319 F. Supp. 3d 539
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- July 26, 2017: President Trump announced via Twitter a policy barring transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military; plaintiffs sued and the court issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 30, 2017 restoring the status quo ante.
- Defendants moved to (1) dismiss President Trump as a defendant via Rule 12(c), (2) partially dissolve the preliminary injunction as to the President, and (3) obtain a protective order relieving the President from discovery obligations.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint to withdraw requests for injunctive or declaratory relief against the President and do not oppose dissolving the injunction as to him.
- The Court evaluated separation-of-powers precedent bearing on whether courts may grant equitable relief against the President personally and whether retaining him as a party is appropriate.
- The Court concluded it will not grant injunctive or declaratory relief directly against the President on these facts, dismissed the President as a defendant, and dissolved the preliminary injunction only as to him; the injunction remains in effect against other defendants.
- Because the President is no longer a party, the motion for a protective order regarding the President is denied as moot; the Court left open disputes over privileges for President-related discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preliminary injunction should be dissolved as to the President | Plaintiffs do not oppose dissolution and amended complaint removes injunctive requests against the President | Injunction should be dissolved as it applies to the President | Dissolved as to the President (unopposed) |
| Whether the President should be dismissed as a defendant | Plaintiffs argued the President’s acts are central and retaining him is appropriate for relief and discovery | Separation-of-powers bars equitable relief against the President personally; retaining him risks constitutional confrontation | President dismissed as a defendant; Court will not grant relief directly against him |
| Whether courts can issue injunctions or declaratory relief against the President | Plaintiffs relied on precedents that allowed suits in some contexts (e.g., ministerial duties) | Defendants invoked long-standing limits on injunctive/declaratory relief against the President | Court held separation-of-powers principles preclude granting equitable relief against the President on these facts; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether the President must respond to discovery or receive protective order | Plaintiffs sought discovery from the President | Defendants sought protective order excusing the President from discovery | Motion for protective order rendered moot by dismissal of President as party; privileges and discoverability remain for later resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (courts generally lack jurisdiction to enjoin the President in performance of official duties)
- State of Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1866) (historical bar on courts ordering the President to perform executive acts)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional confrontations between branches)
- Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the President or subject him to declaratory relief)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (courts generally cannot issue relief against the President; relief often available against subordinate officials)
- Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (distinguishes ministerial duties from discretionary presidential acts; does not broadly permit injunctive relief against discretionary presidential action)