Filed Date: Feb. 10, 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). On February 10, 2025, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network 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. Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Ex Parte Young. Represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, Plaintiffs alleged that a January 20, 2025, Executive Order 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, Take Care Clause, and Separation of Powers. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to Judge Amir H. Ali.
On February 11, Judge Ali related this case to Global Health Council v. Trump, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that same day.
On February 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and Judge Ali held a telephonic hearing. The court issued the TRO the following day, 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. Judge Ali denied Plaintiffs' additional requests to enjoin Defendants from making individual personnel decisions or terminating individual contracts.
The Court ordered Defendants to submit a status report detailing their compliance with the order by February 18, 2025. The day after the status report was filed, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion arguing that Defendants should be found in contempt because their status report and other evidence demonstrated that they had not followed the TRO. The Court partially granted Plaintiffs' motion on February 20, finding that Defendants had not substantially complied with the terms of the TRO but declining to hold Defendants in contempt. 2025 WL 569381.
On February 21, Defendants asked the court to clarify or stay the TRO, arguing that the TRO as written purported to prohibit Defendants from relying on existing statutory and contractual authorities to review, suspend, and terminate existing foreign assistance grants. Such an order, Defendants argued, would implicate constitutional concerns warranting a stay pending emergency appellate relief. Judge Ali rejected the request for a stay the next day, on February 22. 2025 WL 577516. On February 25, at a status conference, Plaintiffs made an emergency oral motion to enforce the TRO. This was granted; Judge Ali ordered Defendants to comply with the TRO by February 26, 2025.
On February 25, Defendants sought relief from this last order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Docket No. 25-5046), 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. Defendants sought relief from the 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 625755.
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, "Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, 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." As is usual in emergency motions, the Court did not explain itself. 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.”
Meanwhile, PI briefing moved forward in the District Court; a hearing was held on March 6, 2025. The 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."
On March 17 the Court ordered Defendants to submit a status report by March 19 "which includes the updated total number of payments for work completed prior to February 13, 2025 (1) which have been processed since March 10 for Plaintiffs; (2) which have been processed since March 10 for non-Plaintiffs; and (3) which remain to be processed for Plaintiffs and non-Plaintiffs. Defendants' status report shall include a proposed timeline for processing the remaining payments that is consistent with the Court's [300 payments per day feasibility] benchmark."
After some back and forth between the parties regarding Defendants' compliance with the PI, the Court issued an order on March 28 finding that Defendants proposed compliance timeline was consistent with the Court's feasibility benchmark and ordering the parties to meet and confer regarding any outstanding disputes regarding compliance with the PI.
Defendants appealed the PI to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 2 (Docket No. 25-5098). On May 6, the Court of Appeals consolidated this appeal and the appeal filed in Global Health Council (Docket No. 25-5097), and issued a briefing schedule requiring Defendant-Appellants to submit their brief by May 9. Plaintiff-Appellees' brief was due June 6, with Appellants' reply brief due June 18.
In the District Court, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay the PI on April 11, citing the Supreme Court's April 4 decision in Department of Education v. California issuing a stay of a preliminary injunction and indicating that suits involving contracts with the federal government must be brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 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 stay the same day, and also ordered Plaintiffs to respond to the request for an indicative ruling by April 16 and set a status conference for May 6.
Plaintiffs immediately filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for an indicative ruling, which the Court granted on April 14, giving the plaintiffs until April 25.
On May 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) as a party.
On May 13, the District Court denied Defendants' motion for an indicative ruling on the PI, stating that if Defendants wished to rely on the Department of Education in support of their argument on appeal, the proper forum for that argument was the Court of Appeals.
On June 12, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The following day, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the PI, requesting that the Court order Defendants to submit a plan for compliance with its March 10 order.
On July 21, 2025, the District Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce. It reiterated that, pursuant to the preliminary injunction, the Defendants were required to obligate all expiring foreign assistance appropriations in accordance with Congress’s directives, and it rejected the Defendants post hoc rationalizations for certain terminations, holding that the Defendants could not give effect to terminations issued prior to February 13, 2025, and must promptly take steps to come into compliance as to the awards at issue. On August 11, the Defendants filed a motion to clarify the scope of the enforcement order and the preliminary injunction, in particular, that neither restrained the Defendants from taking action with respect to agreements based on their exercise of authorities under statutes, regulations, and other legal authorities to enforce terms of particular contracts, to take action pursuant to other executive orders, or to take actions to which counterparties to contracts or agreements consent.
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. That is, 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, here, they lacked a cause of action under the APA because APA review was precluded by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Nor could the plaintiffs reframe a fundamentally statutory dispute as an ultra vires claim. 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.
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 and making clear that “[b]ecause [the D.C. Circuit’s] mandate has not yet issued, the preliminary injunction that requires the government to obligate the appropriated funds remains in effect.” 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. Also on August 20, back in the appellate court, the Defendants filed their opposition to en banc review and a cross-motion to stay the preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, to issue the mandate expeditiously so that the appellate court's August 13 decision could take effect. 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).
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 modified decision reiterated that the Plaintiffs could not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying allegation and claimed authority were statutory, but that, here, the Plaintiffs did not have a cause of action to enforce the Impoundment Control Act through the APA because the ICA precludes such review. However, 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.
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.
On September 1, in the District Court, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to require the Defendants "to make available for obligation and to obligate, by September 30, 2025, for the uses and purposes specified by Congress, the full amount of expiring funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in [certain specified categories of appropriations] unless Congress rescinds the appropriations through duly enacted legislation."
On September 1, in the District Court, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to require the Defendants "to make available for obligation and to obligate, by September 30, 2025, for the uses and purposes specified by Congress, the full amount of expiring funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in [certain specified categories of appropriations] unless Congress rescinds the appropriations through duly enacted legislation." The District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion on September 3, while also granting in part the motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and partial summary judgment in the related case Global Health Council v. Trump. 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, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Clinic et al, 1:25-cv-00400, District of Columbia, 2025)
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 case Global Health Council v. Trump (Docket No. 25-5319). On the same day, the Defendants also filed a motion for stay of the pending September 3 appeal before the District Court. On September 5, the District Court denied the Defendants’ motion for 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 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. 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 recission proposal currently pending before Congress.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Meredith Ulle (3/21/2025)
Clearinghouse (3/5/2025)
Emma Vayda (8/18/2025)
Muhammad Hammad Amin (10/22/2025)
Global Health Council v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
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/69627654/parties/aids-vaccine-advocacy-coalition-v-united-states-department-of-state/
Bateman, Lauren (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Daniel Tenny,
Attorney, Mark Reiling
Arnpriester, Natasha (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Patrick Jacobi, (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, Nicholas W. (District of Columbia)
Brown, Anthony G. (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)
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)
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)
Tong, William (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69627654/aids-vaccine-advocacy-coalition-v-united-states-department-of-state/
Last updated Oct. 30, 2025, 9:06 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. 10, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two non-profit organizations who receive federal foreign assistance through various programs administered by the State Department
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
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
Donald Trump (District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Supreme Court of the United States 25-A-00227
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00400
Supreme Court of the United States 25-A-00831
Supreme Court of the United States 25-A-00269
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05319
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05098
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05046
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: