Filed Date: Feb. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Trump Administration's authority to suspend nearly all congressionally-appropriated foreign assistance funding and dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Case Initiation and Claims (February 11, 2025)
On February 11, 2025, the Global Health Council and several non-profit organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. State Department of State, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and USAID.
The Allegations: Represented by private counsel, Plaintiffs alleged that a January 20, 2025, Executive Order (EO) calling for the suspension of foreign aid funding and subsequent implementation guidance from the State Department, USAID, and OMB terminating existing foreign aid obligations violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Separation of Powers.
Relief Sought: Filing under the Administrative Procedure Act and Ex Parte Young, Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees. On the same day Plaintiffs filed the complaint, they also filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction (PI).
Case Assignment: The case was assigned to Judge Amir H. Ali. On February 11, Judge Ali related this case to AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 10.
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Proceedings
Issuance of TRO (Feb 13): On February 13, 2025, the Court issued a TRO prohibiting the State Department, USAID, and OMB from pausing disbursement of congressionally-appropriated foreign assistance funds on contracts that were in place as of January 19, 2025. 766 F.Supp.3d 74. The Court ordered Defendants to submit a status report detailing their compliance with the order by February 18, 2025.
Non-Compliance and Enforcement: Two days after the status report was filed, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking the court to enforce the TRO against Defendants because their status report and other evidence demonstrated that they had not complied with the TRO. The same day, Judge Ali partially granted an enforcement motion on the same grounds in the related case, finding that the defendants had not substantially complied with the terms of the TRO.
Order to Comply (Feb 25): On February 25, at a status conference, Plaintiffs made an emergency oral motion to enforce the TRO. The motion was granted, and Judge Ali ordered Defendants to comply with the TRO by Feb. 26, 2025.
Initial Appellate and Supreme Court Review
Appeal to D.C. Circuit (Feb 25-26): On February 25, Defendants sought relief from this last order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Docket No. 25-5047), filing a motion for an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal. The following day, Plaintiff-Appellees' filed a cross-motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Defendants' motions and dismissed the appeal.
Supreme Court’s Administrative Stay (Feb 26): Defendants sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, filing an application (Docket No. 24A831) to vacate the District Court order. Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay on February 26 and ordered further briefing. 2025 WL 621396.
Supreme Court Decision (Mar 5): On March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court withdrew the administrative stay and denied the motion to vacate the TRO, which was therefore permitted to go into effect. The Court instructed, "the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines."
Dissent: Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, dissented, objecting to both the procedure followed by the District Court and to the rejection of the government's sovereign immunity defense, which the dissent characterized as the district court's "blithely discard[ing] of sovereign dignity.”
Preliminary Injunction and D.C. Circuit Appeal
District Court Issuance of PI
The district court issued a PI on March 10 prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the State Department guidance regarding implementation of the EO, or giving effect to any actions taken to restrain foreign assistance between January 20 and February 13, 2025. 770 F.Supp.3d 121. The court further restrained Defendants from "unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds" and required them to make available "the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024."
Consolidated Appeal
Defendants appealed the PI to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 2 (Docket No. 25-5097). On May 6, the Court of Appeals consolidated this appeal and the appeal filed in AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (Docket No. 25-5098), and issued a briefing schedule.
District Court Motions During Appeal
Motion to Stay PI: Meanwhile in the District Court, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay the PI on April 11, 2025, citing the Supreme Court's April 4 decision in Department of Education v. California. Defendants also sought an indicative ruling from the court that if the D.C. Circuit returned jurisdiction over the PI to the district court, it would "dissolve the provision of the preliminary injunction mandating monetary payments to non-Plaintiffs for work completed prior to February 13, 2025." The District Court issued a partial administrative stay the same day.
Amended Complaint: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 22, adding a claim under the Fifth Amendment and a request for a writ of mandamus in the event the Court declined to grant relief on the other claims.
Subsequent Motions: On June 12, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On June 24, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the PI. On July 21, 2025, the District Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce.
D.C. Circuit Ruling and Remand (August 2025)
Appellate Decision (Aug 13)
On August 13, 2025, the Court of Appeals issued a decision, in the consolidated appeal, vacating in part the District Court's PI, holding that Plaintiffs lacked a cognizable cause of action to pursue their claims. The court held that the plaintiffs could not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority were statutory, and that they lacked a cause of action under the APA because APA review was precluded by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Instead, the court explained that the Comptroller General could bring suit, as authorized by the ICA. Accordingly, it vacated the part of the preliminary injunction involving impoundment. 2025 WL 2326021.
Post-Decision Motions
Two days later, on August 15, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Court of Appeals as well as an emergency motion to stay the August 13 decision and judgment pending en banc review. Meanwhile, that same day, the Defendants filed a motion in the District Court for a partial stay of the PI pending issuance of the appellate court's mandate.
On August 20, the Court of Appeals, en banc, entered an order denying Plaintiff's emergency motion to stay as the D.C. Circuit’s mandate has not yet issued. That same day, the District Court issued a minute order reminding the Defendants that they "remain[ed] under the obligation to take steps to comply with the preliminary injunction absent further order" from either court and setting a status conference for August 25.
On August 25, the district court denied the Defendants' motion for a partial stay pending issuance of the mandate.
On August 26, the Defendants filed in the U.S. Supreme Court a motion to stay the preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 25A227).
Amended Judgment and Mandate (Aug 28)
On August 28, the Court of Appeals issued an amended judgment modifying its August 13 decision and ordering the clerk to issue the mandate. 2025 WL 2480618. The Court of Appeals clarified that the Plaintiffs can pursue APA challenges to enforce the Appropriation Act. That same day, the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc and dismissed as moot the Defendants' petition for an emergency stay. Also on August 29, Defendants withdrew their application for a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court in light of the appellate court's August 28 decisions.
Second Amended Complaint and New Injunction
Plaintiffs' New Motion (Aug 29)
On August 29, Plaintiffs filed in the District Court a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint "to add a claim and recent factual developments that are responsive and directly relevant to the Circuit’s decision allowing Plaintiffs to pursue APA challenges to enforce appropriations statutes." The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and partial summary judgment seeking an order that would, among other reliefs, require the Defendants to obligate all expiring funds appropriated by Congress for foreign assistance programs, unless Congress rescinds the appropriations through duly enacted legislation. The motion sought these funds be obligated for their congressionally mandated purposes by the fiscal year-end deadline of September 30, 2025.
District Court Order (Sept 3)
On September 3, 2025, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and partial summary judgment in part and denied in part, while also granting preliminary injunction in the related case AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State. The District Court ordered the Defendants to “make available for obligation and obligate, by September 30, 2025… the expiring funds Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the fifteen categories” and not to de-obligate the funds after September 30, 2025, for the “purposes of unilaterally withholding the funds.” (District Court Order dated September 30, 2025, at 41, Global Health Council et al, 1:25-cv-00402, District of Columbia, 2025)
Appeals and Supreme Court Stay
Appeal of September 3 Order
On September 4, the Defendants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals and filed a motion to stay District Court’s order of September 3, 2025, which was consolidated with the appeal arising from AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State (Docket No. 25-5317).
On the same day, the Defendants also filed a motion for stay of the September 3 order pending appeal before the District Court.
On September 5, the District Court denied the Defendants’ motion for a stay on the basis that a stay would “directly contradict Congress’s statutory command.” The Court of Appeals also denied the Defendants’ motion for stay.
The Court of Appeals set a briefing schedule, beginning with Defendants' brief due by December 30, 2025, and ending with their reply brief due by February 19, 2026. This schedule has been pushed back several times at the Defendants' requests.
Supreme Court Proceedings
Application: The Defendants sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court by filing an application (Docket No. 25A269) on September 8, 2025, for partial stay of the preliminary injunction and an administrative stay during the pendency of the application.
Partial Stay: On September 9, 2025, the U.S Supreme Court partially stayed the preliminary injunction to the extent of the funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025, rescission proposal currently pending before Congress.
Full Stay: The parties filed respective briefs and replies. The Supreme Court, by a majority of 6:3, ordered stay of the preliminary injunction pending decision by the Court of appeals on September 26. The Supreme Court granted the stay on grounds that the Defendant's sufficiently showed that: the Impoundment Control Act precludes the Plaintiffs' suit under APA, mandamus relief is unavailable to respondents, and asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by Plaintiffs.
Third Amended Complaint
Show Cause Motion
On September 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the District Court to order the Defendants to show cause on their compliance with the Court’s preliminary injunction. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion in part and denied it in part, requiring Defendants to file a summary of foreign aid funds expiring September 30, 2025, in pre-2024 appropriations acts, where Defendants "may note where appropriate that all expiring unobligated funds for a particular appropriation are included in the rescission proposal."
In their next status report, Defendants attached a table with information "concerning pertinent expiring funds appropriated in annual appropriations statutes predating the 2024 fiscal year." Defendants additionally stated that they are "making best efforts to obligate all expiring funds that are not included in the President’s August 28 special message consistent with the terms of the appropriations (including applicable earmarks) and available authorities."
After several more weekly status reports, Defendants asked the Court to relieve them of this obligation. Plaintiffs did not oppose. Consequently, the Court decided to no longer require Defendants to file weekly status reports and ordered them to file their final one on December 19, 2025.
Third Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs filed a motion to file a third amendment complaint, which the Court granted on January 5, 2026. In their new complaint, Plaintiffs added several claims for relief. Their first portion of claims centered around the administration's failure to obligate Congressionally mandated foreign assistance funding, the second portion centered around the abolishment of the USAID, and the third had to do with the disposition of funds originally set to expire on September 30, 2025.
After Plaintiffs filed their new complaint, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 23, 2026, claiming that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case or, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Meredith Ulle (3/21/2025)
Clearinghouse (5/17/2025)
Emma Vayda (8/18/2025)
Muhammad Hammad Amin (11/23/2025)
Maddy Ligon (2/6/2026)
Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628254/parties/global-health-council-v-donald-j-trump/
Attorney, William Perdue, (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Daniel Tenny, (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Mark Reiling (District of Columbia)
Arnpriester, Natasha (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Patrick Jacobi, (District of Columbia)
Attorney, William Perdue, (District of Columbia)
Cahill, Nina (District of Columbia)
Callahan, Samuel Francis (District of Columbia)
Gardner, Allison (District of Columbia)
Jacobson, Daniel F. (District of Columbia)
McGinley, Dana Kagan (District of Columbia)
Pei, Sally (District of Columbia)
Perdue, William (District of Columbia)
Robinson, John (District of Columbia)
Wirth, Stephen K. (District of Columbia)
Arnpriester, Natasha (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Patrick Jacobi, (District of Columbia)
Becker-Cohen, Miriam (District of Columbia)
Bonta, Rob (District of Columbia)
Brown, Anthony G. (District of Columbia)
Brown, Nicholas W. (District of Columbia)
Campbell, Andrea Joy (District of Columbia)
Clark, Charity R. (District of Columbia)
Counsel, Elizabeth Wydra, (District of Columbia)
Ellison, Keith (District of Columbia)
Esquire, Brian L. (District of Columbia)
Ford, Aaron D. (District of Columbia)
Frazelle, Brian Rene (District of Columbia)
Frey, Aaron M. (District of Columbia)
Gaiser, Thomas Elliot (District of Columbia)
Gellerson, Tessa (District of Columbia)
General, Caroline S. (District of Columbia)
Gorod, Brianne Jenna (District of Columbia)
Jackson, Jeffrey N. (District of Columbia)
James, Letitia (District of Columbia)
Jennings, Kathleen (District of Columbia)
Kaul, Josh (District of Columbia)
Lindgrensavage, Cerin M. (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Anne E. (District of Columbia)
Mayes, Kristin K. (District of Columbia)
McGrey, Ben (District of Columbia)
Morrison, Alan Butler (District of Columbia)
Neronha, Peter F. (District of Columbia)
Nessel, Dana (District of Columbia)
Phatak, Ashwin P. (District of Columbia)
Platkin, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Raoul, Kwame (District of Columbia)
Rayfield, Dan (District of Columbia)
Romain, Alexandra L. (District of Columbia)
Sridharan, Mathura (District of Columbia)
Tong, William (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628254/global-health-council-v-donald-j-trump/
Last updated Feb. 23, 2026, 1:02 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three non-profit organizations (Global Health Council, HIAS, Management Services for Health), three for-profit companies (Chemonics Int'l Inc, DAI Global, Democracy International), one membership organization (Small Business Ass'n for Int'l Companies) and one non-partisan organization (American Bar Ass'n) who receive substantial funding from USAID.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Non-profit religious organization
Public (for-profit) corporation
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Donald J. Trump (District of Columbia), Federal
U.S. Department of State (District of Columbia), Federal
U.S. Agency for International Development (District of Columbia), Federal
Office of Management and Budget (District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00402
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05047
Supreme Court of the United States 24-A-00831
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05097
Supreme Court of the United States 25-A-00227
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05319
Supreme Court of the United States 25-00269
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: