D.C. District Judge Once Again Enjoins Trump Admin From Withholding Appropriated USAID Funding

In which Susie eats crow, as promised...

Look, no one likes having to admit they got something wrong. And I'm no exception to that. (In fact, I more than identify with this old Spin Doctors song.) However, I did promise I'd return to the scene of the crime and own it if warranted, so here I am.

Remember that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from a week ago that seemed primarily like a win for the Trump administration on the USAID funding? Well, the thing I missed in my initial pass and write-up on the ruling (though I did add an update and acknowledge the potential pitfall) was that the appellate court, though it opted not to rehear the case en banc, left a door open for the plaintiffs (and the district court judge), and they have now waltzed through it.

And Another One: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Injunction on USAID Funding

In a late-night Wednesday ruling, D.C. District Court Judge Amir Ali granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. (He denied their request for a temporary restraining order as moot and denied their request for partial summary judgment without prejudice, meaning that it may be revisited down the road.)

This case — actually two consolidated cases, styled as AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of State and Global Health Council v. Trump — has had more twists and turns than a corkscrew roller coaster, so I'll try to give a brief rundown of how we got to this point:

After some preliminary back-and-forth over the issue, in March, Judge Ali entered preliminary injunctions, enjoining the administration to continue providing previously appropriated funding to the organizations, which the administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit
In mid-August, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the injunctions issued by Ali. The plaintiffs promptly moved for rehearing en banc (by the full court).
Last Thursday, the D.C. Circuit (semi-surprisingly) declined to rehear the case en banc. However, in doing so, it issued a series of rulings, including several correcting/amending the court's August 13 opinion.

What I overlooked in my initial reporting on that decision was this, which I noted in last Friday's Morning Minute and appended as an update to my initial article on that decision:

However, upon closer review, there's a potential twist on the Circuit Court's actions, in that the corrected/amended opinions leave open the door, on remand, for the pursuit of the plaintiffs' claims under the Appropriations Act. (What is clearly foreclosed is their claims pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act.)
So, I must own it: I may have been overly optimistic in my applauding Thursday night's decision. We'll see what Judge Ali does with the case on remand. And if he allows the plaintiffs to thread that needle and proceed with APA claims under the Appropriations Act, I will eat my requisite helping of crow.

As noted above, with the door left open to an alternate theory of the plaintiffs' case, they and the district court judge waltzed right on through it.

Here's how Judge Ali framed this re-examination of the issue:

This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds. Appreciating that this Court is only one part of a review process that has yet to completely unfold—and that definitive higher court guidance now will be instructive as funds continue to reach their expiration dates in the future—the Court endeavors to address the remaining claims with both care and dispatch, to provide the necessary record and time for further review.

He's right, of course — his decision is only one part of the review process. And...as I was writing this, the administration filed its Notice of Appeal to the D.C. Circuit, so there will be more chapters in this saga.

Then, too, recall that following the D.C. Circuit's decision last week, President Trump took advantage of a rare maneuver known as a "pocket rescission" to claw back some of the funding at issue and, perhaps, outflank this ongoing legal wrangling.

As always, we'll continue to follow along and report on any updates. In the meantime, does anyone know any good Mediterranean Diet recipes for crow?

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!