Musk’s DOGE Triumphs (For Now): Fourth Circuit Stays USAID Injunction in Constitutional Tug-of-War

The USAID injunction entered against Elon Musk and DOGE in March 2025 has been on hold for well over a year. On March 28, 2025, the Fourth Circuit stayed the USAID injunction pending appeal in Does 1-26 v. Musk, No. 25-1273. Whether the USAID injunction is ever reinstated depends on an appeal that is still pending. This post covers the stay order and what has happened in the case since.

Update: Where the USAID Injunction Case Stands

Updated September 30, 2026. Developments are reported through March 2026.

No court has entered a final judgment in this matter. The March 28, 2025 stay was not the end of the case, and the Fourth Circuit has not ruled on the merits of the USAID injunction appeal.

The appeal is on hold. On June 9, 2025, the Fourth Circuit placed the preliminary injunction appeal (No. 25-1273) in abeyance while the district court case moved forward. The stay of the USAID injunction remains in place.

The plaintiffs fixed the “wrong defendants” problem. In April 2025 they amended the complaint to add the President, the Secretary of State, and USAID officials. That was the defect Judge Gregory identified in his concurrence.

The case survived a motion to dismiss. On August 13, 2025, Judge Chuang dismissed only the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the President. The Appointments Clause and separation-of-powers claims went forward. On August 18, 2025, he certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of USAID employees and personal services contractors.

Discovery produced a second trip to the Fourth Circuit. Judge Chuang declined to certify an interlocutory appeal (January 29, 2026) and refused to block depositions of Elon Musk and two other officials (February 4, 2026). On March 4, 2026, a divided Fourth Circuit granted mandamus in In re Musk, No. 26-1160 (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2026), and directed a protective order barring those depositions for now.

The majority held the plaintiffs had not first exhausted other discovery, such as Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Judge Gregory dissented.

Bottom line. DOGE won the stay of the USAID injunction and the deposition fight. The plaintiffs won on dismissal and class certification. The constitutional question remains undecided. We will update this post if the USAID injunction appeal is decided or the district court enters judgment.

Original Analysis (March 29, 2025)

Analysis: At this point—March 29, 2025—DOGE has prevailed in this Tug of War. The Fourth Circuit’s stay allows it to resume USAID cuts pending the appeal’s resolution. The district court’s injunction is on hold, marking a procedural victory for DOGE and the Trump administration. However, the underlying lawsuit remains active, and the final outcome awaits the appeal’s full adjudication. See the update above for what has happened since.

Why the Fourth Circuit Stayed the USAID Injunction

The court granted the stay, finding that the defendants met the four-factor test under Nken v. Holder (556 U.S. 418, 434, 2009) for a stay pending appeal:

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The majority concluded the district court likely erred in finding the plaintiffs (26 anonymous USAID employees/contractors) would succeed on their claims:
   • Appointments Clause Claim: The plaintiffs argued Musk, as DOGE’s leader, acted as an unappointed “Officer of the United States,” violating the Constitution. The majority found evidence suggesting Musk was a Senior Advisor to the President, not an officer, and that most USAID actions (e.g., contract terminations, layoffs) were approved by duly appointed officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Deputy Administrator Peter Marocco. Only the closure of USAID’s headquarters and website lacked clear ratification, but the record didn’t show Musk acted unilaterally without authority.
   • Separation of Powers Claim: The plaintiffs claimed DOGE’s actions usurped Congress’s authority over USAID. The majority doubted this, noting the district court found most actions were ratified by USAID officials, and the plaintiffs didn’t sue the Executive or USAID itself, weakening their claim against the named defendants.
2. Irreparable Harm to Defendants: Without a stay, the injunction would impede Executive branch operations under DOGE, causing irreparable harm by overriding presidential authority, which can’t be remedied monetarily.
3. Harm to Plaintiffs: The majority found the plaintiffs’ alleged harms (e.g., security risks, reputational damage, emotional distress) speculative or remediable by money damages, not irreparable, thus not harmed significantly by a stay.
4. Public Interest: The public interest favors a stay, as the injunction overreached by micromanaging an Executive agency (USAID) not party to the suit, risking judicial overreach into political matters.

The majority criticized the district court’s injunction as overly broad, inconsistent (ordering unauthorized defendants to act), and unsupported by imminent harm, justifying the stay pending appeal.

Judge Gregory’s Concurrence on the USAID Injunction

Judge Gregory concurred only in the result, agreeing the stay was necessary due to the plaintiffs suing the wrong defendants (Musk and DOGE, not USAID or the Executive), limiting judicial redress. However, he strongly disagreed with the majority on the merits:

1. Separation of Powers: Gregory argued the Executive’s dismantling of USAID without congressional approval violated the Constitution. Under the Youngstown framework, the President lacked authority to shutter a congressionally created and funded agency (22 U.S.C. § 6563), especially given recent appropriations (Pub. L. 118-47, 2024) and notification requirements, placing Executive power at its “lowest ebb.”
2. Appointments Clause: Gregory found Musk likely acted as an unappointed officer, exercising significant authority (e.g., closing USAID’s headquarters, website) in a continuing role as DOGE’s de facto leader, not just an advisor, based on his actions and Trump’s statements.
3. Plaintiffs’ Standing and Remedy: Gregory rejected the majority’s minimization of plaintiffs’ harms (e.g., security risks, job loss), finding them real and redressable if the proper defendants were sued. He defended the injunction’s scope as necessary to undo multiple illegal acts, not judicial overreach.

Outcome

The Fourth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction, allowing DOGE to resume dismantling USAID pending the appeal’s resolution, with Quattlebaum’s majority opinion entered with Niemeyer’s concurrence and Gregory’s separate concurrence in the result. The clerk, Nwamaka Anowi, issued the order on March 28, 2025

Read the Order

The Fourth Circuit’s March 28, 2025 order staying the USAID injunction is attached:

Questions about an injunction, a stay, or an appeal? Contact Cox Law, PLLC or call 813-685-8600.

This post is a general summary of court rulings for informational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The case is ongoing, and later rulings may change the status described here.