Case: Total Fright Productions, LLC v. Turner
1:26-cv-02304 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: June 29, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case challenging the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) decision to move its headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Alexandria, Virginia. On June 29, 2026, three small businesses filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued HUD under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that HUD’s decision to move to Virginia violated the APA for being contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs—a party store, an Indian restaurant, and a fast-casual breakfast and lunch restaurant—claimed that they will lose economic opportunity if HUD moves to Virginia, as each business decided to operate in the D.C. location in part to serve the employees who worked in the area. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, a stay of HUD’s decision to move its headquarters out of D.C., an injunction preventing HUD from implementing the decision to move, a writ of mandamus compelling HUD to carry out its duties if complete relief is not available under the plaintiff’s other claims, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Federal law states that all offices attached to the seat of government must be exercised in D.C. unless otherwise expressly provided by law. 4 U.S.C. § 72. The plaintiffs argued that because neither HUD’s enacting statute nor any other law expressly provides that HUD may be headquartered outside of D.C., the decision to move to Virginia is contrary to law under the APA. The plaintiffs also argued that the decision to move was an arbitrary and capricious agency action, in violation of the APA, because HUD failed to adequately justify their action, failed to consider key aspects of the problem, reasonable alternatives, and the reliance interests at stake, failed to acknowledge or justify their change of position, and relied on factors Congress did not authorize them to consider in moving to Virginia.
The case was assigned to District Judge Reggie B. Walton.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sam Black (8/5/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73549825/parties/total-fright-productions-llc-v-turner/
Walton, Reggie B. (District of Columbia)
Cahill, Nina (District of Columbia)
Eisenberg, Lynn D. (District of Columbia)
Jacobson, Daniel F. (District of Columbia)
Robinson, John (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73549825/total-fright-productions-llc-v-turner/
Last updated Sept. 15, 2026, 3:14 a.m.
Docket for: TOTAL FRIGHT PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. TURNER
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 29, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are three small business operating at L'Enfant Plaza in Washington, D.C.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-02304
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Total Fright Productions, LLC v. Turner, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48330/ (last updated 8/5/2026).