Filed Date: July 15, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the continued service of three members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Board of Directors, despite President Trump's purported firing of each. CPB's board members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Statute sets the term of each board member at 6 years, but does not contain an explicit provision requiring removals to be for good cause only. No more than 5 members of the Board may belong to the same party; Congress also required members to be "eminent in" their fields and for members to represent licensees and permitees of public TV and radio stations. Since CPB is a corporation, not a government agency, its employees are not officers or employees of the United States. Trump purported to fire the three CPB board members on April 28, 2025; from that date, the board members continued to carry out their duties as normal while contesting their firing in a separate lawsuit. The United States alleged that by doing so, the board members violated the District of Columbia Code.
The United States noted that defendants had been denied preliminary relief in Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, the lawsuit they filed against the Trump Administration in April 2025. However, that court's denial of preliminary relief expressly declined to reach the merits of the board members' claims. Moreover, that court's denial of an injunction was without prejudice and stipulated that if Trump or his administration "took steps to interfere" with CPB's independence, the board members could renew their claim.
On July 15, 2025, the United States of America filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, naming the three purportedly-fired members of CPB's Board in their personal capacities as defendants. The United States alleged that defendants unlawfully held office and sought relief pursuant to the District of Columbia's quo warranto statute, a rarely-used mechanism originating from English common law which inquires into the authority under which a public office or franchise is held. The United States sought a declaration that defendants unlawfully held their offices; vacatur of any actions taken by defendants after their purported removal; an injunction against defendants' continued service on the Board; an order that defendants return their salary accrued since their purported firing; and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to Randolph D. Moss.
Laura Ross, one of the three board members, subsequently informed CPB's CEO that she "no longer [held] or exercise[d]" her position on the Board. As a result, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all their claims against Ross on July 25, 2025.
The government moved for summary judgement on August 29, 2025.
Plaintiffs' claims against the other two board members remain active. This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Matt Petrillo (7/28/2025)
Jinan Abufarha (9/27/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70806414/parties/united-states-v-ross/
Moss, Randolph Daniel (District of Columbia)
Hudak, Brian P. (District of Columbia)
Anderson, Trisha Beth (District of Columbia)
Bidad, Helia (District of Columbia)
Konkel, Kaitlin Brooke (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70806414/united-states-v-ross/
Last updated Oct. 3, 2025, 8:57 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 15, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States of America.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Laura G. Ross (Washington), Private Entity/Person
Thomas E. Rothman (Washington), Private Entity/Person
Diane Kaplan (Washington), Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: