A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily blocked an effort to dismantle the United States African Development Foundation (USADF) after a legal challenge was filed against the administration’s attempt to remove its leadership. The ruling marks another instance in which a court has referenced a concurring opinion by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett when ruling against the administration’s actions.
The dispute centers on the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its push to take control of USADF, a government agency that provides economic assistance to African nations. The administration argued that it had the authority to replace the foundation’s Senate-confirmed board members and president, Ward Brehm, without congressional approval. However, the judge issued an administrative stay, pausing any action until further proceedings take place.
The judge cited a 2024 Supreme Court ruling in explaining the decision, emphasizing that an administrative stay is not a ruling on the merits but instead provides time for a more thorough review of the case. The ruling highlighted the significant statutory and constitutional issues at play, particularly regarding the president’s authority over independent agencies and the scope of executive power.
The Justice Department responded by filing a memorandum opposing the request for an injunction. The administration contended that the president has the power to remove and replace the board members without restriction, as no explicit statutory language prevents such action. It also argued that the court does not have the authority to require the administration to recognize Brehm as the legitimate head of the foundation.
Tensions escalated when USADF employees refused to grant DOGE officials access to the building. Staff members alleged that DOGE had misrepresented its intentions, initially claiming to modernize systems but instead planning to terminate existing grants and contracts. The following day, officials arrived at the foundation’s offices with U.S. marshals in an attempt to assert control.
The administration reportedly informed the foundation that the president had appointed a new acting board member, despite the presence of four existing board members who had not been formally removed. In response, Brehm took legal action, seeking to prevent his removal without a formal board vote and to block the appointment of the new acting board member.
This case is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges involving executive authority over independent agencies. Multiple judges have referenced Barrett’s prior opinions when issuing rulings in similar disputes. Her legal reasoning has been cited in decisions by multiple courts, including appellate rulings, as judges navigate questions of executive power and agency independence.
The judge has scheduled a hearing on the matter, ensuring further legal scrutiny before any final decision is made.
