Filed Date: July 1, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Trump Administration's termination of a grant to Launch Alaska, a nonprofit that worked with startups across the state to emphasize and support increased innovation and infrastructure development. Launch Alaska worked with the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) as part of its Alaska Regional Collaboration Technology Innovation and Commercialization (ARCTIC) program, which developed talent and research in the energy sector and supported the Navy's operational objectives throughout the region. On April 30, 2025, Launch Alaska's grant was terminated by ONR, because it "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities" promulgated by the Pentagon. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's termination of the grant without information about how or why it no longer effectuated program goals or agency priorities violated federal regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
After the Grant Appeal Authority issued a final administrative decision declining to rescind termination, Launch Alaska filed this lawsuit, on July 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska against the Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR). Launch Alaska sought a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the rescission of the grant's termination and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to Judge G. Murray Snow, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court for Arizona.
On July 3, 2025, Launch Alaska filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to rescind termination of the grant. ONR did not respond directly to that motion, instead filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on July 21, 2025. The court, treating ONR's motion to dismiss as also serving as a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, set a hearing regarding the injunction request for August 1, 2025.
On August 5, 2025, the court granted Launch Alaska's motion for preliminary relief and denied ONR's motion to dismiss. 2025 WL 2223744.
First, rejecting ONR's assertion that the lawsuit belonged in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act, the court held that it could appropriately exercise jurisdiction because Launch Alaska asserted a claim under the APA and sought specific relief -- setting aside termination of the grant until the government reconsidered termination in an appropriate manner -- beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Distinguishing this case from a recent stay order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Education v. California, the court noted that, here, Launch Alaska did not ask the court to order grant payments, but rather to set aside termination of the grant until it could be considered under proper procedures. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction to consider the APA claim under the logic of Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988), which held that the “fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as ‘money damages.’"
Next, granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, the court reasoned that Launch Alaska was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. It explained that review of the adequacy of the reason given for termination, as opposed to the termination decision itself, fell within the court's purview. The court reasoned that although federal regulation does not require much explanation to terminate a grant, it required more than a generic litany of non-specific reasons, as provided in the challenged Notice of Termination here. Therefore, Launch Alaska was likely to prevail in showing that the challenged grant termination was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the APA. The court concluded that preliminary relief would permit Launch Alaska to maintain its grant subject to a lawful termination and avoid irreparable harm. It therefore enjoined ONR from treating Launch Alaska’s grant as terminated and from future actions regarding the grant unless it complied with the procedural requirements contained in 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.340(a)(4) and 200.341(a) and the APA.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Matt Petrillo (7/24/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70683995/parties/launch-alaska-v-department-of-the-navy-office-of-naval-research/
Crone, John R. (Alaska)
Wilson, Edward Bryan (Alaska)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70683995/launch-alaska-v-department-of-the-navy-office-of-naval-research/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 12:52 p.m.
State / Territory: Alaska
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 1, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An Alaskan nonprofit
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of the Navy (- United States (national) -), 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.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
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:
Order Duration: 2025 - None
Issues
General/Misc.: