The Trump administration notched a major legal and procedural triumph over the weekend, thanks to a sharp, precedent-reasserting opinion from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — one that doesn’t just pause several district court rulings against President Trump’s executive actions, but also delivers a long-overdue civics lesson to the judiciary.
Since returning to office in January, President Trump has set out on a sweeping mission to reduce the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. Central to that mission was Executive Order 14238, issued on March 14, which directed the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) to pare down operations to their bare statutory minimums. This led to:
-
Over 1,000 employees placed on administrative leave
-
Nearly 600 contractor terminations
-
Termination of grant agreements for Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)
-
Halting of Voice of America’s (VOA) international broadcasts
These actions triggered a wave of litigation. District court rulings — including several from Judge Royce Lamberth — swiftly attempted to block the administration’s moves by ordering full reinstatements of personnel and operations, effectively demanding the government restore the media arms to pre-order status.
12/ In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3 key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 3, 2025
Enter the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Saturday granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay pending appeal and laid down what may be the most clear-eyed legal framework yet for evaluating challenges to the administration’s executive actions.
And what the court delivered wasn’t just a pause — it was a reprimand.
Key Holdings of the Opinion:
-
No jurisdiction on personnel matters: Claims about federal employment decisions must go through the Merit Systems Protection Board, not the district courts.
-
No jurisdiction on grant terminations: Disputes about the administration’s authority to terminate grants belong in the Court of Federal Claims, not in standard civil litigation.
-
No bond for injunction = legal overreach: The district court’s failure to require plaintiffs to post a bond for their sweeping injunctions meant the government was left vulnerable to real, irreparable harm — a procedural error that severely undercuts the injunctions’ legitimacy.
In essence, the appellate court reminded everyone — including overzealous district judges — that procedural law matters. The executive branch has a constitutional role, and the courts do not get to unilaterally override that role by expanding their jurisdiction beyond what’s legally authorized.
This isn’t just a victory for one policy or one administration. It’s a restatement of the separation of powers — the principle that has been increasingly blurred in recent years as district courts have shown a penchant for issuing broad, nationwide injunctions on matters well beyond their legal reach.
For conservatives and legal formalists who have watched federal courts become what they see as de facto opposition research centers for left-leaning activism, this decision is the first firm pushback in a long time. It realigns the battlefield by re-establishing jurisdictional boundaries, and reasserts that not every policy dispute is a judicial matter.
