766 F.Supp.3d 74
D.D.C.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (nonprofits, businesses, and advocacy groups) challenged the Biden Administration's Executive Order 14169, which immediately suspended all congressionally appropriated foreign assistance funding pending review, leading to widespread terminations of grants, contracts, and staff layoffs.
- Plaintiffs contended the funding suspension severely harmed their operations, forced layoffs, shuttered programs, and threatened their core humanitarian and health work.
- Plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt enforcement of the suspension, presenting detailed evidence of irreparable harm.
- The Executive Order gave the Secretary of State power to waive the pause for specific programs, but plaintiffs demonstrated these waivers were rare, unpredictable, and insufficient to mitigate harm.
- The court held a hearing and found plaintiffs’ requested relief overbroad but found a narrower TRO warranted against the blanket suspension of aid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA: Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action | Blanket suspension is irrational, fails to consider reliance interests, and is unsupported by evidence or reasoning | Agency actions implementing presidential directives not reviewable under APA; no arbitrary action | The implementation of the suspension likely arbitrary and capricious; APA reviewable; relief warranted |
| Irreparable Harm | Plaintiffs face existential threats to business/mission, layoffs, shuttered programs, severe public health impact | Harms not adequately tied to legal rights; some contracts may allow termination | Plaintiffs showed concrete, irreparable harm; this factor strongly supports TRO |
| Separation of Powers/Take Care Clause | Executive lacked unilateral authority to suspend funds appropriated by Congress | Presidential/Agency authority to manage foreign aid; respect Article II foreign policy powers | Respect for Art. II noted but separation of powers concerns bolster plaintiffs' case |
| Scope of Injunctive Relief | TRO should enjoin all implementation of Executive Order, reinstate aid, prevent layoffs | Relief overbroad; should not limit exec. review or contract terms | TRO granted in part: enjoins only blanket suspension, not full EO or routine contract rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standard for preliminary injunction; requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (outlines preliminary injunction factors)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious agency action standard under APA)
- League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (irreparable harm includes obstacles to mission accomplishment)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (President's actions are not "agency actions" for APA purposes)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (irreparable harm requires more than financial injury)