DOJ 47
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Dept of State (1:25-cv-00400)

Court dockets

Background

TODO.

News

Government asks SCOTUS to vacate order
2025-02-27

Read the application.

Chris Geidner
BREAKING: DOJ goes to SCOTUS over order that State/USAID pay owed contracts by the end of the day. This is coming out of Judge Ali’s Feb. 13 TRO, which he ordered the government to adhere to — with a deadline — in a new order issued on Tuesday.
In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL., APPLICANTS AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.., APPLICANTS v. GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, ET AL. APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY Acting Solicitor General

Government asks appeals court for more time
2025-02-26

Read the appeals court decision denying the request.

Chris Geidner
NEW: Plaintiffs respond: "After flouting the district court’s temporary restraining order for a full twelve days in letter and in spirit ... Defendants bring this premature appeal in a last-ditch effort to evade the order of an Article III court." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
INTRODUCTION After flouting the district court's temporary restraining order for a full twelve days in letter and in spirit-requiring the district court to not once, not twice, but three times order compliance-Defendants bring this premature appeal in a last-ditch effort to evade the order of an Article III court. This Court should swiftly reject Defendants' latest stalling tactic, deny their stay motion, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Chris Geidner
OVERNIGHT: DOJ also filed an "Emergency Motion for Immediate Administrative Stay and Stay Pending Appeal" in the State/USAID funding case appeal at the DC Circuit. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
case caption pageINTRODUCTION In this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the district court has ordered the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion in taxpayer dollars within 36 hours, without regard to payment-integrity systems that would ensure that the monies claimed are properly owed, without regard to the federal government's meritorious arguments to the contrary, and without so much as addressing the government's sovereign-immunity defense. A stay pending appeal, and an immediate administrative stay, are necessary to prevent grave and irreparable harm to the government.

Government asks district court for more time
2025-02-26

Read DOJ's motion.

Read Judge Ali's order denying.

Chris Geidner
JUST IN: DOJ asks Judge Ali to stay his order from today — which was to enforce a TRO in place since Feb. 13 — because, DOJ says, "the Court’s order requires Defendants to disburse nearly $2 billion dollars by 11:59 PM tomorrow." THEY HAD TO DO SO SINCE FEB. 13, THOUGH!! That's the whole point!
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY THE COURT'S FEBRUARY 25 ORDER PENDING APPEAL Defendants respectfully seek a stay pending emergency appellate relief of the Court's oral ruling and minute order of February 25, 2025, granting Plaintiff' emergency motions to enforce the Court's temporary restraining order (Plaintiffs' oral Emergency Motion to Enforce Temporary Restraining Order, Civil Action No. 25-cv-400; Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 36, Civil Action No. 25-cv-402). Because the Court's order requires Defendants to disburse nearly $2 billion dollars by 11:59 PM tomorrow, including payments that Defendants may have a reasonable basis to dispute, a stay is warranted pending requests for immediate appellate relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) ("A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for.. a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal.").!

Government appeals
2025-02-25

Chris Geidner
BREAKING: DOJ is appealing Judge Ali's order — that feds pay contracts required under the TRO by 11:59p Wednesday, list names to the court who can respond to questions about TRO compliance, and turn over any post-TRO guidance to the court — to the D.C. Circuit.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 25-00400 (AHA) V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants. GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 25-00402 (AHA) DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF APPEAL All Defendants hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from this Court's Minute Entry and Order for proceedings held on February 25, 2025 and the oral relief granted (not assigned ECF No.).Dated: February 25, 2025 Respectfully submitted, ERIC J. HAMILTON Deputy Assistant Attorney General ALEXANDER K. HAAS Director LAUREN A. WETZLER Deputy Director CHRISTOPHER R. HALL Assistant Branch Director /s/ Indraneel Sur INDRANEEL SUR (D.C. Bar 978017) Senior Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Chris Geidner
BREAKING: Without limiting any of the original terms of the TRO in the State/USAID funding cases before Judge Amir Ali, Ali grants plaintiffs motion to enforce the TRO. By 11:59p Wednesday, gov't defendants are to pay all of the obligations as of the Feb. 13 TRO.

TRO enforcement granted, contempt denied
2025-02-20

Read the order.

Chris Geidner
Ali specifically pointed to the same distinction I had made:
As in the case Defendants point to, New York v. Trump, the Court's TRO in this case does not restrain Defendants from taking action with respect to agreements based on their "exercise of authorities under statutes, regulations, and other legal authorities." While the Court made clear that the agencies may take action on particular contracts pursuant to their contractual terms, it did so because Defendants had specifically raised that as a concern and in the interest of ensuring its temporary injunction was as tailored as possible to the irreparable harm and reliance interests that had been shown. However, nothing in the TRO limits the agencies from conducting an individualized review of agreements and taking action as to a particular agreement where the agency determines that it has lawful authority to do so. Having confirmed that the TRO does not restrain the agencies in this respect, the Court denies Defendants' request to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction as moot.?At the same time, of course, the Court's TRO does not permit Defendants to simply continue their blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid pending a review of the agreements for whether they should be continued or terminated. That is the very action that the Court temporarily enjoined because Plaintiffs had shown that blanket suspension pending review would cause irreparable harm and was likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA for failing to consider the massive reliance interests. AIDS Vaccine, ECF No. 17 at 5-13. By doing so, and by enjoining Defendants and their agents from implementing any directives to undertake such blanket suspension, the Court was not inviting Defendants to continue the suspension while they reviewed contracts and legal authorities to come up with a new, post-hoc rationalization for the en masse suspension.
Chris Geidner
NEWS: Judge Ali partially grants the request to enforce the TRO — as to any "blanket suspension of funds pending review" from State/USAID — but denies the plaintiffs' request for the government to be held in contempt. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
to the extent Defendants have continued the blanket suspension, they are ordered to immediately cease it and to take all necessary steps to honor the terms of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other federal foreign assistance awards that were in existence as of January 19, 2025, including but not limited to disbursing all funds payable under those terms.

Plaintiffs ask for TRO to be enforced
2025-02-19

Read the motion.

Chris Geidner
In a sign of how quickly everything is moving, though, Charlie's piece doesn't even have the latest: The plaintiffs moved for Judge Ali to enforce the TRO — and to hold the relevant officials in contempt — and Ali ordered DOJ to respond by 1p Thursday. Doc: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
On February 18, nearly at midnight, Defendants filed the status report ordered by this Court. The report makes the remarkable assertion that Defendants have reviewed thousands of affected State Department and USAID grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, and concludes that—despite this Court’s unambiguous order—terminating nearly all foreign assistance funding was legal. This Court should not brook such brazen defiance of the express terms of its order. The Court should order Defendants to immediately comply, today, with the terms of the TRO by rescinding all suspensions, stop-work orders, and terminations issued since January 19, 2025. It should also order Defendants to immediately reimburse, today, foreign assistance recipients for work already performed and to promptly pay such recipients for work going forward. And the Court should issue an order finding Defendants in civil contempt and imposing specific penalties until Defendants comply with the Court’s order.

TRO granted
2025-02-14

Read the order.

Chris Geidner
Ali: “Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements … around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.”
Here, the stated purpose in implementing the suspension of all foreign aid is to provide the opportunity to review programs for their efficiency and consistency with priorities. However, at least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs. The most Defendants offer is the possibility that some of the abruptly terminated contracts might have had clauses which allowed termination in certain circumstances; however, as noted, Defendants have acknowledged that they implemented a blanket suspension that was not based on the presence or consideration of such contractual terms. To be sure, there is nothing arbitrary and capricious about executive agencies conducting a review of programs. But there has been no explanation offered in the record, let alone a "satisfactory explanation... including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made," as to why reviewing programs— many longstanding and taking place pursuant to contractual terms— required an immediate and wholesale suspension of appropriated foreign aid.