Photo credit: www.govexec.com
Legal Battle Intensifies Over Potential Closure of USAID
A coalition of representatives from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and a prominent foreign aid organization has launched a renewed initiative to challenge the Trump administration’s proposed closure of the agency. Their primary objective is to prevent the complications that hindered their previous legal efforts.
Recently, a federal judge declined to grant an injunction that would have halted President Trump’s and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s plans to place a significant number of USAID employees—both domestically and internationally—on administrative leave. This action aligns with the administration’s broader strategy of canceling contracts and grants while preparing to significantly reduce the agency’s workforce.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by Trump, determined that he did not have the authority to intervene at this stage. He stated that cases related to federal employment matters must initially be addressed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
In the time since, Oxfam America has joined forces with the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association in their lawsuit, expanding the scope of perceived damages. Their main argument is that the administration’s efforts to dismantle USAID violate the constitutional separation of powers and contravene the statutory framework that established the agency, as well as appropriations law that mandates congressional approval for any organizational downsizing.
Multiple lawsuits filed by federal sector unions against early actions of the Trump administration faced similar jurisdiction-related obstacles as this effort to maintain USAID’s workforce. However, the American Federation of Government Employees succeeded in obtaining a temporary restraining order requiring the Office of Personnel Management to retract its directives concerning a government-wide purge of recently hired, transferred, or promoted employees. This outcome was partly due to support from various nonprofits whose claims fell outside the review capabilities of the relevant administrative bodies.
In a motion for summary judgment submitted on Monday, the unions and nonprofit organizations assert that their case should proceed in federal court rather than through MSPB or FLRA. They clarify that they are not directly contesting employment decisions; instead, they are using those decisions as evidence of the alleged illegal dismantling of USAID.
“Naturally, a campaign to shutter an agency with thousands of federal employees will lead to significant job losses, and plaintiffs have highlighted these losses as proof of an unlawful dismemberment of the agency,” the attorneys wrote. “However, plaintiffs are not opposing the anticipated reductions in force as inconsistent with Merit System Principles or Office of Personnel Management regulations. Instead, this case presents factual circumstances regarding employment as a means to demonstrate the systematic shuttering of the agency—alongside actions such as dismantling webpages, transferring leases, reorganizing authority lines, and canceling a majority of USAID’s contracts and awards.”
On Tuesday evening, the coalition sought a new temporary restraining order following allegations that USAID employees were instructed to destroy documents potentially relevant to the ongoing case. Related briefs are expected to be submitted by Thursday.
Source
www.govexec.com