Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—D. Md.: Musk and DOGE ordered to stop efforts to dismantle USAID, (Mar 19, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court rejected the defendants’ sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an advisor in the decision to shut down the USAID headquarters and taking down the USAID website.

Actions taken by Elon Musk and DOGE to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including the apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without approval of a duly appointed USAID officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways, ruled a federal district court in Maryland. These actions harmed the plaintiffs, former employees or personal services contractors (PSCs) of USAID, and the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their Constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress. Finding that DOGE’s unilateral actions to shut down USAID likely violated the U.S. Constitution, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part (J. Does 1-26 v. Musk, No. 25-0462-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2025)).

DOGE. On January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14,158 established the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE. Among the purposes of DOGE was to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” DOGE has sent teams of personnel to numerous federal departments and agencies, taken control of their computer systems, and in many instances taken the lead in terminating numerous contracts and employees.

Additionally, on February 11, 2025, President Trump issued more executive orders, including Executive Order 14,210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” which directs agencies to develop data-driven hiring plans to ensure that new hires are in highest-need areas and mandates that they shall not fill vacancies that the “DOGE Team Lead assesses should not be filled” unless the agency head determines otherwise. Executive Order 14,222 directs that agencies shall consult with DOGE Teams leads on contract and grant reviews, approvals, and terminations.

USAID. On January 20, 2025, President Trump also signed Executive order 14,169, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which directed a “90 day pause” of “new obligations and disbursements of “foreign development assistance” funds.

With respect to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), DOGE has played a leading role in actions taken to shut down and dismantle the agency, including permanently closing its headquarters, taking down its website, and engaging in mass terminations of contracts, grants, and personnel. Musk characterized the agency as “incredibly politically partisan,” and stated that it supported “radically left causes throughout the world, including things that are anti-American.”

On February 7, 2025, in American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.), the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that directed the reinstatement of those USAID employees on administrative leave or involuntarily evacuating employees from overseas posts. At the time of that TRO, 2,140 direct hire employees had been placed on administrative leave. Also, on February 13, a separate TRO was granted in two other D.D.C. cases, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State and Global Health Council v. Trump, which barred the State Department, USAID, and other agencies from enforcing prior orders or issuing new ones to suspend or prevent obligation or disbursement of foreign assistance funds.

On February 21, 2025, the AFSA TRO was dissolved, and the court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm, and the plaintiffs were statutorily required to pursue their claims through administrative processes for such employees. On February 23, 2025, all USAID direct hire personnel received an email advising them the USAID was implementing a Reduction-in-Force that will affect approximately 2,000 personnel.

Challenge to DOGE actions. A group of current or former employees or personal services contractors (PSCs) of USAID now challenge DOGE’s actions as unconstitutional. Beginning on February 2, 2025, multiple plaintiffs lost all access to USAID electronic systems and applications, and some plaintiffs have been unable to receive reimbursements for travel and health insurance expenses. Other plaintiffs posted abroad lack access to electronic systems upon which they rely for basic living needs.

Further, many plaintiffs have been placed on administrative leave, terminated, or had their contracts terminated, as a result of DOGE’s actions at USAID. Additionally, plaintiffs express concern that their personally identifiable information will be publicly disclosed, and that, in light of their association with USAID, their reputations are being damaged by Musk’s disparaging public comments about USAID.

Constitutional violations. The plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s actions violate the Appointments Clause, and principle of separation of Separation of Powers, among other provisions of the Constitution. They filed for a preliminary injunction granting “narrow emergency” relief to address their immediate needs arising from the alleged constitutional violations and broader relief barring DOGE and Musk from engaging in future violations of the Appointments Clause or the principle of Separation of Powers.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, moving parties must establish that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs have failed to establish each of the requirements for a preliminary injunction. Further, they argued that the plaintiffs lack standing.

Standing. As an initial matter, the court addressed whether the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims. The “irreducible constitutional minimum” requirements of standing consist of three elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”; (2) the injury must be fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant; and (3) it must be “likely that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’”

Injury in fact. In this case, the defendants contested only whether DOGE’s access to the plaintiffs’ sensitive personal information and data constituted an injury in fact. However, the court pointed out that the plaintiffs have alleged other, specific injuries that result from the defendants’ actions, including having their contracts terminated; RIF notices of imminent termination from federal employment; and failure to reimburse work expenses or travel reimbursements that are owed. Since the defendants did not contest that those harms constitute injuries in fact, the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to satisfy this element.

Traceability. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that their asserted injuries were fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. Under this requirement, the plaintiffs need only show that the defendants are “in part responsible for” the asserted injury. Here, the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts at this stage to support the conclusion that the personnel and contract actions taken against them, as well as the failures to pay their expenses, occurred in part because of the defendants’ actions.

Redressability. Lastly, the plaintiffs showed that their asserted injury was redressable. Here, the requested relief includes an injunction to barring defendants from “[i]ssuing, implementing, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to terminations, suspensions or stop-work orders.” Such a result would likely address the plaintiffs’ injuries. In addition, the plaintiffs seek an order that directs the defendants to stop accessing USAID data and electronic systems and to “reinstate access to email, payment, security notification, and all other systems for all USAID employees and PSCs.” Where the injuries relating to unpaid bills and expenses are due in part to DOGE’s stoppage of the electronic payment system, such an order would likely address the injuries arising from the unpaid bills and expenses of certain employees. Thus, the court found that an injunction directed at the defendants would at least contribute to relieving the plaintiffs of some of their injuries.

Appointments Clause. In their motion, the plaintiffs argued that they were likely to succeed on the merits of both their Appointments Clause claim and their Separation of Powers Claim.

The plaintiffs assert that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Appointments Clause that Musk has acted as an officer of the United States without having been duly appointed to that role. “The Appointments Clause lays out the permissible methods of appointing ‘Officers of the United States.” The Appointment Clause divides Officers of the United States into two categories. “Principal officers” may be appointed only by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. “[I]nferior officers” may be appointed in the same manner, or, if Congress so provides, they may be appointed by “the President alone,” by a federal court, or by the head of a department.

The defendants have not disputed that Musk had not been duly appointed as either a principal or inferior officer. Musk has not been subject to Senate confirmation, and Congress did not establish either position of USDS administrator or Senior Advisor to the President as an inferior officer subject to appointment by the President only. Accordingly, neither role is that of an Officer.

The present record does not support the conclusion that USAID officials made or ratified the decisions to initiate a shutdown of USAID by permanently closing the USAID headquarters and taking down the USAID website. The only individuals known to be associated with the decisions to permanently close the USAID headquarters and take down its website were Musk and DOGE Team Members. Under these circumstances, the court rejected the defendants’ sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an advisor.

Separation of Powers claim. In relation to the Separation of Powers claim, the court will enjoin the defendants from taking any actions in relation to additional terminations or placements on administrative leave of USAID personnel; terminations of USAID contracts or grants; closures or shutdowns of USAID buildings, bureaus, offices; or permanent shutdowns or terminations of USAID information technology systems. Such restrictions are warranted in that the defendants appear to have been primarily responsible to a rush to shut down USAID. The restriction will assist in maintaining the status quo so as to delay a premature, final shutdown of USAID, which would adversely impact the plaintiffs by resulting in final terminations that would be particularly damaging in light of reputational harms alleged.

Finding that DOGE’s unilateral actions to shut down USAID likely violated the U.S. Constitution, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part.

The case is No. 25-0462-TDC.

Judge: Chuang, T.

Attorneys: Norman L. Eisen (State Democracy Defenders Fund) for J. Does 1-26. Joshua E. Gardner, U.S. Department of Justice, for Elon Musk and U.S. DOGE Service.

Companies: United States DOGE Service; The Department of Government Efficiency

Cases: PublicEmployees IndividualRights Discharge Procedure Labor RemediesDamages MarylandNews DOGE GCNNews