The administration on Tuesday requested and was swiftly granted permission to proceed with controversial plans to restructure the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). However, the relief granted is temporary.
In a 16-page filing with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Department of Justice sought emergency relief in the form of an immediate administrative stay, as well as a broader stay pending appeal, to overturn a preliminary injunction issued by a Maryland district court on March 18.
At the heart of the dispute is the authority granted to a prominent business figure and what formal role, if any, he holds within the administration. Plaintiffs argue that this individual wields excessive influence over efforts to shrink the federal workforce and significantly reduce government spending. They claim that this role violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
The government has dismissed these constitutional arguments, which have been raised in multiple cases focused on similar issues. In the present case, the administration contends that the injunction, while aimed at preventing the “dismantling” of USAID, will actually halt the agency’s operations altogether.
A federal judge issued an order requiring the cessation of further reductions at USAID without express authorization from an agency official. The judge also suggested that ongoing efforts to diminish the agency’s capacity could amount to an unconstitutional shutdown. The ruling further directed USAID to restore access to agency computer systems for employees, including more than 1,000 workers placed on leave since February.
The government argues that this individual was merely one of several figures involved in implementing broader cost-cutting measures. As such, they claim the Appointments Clause violation test is not met.
“Plaintiffs underscore the error of their position when they assert that this individual has more power than a typical presidential adviser,” the government argued. “Presidents have broad discretion to select and work with advisers, some of whom may wield significant influence.”
The relevant legal tests consider whether a person exercises “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” and whether they hold a “continuing position established by law.” The government contends that neither criterion is satisfied in this case.
In the request for a stay, government lawyers assert that the district court’s own analysis supports their position.
“The district court’s acknowledgment that this individual has no formal legal authority to make the decisions at issue should be dispositive,” the motion reads. “Plaintiffs do not seriously claim that he has such ‘authority.’ Instead, they argue that he exerted influence over government actions, possibly in a decisive manner.”
The government further challenges the plaintiffs’ claims by noting that influence over decision-making does not equate to formal authority.
“Even if plaintiffs argue that at other agencies this individual intimidated officials who had actual authority to act, that does not mean he has the power to issue binding government decisions. He holds no office established by law and is not an officer.”
The motion elaborates that, even regarding actions cited by the district court such as shutting down USAID’s headquarters and website plaintiffs have not provided definitive evidence that this individual personally executed those decisions. Instead, he was described as being among a group of people associated with them.
While the merits of the appeal remain undecided, the Fourth Circuit swiftly granted a stay of the injunction. However, the stay is only temporary, set to expire at the close of business on March 27. It remains to be seen whether the appellate court will extend the stay or allow the injunction to take effect.
