Some Good News on the Lawfare Front

The Trump Administration is Quietly Winning Some Cases

The massive amount of orchestrated legal attacks against the Trump Administration is unprecedented. The litigation tracker by the law and policy journal Just Security tags the number of cases against the Trump Administration at 112. The sheer volume of the cases, the speed at which the cases develop, and the oftentimes inaccurate media reports about those developments, make staying abreast of the cases a daunting task. As I waded into these cases, one issue I noticed is a lack of reporting on the Trump Administration’s wins. In this article, I will address a couple of the Trump Administration’s victories in the ongoing lawfare battles.

(The Trump Administration chalked up quite a few more wins thus far, but writing about all of them would make this article a treatise. I plan to address more of Team Trump’s wins later.)

A Word About Injunctive Relief

A brief explanation of the much of the relief sought in most of the ongoing lawfare is in order. Most of these cases involve requests for “injunctive relief.” Injunctive relief or injunctions are court orders restraining a person or entity from doing certain things or requiring a party to undertake certain actions. These cases usually proceed in a predictable pattern (though not always). The initial (oftentimes an “emergency”) request for relief usually seeks a Temporary Restraining Order or TRO. This is an order which may be rendered without the defendant (generally Trump Administration officials in these cases) even having notice or being heard from. TROs are of a short duration (no more than 14 days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, subject to being extended another 14 days). TROs are generally intended to maintain the “status quo” for a short period while the parties get before the court.

The TRO is joined with a request for a Preliminary Injunction. A preliminary injunction is an injunction which may be granted before trial to, again, maintain the “status quo” of the case pending a final judgment. The Preliminary Injunction is not subject to any 14 day limitations and is of longer duration. Again, Preliminary Injunctions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

The final form of injunctive relief is the Permanent Injunction. This injunction is rendered after a full trial and, as the name implies, is intended to be permanent.

Most of the lawfare against the Trump Administration follows this pattern of requests for TROs, joined by Preliminary Injunctions, followed by Permanent Injunctions. (A party may skip a TRO and seek a Preliminary followed by a Permanent Injunction or may forego the TRO and Preliminary and seek only a Permanent Injunction, but hopefully, the process makes more sense.)

The two cases discussed in this article follow the pattern. The plaintiffs sought TROs followed by Preliminary Injunctions. Now, let’s take a look at the cases.

1. The Trump Administration Federal Employee Buyout Case

Readers will recall, on January 28, 2025, the Trump Administration (acting through the United States Office of Personnel Management or OPM) offered roughly two million federal employees a “buyout” option (though the OPM called the offer a “deferred resignation program” in the offer itself) if they did not wish to continue their federal employment. The offer allowed employees to opt out of the changes to federal employment being made by the Trump Administration (in person work, enhanced standards of conduct, etc…), resign their employment and retain full pay and benefits through September 30, 2025. The deferred resignation program was named the Fork in the Road program by OPM.

This “deferred resignation program” was offered as a part of the Trump Administration’s effort to streamline the federal workforce and cut costs. Federal employees had until February 12, 2025, to accept the offer. According to the White House Press Secretary approximately 77,000 federal employees accepted the offer.

Several labor unions representing federal employees filed suit in federal court on February 4, 2025, seeking to stop the Trump Administration from implementing the federal employee buyout. On February 6, 2025, a federal judge in Massachusetts, granted a Temporary Restraining Order pausing the plan pending a hearing on the unions’ lawsuit. (Recall, a Temporary Restraining Order or TRO, is a form of injunction ordering a person or entity to affirmatively take some action or refrain from some action for a short period of time.)

The court’s order temporarily halting the federal employee buyout was widely reported by media. For instance, the BBC reported:

Reuters reported on the court’s order with this headline:

After a hearing on the case on February 10, 2025, the federal judge kept the TRO in place pending his ruling:

The Trump Administration Win

On February 12, 2025, the Trump Administration won a significant victory when the trial judge denied the union's request for relief:

The court found the federal employee unions lacked standing to bring the suit (a finding that a party does not have a direct enough interest in a case or does not suffer a direct harm and therefore cannot sue) and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims (meaning the court had no power to hear the claims), because the claims should have been brought before an administrative agency under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The court’s ruling concludes:

Chalk one up for Team Trump.

2. The National Agency for International Development (USAID) Mass Layoff Case

Part of the Trump Administration’s effort to streamline the federal government’s workforce and ensure federal grants, foreign aid and other expenditures are being made consistent with federal law and the Administration’s policy resulted in the Trump Administration placing employees of the United States Agency for International Development or USAID on administrative leave effective February 7, 2025.

(Trump Administration officials identified billions of dollars in American tax dollars wasted by USAID, as you undoubtedly heard. The reckless spending at USAID made it a primary target of the Trump Administration’s Department of Government Efficiency headed by Elon Musk.)

On February 6, 2025, two federal employee unions filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to stop the Trump Administration from placing the USAID employees on leave and from requiring the expedited evacuation of employees working overseas. The plaintiffs claimed the Administration’s layoffs, evacuation order and funding freeze violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs also sought to have the court to enjoin (stop) the U.S. Secretary of State’s order from January 24, 2025, freezing payments to USAID contractors.

On February 7, 2025, the federal judge assigned to the case granted the request for a Temporary Restraining Order through February 14, 2025, reinstating any dismissed employees through that date, stopping any additional employees from being put on leave through February 14 and stopping the evacuation of employees working overseas. The court refused to grant any emergency relief from the USAID contractor funding freeze. The relevant portion of the court’s TRO ruling is reproduced below:

The court’s order reflects the judge had serious concerns about the safety and well-being of a large number of employees stationed overseas who could be left stranded without access to significant USAID resources if the emergency relief was not granted.

The news media gleefully reported on the judge’s TRO stopping the Trump Administration from placing the employees on leave.

The Associated Press reported:

ABC News reported:

CBS News reported:

The court set a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction for February 14, 2025. That hearing was held. The TRO was extended by one week to February 21, 2025, by another Order entered on February 13, 2025 to keep the TRO in effect while the judge considered the case.

The Trump Administration Wins Again

On February 21, 2025, the federal judge denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, thereby permitting the Trump Administration's layoff of USAID employees to proceed:

The court found the federal employee unions were not entitled to any further relief. The court’s original concerns about federal employees being left in the lurch or abandoned overseas was addressed by the Trump Administration with various different policies and practices in place to return the employees to the United States if they choose to return and to provide needed support. The conclusion to the court’s Memorandum Opinion succinctly states the court’s ruling:

Chalk up another victory for Team Trump.

Conclusion

The Fake News Media, Democrats and far left generally tend to hyperventilate whenever any court grants even the most temporary set back to President Trump’s agenda. For this reason, the lawfare attacks which meet with any success are quickly, loudly and universally highlighted. Often accompanying the reports are hyperbolic attacks on Trump for “acting like a dictator” or rejecting the “Rule of Law.” When the Trump Administration wins the cases the reporting is much more subdued (or even absent altogether). The two cases referenced in this article are very substantial wins for the Trump Administration. One cleared the way for a significant reduction in the federal workforce (the buyout case) and the other cleared the way for a reduction in the workforce and dealt a devastating blow to people all over the world feeding at the federal government’s trough (the USAID layoff case).

There are many more victories for the Trump Administration even now and many more to come. Don’t get dismayed by the lawfare or the media reporting about it. By the time all of the litigation is over, we will all be worn out by the winning.

(My newest book Fake News Exposed: 25 of the Worst Media Lies about Conservatives, Guns, COVID and Everything Else is available at Amazon. You may also pick up a copy of one of my other books at Amazon as well.)