Presidential Injunctions Continue to Thwart Trump Administration

By Brent E. Zepke, Esq.

In the numerous articles offering opinions about the impact of President Trump’s first 100 days in office in 2025, the so-called elephant in the room is: what is the president’s authority?

For every previous president this was a ridiculous question, since Article II, section 1, of the Constitution provides “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Executive power includes commanding the armed forces, appointing officials, issuing executive orders, implementing laws, and ensuring they are faithfully executed.

However, unlike any previous president, the attempt of many, if not all, of the 200 lawsuits already filed against the Trump presidency appears to be to add to Article II “provided all district court judges agree.”

At least one of the 677 federal district court judges has prevented the implementation of the president’s programs by issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that prevents the implementation of the programs. This has occurred about 50 times (more or less), even if the cases are frivolous.

Widakuswara, et al v Kari Lake, et al

However, on May 3, 2025, a federal circuit actually applied the existing Article II and the federal Rules of Civil Procedure to a case involving the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM).

USAGM is the parent company of the Voice of America (VOA), which was codified into law in 1976. It consists of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Network, and the Open Technology Fund that distributes technology to repressive regimes and closed societies.

The case arose after the special advisor to the USAGM, Kari Lake, implemented President Trump’s Executive Order 14238 of March 14, 2025, that directed the USAGM leadership to: 1) reduce the agency to its minimum level of operations required by statute and to 2) eliminate the non-statutory components and functions of the agency “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” It is important to note that the intent was to comply with existing laws.

To comply, USAGM placed 1,042 out of 1147 employees on leave and terminated nearly 600 personal-services contractors.

Various plaintiffs, including USAGM employees, contractors, and grantees filed lawsuits challenging these actions.

In the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge J. Paul Oetken, an Obama nominee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that stayed, meaning prevented, the implementation of USAGM’s actions.

The case was transferred to the Federal District Court for D.C. because cases against the federal government may be filed there, which is why I became licensed to practice law there.

D.C. District Court

On April 22, Judge Royce Lambert, a Reagan nominee, ruled that the VOA is funded by Congress and Trump’s cuts are “a direct affront to the power of the legislative branch.” The judge converted the TRO to a preliminary injunction and ordered the administration to “take all necessary steps” to restore VOA employees and contractor to their positions.”

At this point the case appeared to be no different than the 50 injunctions issued by judges across the country, from Rhode Island to California during President Trump’s first 100 days.

D.C. Circuit Court

The administration appealed the issuance of the preliminary injunctions since, unlike TROs, injunctions can be appealed.

On May 3, in Widakuswara v Lake, D.C. Circuit Court Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao, Trump nominees, overturned the injunction by ruling that it failed to meet the requirements for a TRO under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 because:

1) The VOA was not being shuttered and that with “no bond, the harm to government is irreparable” absent a stay since the plaintiffs have said they intend to immediately spend the $15 million.

2) The plaintiffs have “several avenues” besides an injunction for remediation of their potential losses.

3) The “public has an interest in the Judicial Branch’s compliance with congressional mandates.”

4) The Supreme Court recently applied these principles to issue a stay pending appeal in a case substantially similar to this one in the Department of Education v California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025).

The Circuit Court not only overturned the injunction but while the entire case has not yet been resolved, the Court stated that:

1) “The government is likely to succeed on the merits because the district court likely lacked “subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin USAGM’s personnel actions.” While the “employees and contractors might have viable, discreet claims with respect to their individual personnel actions, those claims must be pursued through other remedial channels.”

2) Congress under the Tucker Act gave the authority to restore grants to the Court of Claims and not district courts. The USAGM promised to pay the networks in monthly installments as long as the networks used the funds to advance statutory objectives as per 22 U.S.C. 6208, which constitutes a contract for Tucker Act purposes.

3) “The plaintiffs allege a collection of ‘many individual actions’ that cannot be packaged together under the Administrative Procedure Act but must be pursued through other remedial channels.”

Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented.

Impact

The USAGM can continue with its implementation of Executive Order 14238 while the case is being decided by the courts.

If the Supreme Court enforces the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and its own case of Department of Education v California, it will prevent, or eliminate, multiple TROs.

If the Supreme Court applies the jurisdictional limits of district courts, as outlined by D.C. Circuit, it will prevent, or eliminate, multiple cases.

Ultimately the Supreme Court will have to determine if Article II of the Constitution permits the President of the United States of America to implement Congressional laws.

Take a look at COLAB’s latest video, “The Great Fee Heist”