordering the Trump administration to make available billions of dollarsappropriated in the 2024 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, claiming thepresident cannot refuse to spend money already appropriated for foreign aid. Thedefendants have appealed to the DC Circuit, where oral argument was heard July7, 2025.
App.18107.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy
, No. 1:25-cv-11913- Judge Indira Talwani (Obama) of the District of Massachusetts, on July 7, 2025,granted a temporary restraining orderprohibiting the "enforcing, retroactivelyenforcing, or otherwise applying" of the Medicaid cuts in the so-called "Big BeautifulBill" against Planned Parenthood. Judge Talwani issued a preliminary injunctionon July 21, followed by a second preliminary injunctionJuly 28, and denied a stay pending appeal on Aug. 29. An appeal to the First Circuitwas docketed on July 23,and the July 21 and July 28 injunctions were stayed pending appealby the circuitcourt on September 11, 2025.108.
Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium v. Department of Education
, No. 1:25-cv-01407- Judge Paul L. Friedman (Clinton) of the District of D.C., on July 30 issued apreliminary injunctionblocking the Department of Education from terminatingEquity Assistance Center grants to MAEC.109.
Launch Alaska v. Department of Navy, Office of Naval Research
, No.3:25-cv-00141- Senior Judge G. Murray Snow (G.W. Bush) of the District of Alaska on August 5 granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trumpadministration's termination of a federal grant which was a part of the ARCTICprogram.110.
Washington v. FEMA
, No. 1:25-cv-12006- Judge Richard G. Stearns (Clinton)of the District of Massachusetts on August 5, 2025 granted a preliminary injunctionpreventing funds allocated to the pre-disaster management program "BuildingResilient Infrastructure and Communities" from being spent for other purposes.111.
The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities
, No.1:25-cv-03923- Senior Judge Colleen McMahon (Clinton) of the Southern Districtof New York on August 6, 2025 granted a preliminary injunctionto a class of plaintiffs, blocking the Trump administration's cancellation of National Endowmentfor Humanities grants.112.
Oregon Council for the Humanities v. DOGE
, No. 3:25-cv-00829- JudgeMichael H. Simon (Obama) of the District of Oregon on August 6, 2025 granted apreliminary injunctionblocking the Trump administration's cancellation of National Endowment for Humanities grants.113.
National Endowment for Democracy v. U.S.A.
, No. 1:25-cv-00648- JudgeDabney L. Friedrich (Trump) of the District of D.C. on August 11, 2025 granted apreliminary injunctionblocking the Trump administration's impoundment of fundsappropriated for NED.
App.19114.
Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
, No.1:25-cv-01775- Judge Beryl A. Howell (Obama) of the District of D.C. on August14, 2025 granted a preliminary injunctionvacating the termination of federalgrants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.115.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Dept. of HHS
, No. 1:25-cv-11048 - Judge Allison D. Burroughs (Obama) of the District of Massachusetts on September3 granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff, after Harvard sued over theTrump administration freezing $2.2 billion in federal funds.
ELECTIONS
116.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. EOP
, No. 1:25-cv-00946- JudgeColleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton) of the District of D.C. granted a universalinjunctionon April 24 against Executive Order 14,248, requiring documentary proof of United States citizenship to vote in Federal elections. This case consolidatesthree suits brought by racial minority associations, the Democratic Party,campaigns, and elected officials. 117.
State of California v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-10810- Judge Denise J. Casper(Obama) of the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunctionon June13 against the Trump administration's efforts to prevent noncitizen voting, blockingimplementation of five sections of Executive Order 14,248.
DEI-RELATED PROGRAMS
118.
Nat'l Ass'n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-00333- Judge Adam B. Abelson (Biden) of the District of Maryland enjoined Trump's orderblocking federal funding for DEI programs. On March 14, the Fourth Circuitgrantedthe government's motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pendingappeal.119.
California v. Department of Education
, No. 1:25-cv-10548- Judge Myong J.Joun (Biden) of the District of Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining orderblocking Trump's withdrawal of funds to schools teaching DEI. The First Circuitdenied a motionfor stay pending appeal. On April 4, the Supreme Court granted astaypending appeal, writing "the Government is likely to succeed in showing theDistrict Court lacked jurisdiction" and that the case may need to be brought in theCourt of Federal Claims.120.
Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump
, No. 1:25-cv-02005- Senior JudgeMatthew F. Kennelly (Clinton) of the Northern District of Illinois entered atemporary restraining order commanding the reinstatement of DEI grants.
App.20121.
Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
, No. 1:25-cv-00300- Judge Anthony J. Trenga (G.W. Bush) of the Eastern District of Virginia issued an"administrative stay" against firing DEI employees with CIA and DNI. The courtthen considered and rejected imposing a TRO to the same effect. On March 31,Judge Trenga granted a preliminary injunctionenjoining the defendants. On May6, defendants filed notice of appealto the Fourth Circuit.122.
American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education
, No.1:25-cv-00628- Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher (Trump) of the District of Marylandon April 24 stayed the implementationof the U.S. Department of Education'sFebruary 14, 2025 "Dear Colleague Letter" ending diversity, equity, and inclusionpractices in schools by threatening to withhold federal funding from those thatrefuse to comply. On August 14, the District Court granted summary judgementholding the letter and certification requirement "unlawful and aside."123.
National Education Association v. US Department of Education
, No.1:25-cv-00091- Judge Landya B. McCafferty (Obama) of the District of NewHampshire enjoined the U.S. Department of Education's February 14, 2025 "DearColleague Letter" ending diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in schools bythreatening to withhold funding from those that refuse to comply.124.
NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education
, No. 1:25-cv-01120- Judge DabneyL. Friedrich (Trump) of the District of D.C. enjoined the U.S. Department of Education's February 14, 2025 "Dear Colleague Letter" ending diversity, equity,and inclusion practices in schools by threatening to withhold federal funding fromthose that refuse to comply.125. American Association of Physicians for Human Rights v. NIH, No.8:25-cv-01620- Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the District of Maryland on issued anAugust 1 orderand August 14 preliminary injunctionopinion barring NIH and HHS from enforcing executive orders that terminate or deny funding of projectsinvolving LGBT, gender identity, diversity, equity, or related topics, vacated thecancellation of the plaintiffs' grants and ordered the agencies to process theirapplications.126.
Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi
, No. 1:25-cv-00279- Judge William E. Smith (G.W. Bush) of the District of Rhode Island on August 8,2025 granted a preliminary injunctionblocking the Trump administration'scancellation of grants related to DEI or gender ideology.
Citizens United published this content on September 16, 2025, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on September 16, 2025 at 18:59 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]