XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.republicans, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc

https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/07/25/big-court-win-for-trump-as-judge- dismisses-usaid-case-on-jurisdictional-grounds-n2192086

We've seen the Trump administration score some legal wins on President
Donald Trump's agenda and executive orders in the appellate courts. But
wins at the district court level have been few and far between. On Friday, however, the administration scored a significant win in two companion
cases involving the dismantling of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), as D.C. District Court Judge Carl
Nichols ruled in favor of the administration on jurisdictional grounds.

Both the American Foreign Services Association (AFSA) and the Personal
Services Contractor Association (PSCA) sued the administration in February
over Executive Order 14169 ("Reevaluating and Realigning United States
Foreign Aid"), asserting that the executive action violates the separation
of powers and the Administrative Procedures Act, and seeking injunctive
relief. Judge Nichols, a Trump appointee, initially granted AFSA's motion
for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in part, but shortly thereafter
denied it and later denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. In
March, he denied PSCA's TRO motion as well.

READ MORE: Judge Presses Pause on Trump Administration's Planned Downsize
of USAID Workforce

NEW: Judge Says 'No' to USAID Workers Seeking TRO Over Contract
Terminations

In Friday's ruling, Judge Nichols denied the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment (basically a request for him to enter judgment in their
favor on the merits) and granted the administration's motion to dismiss in
the AFSA case, and in the PSCA case, he denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. His reasoning in both was that he/the court lacks proper jurisdiction over the claims before him. In other words, he
exercised judicial restraint, something we've seen sorely lacking at the district court level of late:

The Court ultimately cannot reach the merits of any plaintiff’s
allegations, however, because it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over
the claims of AFSA, AFGE, and Oxfam (which have moved for summary judgment after the Court denied their earlier motion for a preliminary injunction),
and that it likely lacks jurisdiction over the claims of the PSCA (which
has moved for a preliminary injunction). The Court will accordingly grant
the government’s motion to dismiss the AFSA case and will deny the PSCA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

...

As to AFSA and AFGE, which represent USAID employees, the Court explained
at length when denying the preliminary injunction that the Civil Service
Reform Act (CSRA), Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
(FSLMRS), and Foreign Service Act (FSA) likely channel their members’
claims to various agencies and provide for subsequent review in specific Article III courts.

...

What the Court is ultimately most moved by, then, are the same
jurisdictional principles that form the core of these cases. It is likely
that the only harms as to which the PSCA has standing to seek relief are
those regarding the termination of its members’ voluntarily entered
contractual agreements with USAID, and it is also likely that such
terminations must and be addressed (and, if unlawful, will be redressed)
under the CDA. See Widakuswara II, 2025 WL 1288817, at *5. On the other
hand, issuing preliminary relief requiring the reinstatement of PSCs would intrude into Executive Branch personnel matters and expand the judicial
role. See id. at *5–6 (“[T]he Executive Branch has a significant interest
in maintaining control over personnel matters” and “[t]he public has an interest in the Judicial Branch’s respect for the jurisdictional
boundaries laid down by Congress.”). Where the PSCA has not demonstrated
any irremediable injury and where Congress meanwhile has “limited the resolution of . . . potentially costly [personnel] claims” implicating the public fisc to “specialized tribunals” like the Court of Federal Claims,
id. at *6, the Court concludes that neither the equities nor the public interest favor a preliminary injunction.

So, yes, this is a win for the administration, but it has larger
implications beyond just these two cases. Margot Cleveland explains:


Margot Cleveland
·
Jul 25, 2025
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
3/ Reason this is key is because many other cases against Trump
Administration raise similar claims and the holding of no jurisdiction
would bar those claims too. Once appealed, the circuit court's precedent
will bind other DC district courts & will be persuasive in other cases.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwuBYCaXEAAr1cN?format=png&name=small

Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
4/4 And if disputes continue, SCOTUS will resolve which will bind all
lower courts.

Reason this is key is because many other cases against Trump
Administration raise similar claims and the holding of no jurisdiction
would bar those claims too. Once appealed, the circuit court's precedent
will bind other DC district courts & will be persuasive in other cases.

And if disputes continue, SCOTUS will resolve which will bind all lower
courts.

As Cleveland rightly notes, this ruling is square on the issue of whether
the district courts even have jurisdiction in many of these cases, and
this will propel the issue up before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has already hinted at finding they do not in some of its rulings regarding stays. If the Circuit agrees that the district courts do not
have jurisdiction for these sorts of claims, that binds the rest of the
D.C. district judges. And when/if the issue is forced to the Supreme
Court, that will resolve it once and for all as to all of the lower
courts. Now, there's no guarantee that's how the appellate courts will
rule, but as noted, their rulings thus far on the motions/applications for
stay they've been presented certainly appear to hint at that.


--
November 5, 2024 - Congratulations President Donald Trump. We look
forward to America being great again.

We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.

Every day is an IQ test. Some pass, some, not so much.

Thank you for cleaning up the disasters of the 2008-2017, 2020-2024 Obama
/ Biden / Harris fiascos, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)