AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network v. U.S. Department of State

Representing AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and Journalism Development Network (JDN), we filed suit seeking relief from the Trump Administration’s actions that—illegally and unconscionably—froze funding and work related to nearly every United States foreign assistance mission. These actions have halted life-saving work across the globe and cost thousands of American jobs. The complaint challenges the Executive Order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” issued on January 20, 2025, as exceeding President Trump’s constitutional authority and violating his duty under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and actions of the Department of State and Secretary of State in cutting grant funding.

On February 12, 2025, we filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to order that funding be restored as the litigation proceeds, in light of the severe harm caused to AVAC and JDN, and the devastating consequences for people in need. On February 13, the court issued an order granting the motion and enjoining enforcement of the funding freeze while the case proceeds.

Late at night on February 18, the government filed a status report revealing that they had not complied with the TRO — they had not restored funding or lifted stop-work orders. We therefore filed a motion asking the court to enforce the TRO and to hold the defendants in contempt. The judge, ruling on the motion, agreed that the defendants had not complied with his earlier order and directed them to comply, but did not hold them in contempt.

After the plaintiffs in a parallel case filed another motion to enforce the TRO, the Court held a hearing on February 25 and then ordered the government to take specific steps toward compliance with the TRO by 11:59 pm the following day, February 26. The government immediately appealed the February 25 order to the D.C. Circuit. Plaintiffs responded, and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction the evening of February 26.

Almost at the same time, the government filed an application to the Supreme Court to vacate the February 25 order and enter an administrative stay of the order. The Court entered an administrative stay that same night and directed Plaintiffs to respond to the application. Several days later, the Court, over the dissent of 4 justices, issued an order lifting its stay and returning the matter to the district court. The case then continued in the district court, where the judge reiterated that the government must make overdue payments right away.

In an order issued on March 11, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction in part. The court rejected the government’s view that it could unilaterally decide not to spend funds Congress had appropriated for foreign aid and held that the blanket suspension of foreign aid was unlawful. The court also held, however, that it could not order the government to reinstate the swath of grants that it had terminated.