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, Stay tuned on this one.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Concurring Opinion (Judge Gregory):
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:
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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
The Order is attached: