Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,121
Big Court Win for Trump As Judge Dismisses USAID Case on Jurisdictional Grounds
By Susie Moore | 3:26 PM on July 25, 2025
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.
We've seen the Trump administration score some legal wins on President Donald Trump's agenda and executive orders in the appellate courts. But wins at the district court level have been few and far between. On Friday, however, the administration scored a significant win in two companion cases involving the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as D.C. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled in favor of the administration on jurisdictional grounds.
"The Court ultimately cannot reach the merits of any plaintiff’s allegations, however, because it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims of AFSA, AFGE, and Oxfam (which have moved for summary judgment after the Court denied their earlier motion for a preliminary injunction), and that it likely lacks jurisdiction over the claims of the PSCA (which has moved for a preliminary injunction). The Court will accordingly grant the government’s motion to dismiss the AFSA case and will deny the PSCA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
As to AFSA and AFGE, which represent USAID employees, the Court explained at length when denying the preliminary injunction that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), and Foreign Service Act (FSA) likely channel their members’ claims to various agencies and provide for subsequent review in specific Article III courts.
What the Court is ultimately most moved by, then, are the same jurisdictional principles that form the core of these cases. It is likely that the only harms as to which the PSCA has standing to seek relief are those regarding the termination of its members’ voluntarily entered contractual agreements with USAID, and it is also likely that such terminations must and be addressed (and, if unlawful, will be redressed) under the CDA. See Widakuswara II, 2025 WL 1288817, at *5. On the other hand, issuing preliminary relief requiring the reinstatement of PSCs would intrude into Executive Branch personnel matters and expand the judicial role. See id. at *5–6 (“[T]he Executive Branch has a significant interest in maintaining control over personnel matters” and “[t]he public has an interest in the Judicial Branch’s respect for the jurisdictional boundaries laid down by Congress.”). Where the PSCA has not demonstrated any irremediable injury and where Congress meanwhile has “limited the resolution of . . . potentially costly [personnel] claims” implicating the public fisc to “specialized tribunals” like the Court of Federal Claims, id. at *6, the Court concludes that neither the equities nor the public interest favor a preliminary injunction."
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/...usaid-case-on-jurisdictional-grounds-n2192086
It's about time.
