Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks pause on foreign aid but does not order Trump to act
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a temporary restraining order that allows some foreign assistance programs to continue, for now, in a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association and other plaintiffs. (Photo by John O’Brien/ABA Journal)
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a temporary restraining order that allows some foreign assistance programs to continue, for now, in a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association and other plaintiffs.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 13 in two consolidated suits, report Law.com, the New York Times, NPR, NBC News and Law360. The ABA announced the decision in a Feb. 14 press release.
President Donald Trump froze the funding in a Jan. 20 executive order requiring a 90-day review to determine whether the foreign assistance programs should end or be modified.
“Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” wrote Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.
Ali’s TRO bars the suspension of appropriated foreign assistance funds in connection with contracts, grants or other awards that were in existence Jan. 19. The TRO also bars stop-work orders in connection with those funding awards.
Ali’s decision applies to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and other government defendants but not to Trump.
Ali said the ABA “narrowed” its request for relief after the government “rightly highlighted the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power” during a hearing. An initial proposed TRO filed by the ABA and other plaintiffs asked Ali to order all the defendants, including Trump, to allow continued funding. A revised proposal no longer mentioned Trump.
The Feb. 11 suit had claimed that the administration’s actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the Constitution’s take care clause and beyond a president’s powers.
Ali said the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs.
“Defendants have repeatedly, and rightly, emphasized the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power as it relates to foreign policy,” Ali wrote. “Plaintiffs, for their part, have emphasized the Constitution’s separation of powers, which also demands respect for Congress’ Article I role in legislating, including Congress’ choice to allow judicial review through the APA and other statutes constraining the executive branch, as well as Congress’ important role in appropriating funds.”
The ABA implements 19 programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development or “via subaward,” according to the Feb. 11 suit filed by the association and seven other plaintiffs. The ABA also implements 59 programs funded by the U.S. Department of State.
The ABA programs, administered through the ABA Center for Global Programs, support U.S. international interests by promoting the rule of law and human rights, the suit says.
“Plaintiff ABA has had tens of millions of dollars in USAID and State Department funding frozen,” the suit says. “This freeze has decimated ABA’s programs, including its efforts to protect religious freedom in Asia, fight human trafficking in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, prepare Ukraine to recover from Russia’s invasion, advance democracy in Myanmar, and combat money laundering and terrorism in South America.”
ABA President Bill Bay commented on Ali’s ruling in the press release.
“The actions of the president and other executive branch officials to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was established by Congress to administer billions of dollars of foreign assistance funding, is unprecedented. The American Bar Association cannot overstate the impact of this unlawful course of conduct,” Bay said.
“Every administration has the right to review ongoing programs and set priorities, but those actions must be carried out in compliance with relevant constitutional and statutory requirements,” Bay said. “There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. We have filed a suit to ensure that changes are consistent with the rule of law. The sudden dismantling of USAID has real-world consequences that cause harm not only to those we serve but also to those who serve others.”
The ABA and the other plaintiffs are represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in their suit, Global Health Council v. Trump. The Global Health Council suit was consolidated with AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State.
U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia has imposed a TRO in a similar case and extended it to Feb. 21, according to Law.com. The TRO bars the administration from putting USAID employees on administrative leave and from requiring them to leave their overseas posts.
See also:
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
