Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.D.C.: USIP employees, fired by Trump administration, lose bid for TRO, (Apr 23, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The court found a “mismatch” between the harms they experienced, the allegedly unlawful acts challenged, and the requested forms of relief.

Several former employees of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and other individuals who sued President Trump, U.S. DOGE Service (DOGE), and others after the Trump administration gutted the Institute through mass firings, termination of contracts, and transfer of assets, were denied their bid for a temporary restraining order. Among other things, a federal district court concluded that extraordinary emergency relief was not warranted insofar as they argued that Trump illegally removed USIP’s appointed Board members as “[t]his is no trivial legal dispute, given the number of other entities with similar or analogous structures and claims of independence from executive branch control, at least for certain purposes” (Pippenger v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-cv-1090 (BAH) (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2025)).

Lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the same set of alleged facts at issue in U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson, No. 25-cv-804, namely, Trump’s termination of USIP’s appointed board members, the replacement of USIP’s president by three remaining ex officio members, the subsequent transfer of USIP’s headquarters and other assets to the General Services Administration (GSA), the termination of the majority of USIP’s employees, and broad termination of its contracts and programming.

As in the prior case, plaintiffs alleged that USIP “is an independent non-profit organization” not subject to executive branch control. They brought a myriad of claims, including that the defendants acted ultra vires and in violation of the USIP Act’s statutory removal protections when removing USIP’s former board members, violated the APA by acting arbitrarily and capriciously when seizing control of USIP assets and effectively shutting it down, and violated separation of powers by engaging in all these acts.

TRO sought. The plaintiffs sought a TRO directing a host of actions by the defendants, including prohibiting USIP from transferring any assets or terminating any further employees or contracts. They also sought to have all terminated USIP employees and contractors returned to their roles in a paid leave status so they could retain their benefits during litigation and asked that the TRO include declarations that the former Board members were terminated unlawfully and that all subsequent actions after removal of those members were ultra vires, violated the APA, and violated separation of powers.

Mismatch between harms and relief. “The events at USIP over the past two months—involving sudden change of leadership, mass terminations of employees conducted in alphabetical order with no forewarning, the transfer of USIP’s headquarters and other property, and termination of contracts and programming—undoubtedly wreaked havoc on the lives of people affiliated with USIP in numerous capacities,” noted the court. However, they failed to show they were entitled to the injunctive relief requested due to the “mismatch” between the harms they experienced, the allegedly unlawful acts challenged, and the requested forms of relief.

Alleged unlawful removal. While they argued that Trump illegally removed USIP’s appointed board members, they already brought that claim twice before the court in an emergency posture, and each time the relief was denied due to the “complexity and novelty of that claim.” Indeed, “[t]his is no trivial legal dispute, given the number of other entities with similar or analogous structures and claims of independence from executive branch control, at least for certain purposes.” Both parties gave detailed arguments in support of their positions as to whether USIP is an Executive Branch agency such that the removal of its Board members was lawful. The parties also disputed whether—even if USIP were an executive branch agency—the Board members had for-cause removal protections under the Supreme Court’s Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener decisions. Given that briefing on the hotly-disputed issue was ongoing in the other litigation, where board members themselves were plaintiffs, the court declined to consider the issue further in an emergency posture with incomplete briefing.

Transfer of property. The court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claim that the transfer of USIP’s property to the GSA violated the APA since they did not show any specific injury caused by transfer of property that could be redressed by the court. While the former employees and program partners claimed that they suffered injuries related to the complexities of finding healthcare and other uncertainties regarding financial and physical security due to sudden loss of their jobs or contracts, those circumstances would not be alleviated if USIP recouped its headquarters building and retained its remaining property, concluded the court.

Mass terminations. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendants violated the acts of Congress that established USIP and required certain programs impacted by the Trump administration’s mass prior (and future) employee terminations, which effectively shut down the institute. However, the court found that a factual dispute existed as to whether the mass terminations were arbitrary and capricious in light of the current leadership’s stated goals of reducing USIP to its core functions and promoting efficiency.

Cancellation of contracts. With respect to defendants’ abrupt cancellation of USIP contracts, the Supreme Court’s recent per curiam opinion in Department of Education v. California may deprive the district court of the authority to consider claims sounding in contract or to enjoin further termination of contracts, even if they are styled as APA claims. Moreover, the only relief related to contracts that plaintiffs sought was an order ceasing further termination of personal services contractors but failed to provide specific detail about the nature of the contracts.

Other claims. The plaintiffs also did not have standing to challenge the apparent dissolution of the Gandhi-King Academy, through the firing of USIP’s staff tasked with work on the academy, as arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the statute requiring its formation. Nor did they demonstrate concrete or particularized harm with regard to the shutdown of the USIP website.

The case is No. 25-cv-1090 (BAH).

Judge: Howell, B.

Attorneys: Andrew G. Celli, Jr. (Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel) for Sasha Pippenger. Johnny Hillary Walker, U.S. Department of Justice, for U.S. DOGE Service.

Companies: U.S. DOGE Service

Cases: RemediesDamages Discharge PublicEmployees DOGE FedTracker LaborEmployment DistrictofColumbiaNews