THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Aug 13, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Susie Moore


NextImg:Trump Admin. Notches Another Appellate Win As 4th Circuit Vacates Lower Court Injunction on DOGE Access

In the whole scheme of cases being litigated against his administration since President Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term, this one may not be monumental. Still, the administration can rightly celebrate yet another win at the appellate court level — and this one in the 4th Circuit, which hasn't exactly been falling all over itself to issue rulings favorable to the Trump agenda. 

The case is styled American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent and involves a challenge by several individuals and employee organizations (unions) to Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) representatives being granted access to personal and financial data in order to fulfill the directives of Executive Order 14158, an order signed by President Trump the day he took office titled "Establishing and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency.'"

The suit was initially filed in Maryland District Court on February 10, 2025 — during the height of the DOGE hysteria. In late February, Judge Deborah Boardman issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), effectively pausing the DOGE activities within the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management. (The Treasury Department, the third-named defendant in the suit, had already been preliminarily enjoined from granting IT access to DOGE personnel by a judge in the Southern District of New York.) Boardman followed the TRO up with a preliminary injunction a month later. 

The administration appealed to the 4th Circuit, which granted its motion to stay pending appeal back in April. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the appellate court issued an order vacating the district court's preliminary injunction and remanding the case for further proceedings. Judge Julius Richardson (a Trump appointee) wrote the opinion, and was joined in it by Judge Steven Agee (Bush 43 appointee). Judge Robert King (Clinton appointee) dissented. 

In his opinion, Richardson noted the Supreme Court's decision staying a preliminary injunction in a "legal twin" of this case (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. SSA): 

While the Supreme Court’s stay of the preliminary injunction against the SSA is 'not conclusive as to the merits' of this preliminary injunction against Education, OPM, and Treasury, it nevertheless 'inform[s] how a court should exercise its equitable discretion' here.

RELATED: More Friday Wins: Supreme Court Hands Trump Two Favorable Rulings on DOGE and the SSA

Some additional key points from Richardson's opinion (citations omitted): 

Far from a mainstay in the ordinary course of litigation, a preliminary injunction is 'extraordinary and drastic' and 'should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.' As a result, granting a preliminary injunction should be 'the exception,' not 'the rule.'

...

We do not hold with certainty that Plaintiffs lack standing, that they have not challenged final agency action, that they cannot sue under the APA, or that the DOGE affiliates’ IT access falls into the Privacy Act’s need-to-know exception. We instead come to a statistically surer conclusion: that Plaintiffs have failed, by a decent margin, to show that they will likely prevail on all of these issues combined. The district court abused its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on each one, and with such certainty that they were likely to succeed overall.

As noted, this was a 2-1 decision, and the plaintiffs may well seek a rehearing of the matter en banc. It's always possible the full court would reverse the panel's decision and allow the preliminary injunction to stand while the case proceeds on the merits. But given the Supreme Court ruling in the "legal twin" case, that's not guaranteed. 

We'll continue to monitor the case and provide any updates as warranted. 

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.